History has been made in this lame-duck session of the 117th U.S. Congress as the “Respect For Marriage Act” has passed the Senate and House and now heads to President Joe Biden’s desk.
While lame-duck sessions are not normally marked by substantial legislation, this session seems to be different. After the 2022 midterm elections, Democrats managed to hold onto, and even build upon, their majority in the Senate, but narrowly lost their majority in the House of Representatives. With a Republican House majority looming in the upcoming 118th Congress, Democrats have scrambled to move as many pieces of legislation through congress as they can; this includes the “Respect For Marriage Act.” This bill would repeal the “Defense of Marriage Act” signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. The “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) federally defined marriage as the “legal union between one man and one woman.”
Furthermore, DOMA banned federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allowed the states to refuse to recognize such unions. Controversial since its passage, much of the bill was deemed unenforceable and unconstitutional, particularly after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges. This case ruled that same-sex couples, as well as interracial couples, have the fundamental right to marry per the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, many have feared that other cases, such as Obergefell v. Hodges, could be next. These fears were only raised when Justice Clarence Thomas singled out Obergefell, as well as other cases, by name, saying the court should “reconsider” the case. Now that the Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, it would be very easy for the case to be overturned next. It was for this reason that passing the “Respect For Marriage Act,” first introduced in 2009 during President Barack Obama’s first term, became a top priority among Democrats. This bill will officially codify Obergefell and require the federal government to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages.
However, there is a caveat to the bill. All federal legislation must receive 60 votes in order to pass the Senate and any filibuster. Given that the Senate is split 50-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris serving as the tie-breaking 51st vote mainly reserved for bills pertaining to budget reconciliation, Democrats are required to have the votes of at least 10 Senate Republicans in order to pass legislation. Given that most Republicans are religiously opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage, the age-old dilemma of balancing the rights of same-sex couples with religious liberty was brought up again. In a compromise, an amendment was added to the bill. This amendment, in a nutshell, states that while same-sex marriage would be legal in the United States, churches that oppose the practice on religious grounds will not be required to perform same-sex marriages.
Perhaps this is just a fancy, political jargon-infused way of condoning discrimination, but, regardless, a compromise was vital to securing the 10 GOP votes needed to push the bill forward without running into a filibuster. So long as LGBTQ+ issues are raised, chances are the issues of religious liberty will be raised as well. Even though compromises are notorious for never truly satisfying anyone, sometimes they are the only thing that separates some progress from no progress.
Although the bill is imperfect, it is still arguably one of the most significant bills to extend equal rights in U.S. history since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Never before has a piece of federal legislation been signed specifically to extend the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. It is a substantial first step toward a society of people who will, hopefully, one day spend more time and energy on foreign and domestic issues that directly affect us as a whole and less time on the insignificant differences between us as individuals. Only when we cease to deny others basic rights on the basis of these differences, can the country supposedly built on ideals of democracy, freedom and human rights truly be able to stand in accordance with that creed.
