Gary Palmer votes against the Respect for Marriage Act
On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the controversial Respect for Marriage Act. Congressman Gary Palmer voted against the measure. Palmer warned that this bill was “about forcibly imposing a new definition of marriage and silencing those who disagree.” The bill had already passed the U.S. Senate 61 to 36. It now goes to the desk of President Joe Biden where he has said that he will sign it. “Marriage between a man and a woman is one of the self-evident truths that pre-exist the concept and institution of culture and government,” Palmer said in a statement emailed to Alabama Today. “Marriage is the fundamental building block of all cultures and civilizations. It is essential for family formation and for the bearing and raising of children. Attempts to redefine marriage through the deceptively titled ‘Respect for Marriage Act’ will not change what marriage is by nature nor its importance to the future well-being of our nation.” “This bill is not about the freedom of individuals to live and love as they choose but about forcibly imposing a new definition of marriage and silencing those who disagree, particularly people of faith,” Palmer stated. “This bill jeopardizes religious liberty for people of all faiths who do not support redefining marriage and will only accelerate discrimination against individuals, businesses, and organizations who refuse to promote same-sex unions. For these reasons, I opposed passage of this bill.” The legislation was passed in a 258-169-1 vote. Thirty-nine Republicans joined all Democrats in supporting the measure. By passing the bill into law before Republicans take control of the House next month, it means that this law will be in effect in the states even if the controversial Supreme Court ruling – Obergefell versus Hodges – making gay marriage legal across the nation is eventually overturned by the Court. Justice Clarence Thomas, who vociferously opposed Obergefell v. Hodges when it passed, had recently publicly floated the idea of overturning the controversial decision. Following the bill’s passage in the Senate, Biden said he would “promptly and proudly” sign it into law. The bill gives federal protections to same-sex couples, requiring that the federal government and all states recognize marriages if the pair were wed in a state where the union was legal. It also cements protections for interracial couples, ordering states to recognize marriages regardless of “the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.” The bill also repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The House had passed an earlier version of the Respect for Marriage Act 267 to 157 vote in July. That earlier version of the bill was altered in the Senate after Republicans expressed concerns that it lacked religious freedom protections. Gary Palmer was recently re-elected to his fifth term representing Alabama’s Sixth Congressional District. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
U.S. Senate to vote on Respect for Marriage Act; several groups say it’s unconstitutional
Several groups argue the Respect for Marriage Act (ROMA) currently before the U.S. Senate is unconstitutional and, if enacted, will eventually be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. The bill, HR 8404, was introduced in the House by U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-NY, on July 18 and passed by a vote of 267-157 the next day. The U.S. Senate took it up on Nov. 14. It would provide “statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages” and repeal several provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The 1996 law received bipartisan support, including from then U.S. Sen. Joe Biden and U.S. Rep. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and from Democratic President Bill Clinton, who signed it. When a constitutional amendment was proposed to ban same-sex marriage in 2006, Sen. Biden told Meet the Press’s Tim Russert, “I can’t believe the American people can’t see through this. We already have a law, the Defense of Marriage Act … where I voted and others … that marriage is between a man and a woman, and states must respect that. … Why do we need a constitutional amendment? Marriage is between a man and a woman.” Sixteen years later, President Biden now supports replacing DOMA provisions, which “define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex,” with ROMA provisions “that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law,” according to the bill summary. The summary also notes that the Supreme Court ruled three marriage-related laws as unconstitutional: DOMA (U.S. v. Windsor, 2013) and state laws banning same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015), and interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia 1967). The bill would also allow “the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations,” its summary states. When filing a cloture motion on a substitute amendment on Nov. 17, now Senate Majority Leader Schumer said the Senate would vote on ROMA when it returned on Monday after Thanksgiving. He said, “Let me be clear,” passing it “is not a matter of if but only when.” He also thanked his colleagues from both sides of the aisle “who led this bill.” Twelve Republicans voted with Democrats to allow it to move forward, eliminating a filibuster threat: Sens. Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, Shelley Capito, Susan Collins, Cynthia Lummis, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, Dan Sullivan, Thom Tillis, Joni Ernst, Lisa Murkowski, and Todd Young. After their vote, Biden said, “Love is love, and Americans should have the right to marry the person they love,” adding their vote made “the United States one step closer to protecting that right in law.” Schumer also said he had “zero doubt” the bill “will soon be law of the land.” But multiple groups disagree, arguing it’s unconstitutional for the same reasons the Supreme Court struck down DOMA. Because the court already ruled Congress doesn’t have the constitutional authority to define marriage under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and because ROMA is nearly identical to DOMA, they argue it will also likely be struck down. In a letter to Congress, the nonprofit religious freedom organization Liberty Counsel argues the court ruled in Windsor, “DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage.” It also ruled, “[b]y history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage . . . has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.” Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver, said, “The Constitution cannot be said to prohibit the exercise of power to define marriage in one manner yet authorize the opposite definition of that same unconstitutional exercise of power. If Windsor noted that Congress lacked authority in this realm, then it necessarily lacks the power here.” While a bipartisan amendment was introduced claiming to protect religious liberty, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, argues it really doesn’t. “Religious Americans will be subject to potentially ruinous litigation, while the tax-exempt status of certain charitable organizations, educational institutions, and non-profits will be threatened. My amendment would have shored up these vulnerabilities,” he said. Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said, “Conservatives are deeply disappointed by the betrayal of Senate Republicans to protect Americans’ religious freedom and won’t soon forget the votes of the 12 Republican senators who cast aside an essential right in a bill that will weaponize the federal government against believers of nearly every major religion.” Gregory Baylor, senior counsel with Alliance for Defending Freedom, also said the law is “unnecessary and could have a disastrous effect on religious freedom. While proponents of the bill claim that it simply codifies the 2015 Obergefell decision, in reality, it is an intentional attack on the religious freedom of millions of Americans with sincerely held beliefs about marriage.” It also “threatens religious freedom and the institution of marriage” by codifying a “false definition of marriage in the American legal fabric,” ADF argues. It also “opens the door to federal recognition of polygamous relationships, jeopardizes the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that exercise their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and endangers faith-based social-service organizations by threatening litigation and liability risk if they follow their views on marriage when working with the government.” Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
House passes same-sex marriage bill in retort to high court
The U.S. House overwhelmingly approved legislation Tuesday to protect same-sex and interracial marriages amid concerns that the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade abortion access could jeopardize other rights criticized by many conservatives. In a robust but lopsided debate, Democrats argued intensely and often personally in favor of enshrining marriage equality in federal law, while Republicans steered clear of openly rejecting gay marriage. Instead, leading Republicans portrayed the bill as unnecessary amid other issues facing the nation. Tuesday’s election-year roll call, 267-157, was partly political strategy, forcing all House members, Republicans, and Democrats, to go on the record. It also reflected the legislative branch pushing back against an aggressive court that has raised questions about revisiting other apparently settled U.S. laws. Wary of political fallout, GOP leaders did not press their members to hold the party line against the bill, aides said. In all, 47 Republicans joined all Democrats in voting for passage. “For me, this is personal,” said Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., who said he was among the openly gay members of the House. “Imagine telling the next generation of Americans, my generation, we no longer have the right to marry who we love,” he said. “Congress can’t allow that to happen.” While the Respect for Marriage Act easily passed the House with a Democratic majority, it is likely to stall in the evenly split Senate, where most Republicans would probably join a filibuster to block it. It’s one of several bills, including those enshrining abortion access, that Democrats are proposing to confront the court’s conservative majority. Another bill guaranteeing access to contraceptive services is set for a vote later this week. House GOP leaders split over the issue, with Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Whip Rep. Steve Scalise voting against the marriage rights bill, but the No. 3 Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York voting in favor. In a notable silence, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell declined to express his view on the bill, leaving an open question over how strongly his party would fight it if it should come up for a vote in the upper chamber. Key Republicans in the House have shifted in recent years on the same-sex marriage issue, including Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who joined those voting in favor on Tuesday. Said another Republican, Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, in a statement about her yes vote: “If gay couples want to be as happily or miserably married as straight couples, more power to them.” Polling shows a majority of Americans favor preserving rights to marry, regardless of sex, gender, race, or ethnicity, a long-building shift in modern mores toward inclusion. A Gallup poll in June showed broad and increasing support for same-sex marriage, with 70% of U.S. adults saying they think such unions should be recognized by law as valid. The poll showed majority support among both Democrats (83%) and Republicans (55%). Approval of interracial marriage in the U.S. hit a six-decade high at 94% in September, according to Gallup. Ahead of Tuesday’s voting, a number of lawmakers joined protesters demonstrating against the abortion ruling outside the Supreme Court, which sits across from the Capitol and remains fenced off for security during tumultuous political times. Capitol Police said among those arrested were 16 members of Congress. “The extremist right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has put our country down a perilous path,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., in a floor speech setting Tuesday’s debate in motion. “It’s time for our colleagues across the aisle to stand up and be counted. Will they vote to protect these fundamental freedoms? Or will they vote to let states take those freedoms away?” But Republicans insisted the court was only focused on abortion access in June when it struck down the nearly 50-year-old Roe v. Wade ruling, and they argued that same-sex marriage and other rights were not threatened. In fact, almost none of the Republicans who rose to speak during the debate directly broached the subject of same-sex or interracial marriage. “We are here for a political charade; we are here for political messaging,” said Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. That same tack could be expected in the Senate. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said, “The predicate of this is just wrong. I don’t think the Supreme Court is going to overturn any of that stuff.” As several Democrats spoke of inequalities they said they or their loved ones had faced in same-sex marriages, the Republicans talked about rising gas prices, inflation, and crime, including recent threats to justices in connection with the abortion ruling. For Republicans in Congress, the Trump-era confirmation of conservative justices to the Supreme Court has fulfilled a long-term GOP goal of revisiting many social, environmental, and regulatory issues the party has been unable to tackle on its own by passing bills that could be signed into law. The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal a law from the Clinton era that defines marriage as a heterogeneous relationship between a man and a woman. It would also provide legal protections for interracial marriages by prohibiting any state from denying out-of-state marriage licenses and benefits on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. The 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act, had basically been sidelined by Obama-era court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which established the rights of same-sex couples to marry nationwide, a landmark case for gay rights. But last month, writing for the majority in overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito argued for a more narrow interpretation of the rights guaranteed to Americans, noting that the right to an abortion was not spelled out in the Constitution. In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas went further, saying other rulings similar to Roe, including those around same-sex marriage and the right for couples to use contraception, should be reconsidered. While Alito insisted in the majority opinion that “this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” others have taken notice. “The MAGA
