Well, the Senate tonight passed the Respect for Marriage Act 61 236 h bill that protects same-sex and interracial marriage, and all the members of the Democratic caucus voted yes along with twelve Republicans.
The House will take it up next week and once it passes, which is expected it, goes to the President's items desk for his signature. Now, people are celebrating the bipartisan nature of all of this.
And yes, we should cheer that because bipartisan victories, well, they're pretty rare these days. But when you unpack the Respect for Marriage Act, there's a lot more to it. Let me explain.
You remember, of course, back in June when Roe v. Wade was overturned by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, while many people wondered, including me, if marriage rights would be next and immediately turned to Congress to try to do something about it.
What was that? Well, to codify the protections that such rights would not be at the mercy of the Supreme Court or any court. For that reason to ensure that those rights were legislatively guaranteed.
So is what President Biden will sign in line with the Supreme Court's landmark 2015 or Burgerfeld decision. Doesn't codify what was said there? Not exactly. So the new law would assure full benefits for marriage regardless of the couple's sex or race or ethnicity or national origin.
The federal government will be required to recognize marriages that were valid in a state when performed. But notice the nuance of what I just said. It had to be valid in the state before the feds are required to recognize it.
The state, therefore, still holds some pretty powerful cards and its ability to define what exactly is a so-called valid marriage. Now, this new law will not require states to issue a marriage license that's contrary to state law.
And religious organizations, won't be required to perform from same-sex marriages. So why do the states retain such power? Well, there's a word. It's called federalism, a concept that says when it comes to power, congress has to stay in its lane and the rest of the road where it belongs to the states.
Now, if the Supreme Court were to overturn Obergefell, which legalized same-sex marriage, a state could pass a law to ban same-sex marriage, but that state would be required to recognize same-sex marriage from another state.
And there's a big exception in terms of what the feds would have to recognize, and that's polygamy. Uncle Sam will be required to protect polygamous marriages because the federal government will defer to a state's definition of marriage.
Well, the law won't offer all the protection that the Obergefell decision offers as of right. Now, remember, there in Obergefell, states must allow and recognize same-sex marriages under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.
Codifying something into federal law does not mean you codify it at the state level. That's what you call federalism by design. Even though Congress does not hold all of the cards, it certainly did play its hand in this matter.
A lot of political games had to have been played successfully to get where we are today. The question is, given that hand, let's see if the voters at the state level like the cards they have been dealt when it comes to codifying these rights.
I want to bring in Jim O'berghell, who was the plaintiff in the now infamous 2015 Obergefell versus Hodge decision. Jim, I'm glad to see you. Welcome to the program. How are you? Thanks, Laura. I'm happy to be here.
I wish it was for better reasons, but thanks for having me on. You know, it's interesting because some would look at this gym and think it's counterintuitive. Shouldn't people be celebrating the codification of this decision?
And at first glance, it sounds like when Congress says, we're going to. Codify and make sure we've got same-sex marriage on the books, that that's exactly what it's done. But you don't think that it does.
And I've explained, of course, the reasons why, but do you think it should have gone further? And are you celebrating this Senate victory for now? No, I am not celebrating the rating, Laura. I will say I'm happy that at least something has been done, something that we will have to fall back on should the Supreme Court overturn obergefell in the future.
But this act, I find it curious that it's called the Respect for Marriage Act because this act does not respect the LGBTQ plus community, our marriages, our relationships, or our families. And the fact that this act would allow states to once again deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, where is the respect in that?
And I just continually come back to this, Laura. How on earth does my marriage to John or does any same-sex marriage harm any other person or any other marriage in this country? It doesn't. So, yes, I'm happy that there is at least something that will be codified should obergefell be overturned.
I'm happy to have this as opposed to having everything taken away. But this is not respect for marriage. This would take us back to a time when we are once again second-class citizens who are given something that isn't marriage, isn't respected and protected, and is offered equally to every person in this country.
And that's my issue with the Respect for Marriage Act. Now, to clarify one point, the law would ensure I don't want to take away from any of the points you raised, but just to clarify to the audience, if a state were to ban same-sex marriage in their respective state.
The law would require them to respect a marriage that is the same sex, that is valid in a different state to honor that sort of notion. But your point is well taken about the breadth of protection not being universal.
And I understand there's also this moment from Senator Cynthia Loomis, who is out of Wyoming, a Republican, and listen to what she had to say today to explain her vote in favor. Remember, it was unanimous for Democrats in the Senate and twelve Republican senators.
Here was her explanation as to why Jim. For the sake of our nation today and its survival, we do well by taking this step, not embracing or validating each other's devoutly held views, but by the simple act of tolerating them.
And that, Madam President, explains my vote. You know, you have to cringe at the idea of the tolerance aspect. I suspect that is your view as well. Absolutely. And to your point earlier, Laura, the fact that there could be people in 30 states across the nation who are unable to get a marriage license and get married in the state they call home, is not equal.
That is not respect. Now, to this point about tolerance, you're right. I have to laugh at that. Because this bill, this act that had religious freedom, and so-called religious freedom amendments attached to it not about respecting or tolerating anyone else's religious beliefs.
This is about one specific group of people who believe their interpretation of their religion is more important than any other and more important than human beings in the public sphere. That is not tolerance.
Religious freedom means that people have the ability, the right to practice their religion of choice, and their faith in their home, and their house of worship. It does not mean using their religion to persecute others who do not share that same faith structure.
So this is not about tolerance. This is about how towing the people who want preference for their religion, and their interpretation of their particular religion in the public sphere. And that is not religious freedom.
Jamie Burger Fuel, thank you so much for your insight tonight. Appreciated. Thanks, Laura.