Nearly four dozen congressional Republicans jumped on the bandwagon to protect same-sex and interracial marriage under federal law.
Democrats have insisted that legislation was “necessary” since Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion to Roe v. Wade indicated that Obergefell v. Hodges, from 2015, should be revisited.
The Respect For Marriage Act would require all states and the federal government to recognize same-sex and interracial marriage lawfully granted in a particular state.
On Tuesday, the House voted 267-157 to approve the marriage bill, with the support of 47 House Republicans. The chamber erupted in cheers when the
Notably, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wy.) voted to support the bill, a switch from her previous stance on same-sex marriage. Her former position pitted her against her parents and her gay sister.
Meanwhile, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said the bill was to “intimidate” the high court and the same-sex marriage threat was a “manufactured crisis.” Jordan accused the Democrats of using the legislation for political advantage.
“Democrats can’t run on their disastrous record; they can’t run on any accomplishments less than four months before an election,” Jordan said.
Louisiana Republican Rep. Mike Johnson joined Jordan, saying the bill was unnecessary.
The bill faces a ‘mixed bag’ of support in the senate.
Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Susan Collins (R-Me.), and Thom Tills (NC.) have all pledged their allegiance to the bill.
However, some senators disagreed. “It’s a stupid waste of our time on a nonissue,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). “It’s a contrived controversy,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).
Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, and Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska all said they would need to study the bill but had an open mind.
Alongside Thomas’ Roe concurrence, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that overruling the right to an abortion “does not threaten or cast doubt” on precedents recognizing the right of interracial and same-sex couples to marry and people to access birth control.
No cases directly challenge same-sex or interracial marriage rights are before the court or in line for hearings.
