The United States House of Representatives will vote Tuesday on a bill that would enshrine federal protections for marriage equality across the country. The bill came about in response to concerns over a recent Supreme Court ruling where one justice suggested such protections should be reconsidered.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson — the Supreme Court decision in June that undid nearly 50 years of abortion rights protections established in Roe v. Wade — said he believed that the Dobbs ruling should also lead the Court to “reconsider all … substantive due process precedents,” including in cases, such as Griswold v. Connecticut (right to contraceptives), Lawrence v. Texas (right to private, adult relationships, including same-sex relationships), and Obergefell v. Hodges — a 2015 ruling from the High Court that established federal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Thomas claims the Court has a duty to “correct the error” that was supposedly established in these cases. That statement from the Court’s longest-tenured justice, as also the controversial manner in which Justice Samuel Alito and other conservative justices undid Roe, prompted lawmakers to craft the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would codify marriage equality protections recognized in Obergefell.
The new bill would officially repeal a 1990s law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which said that the federal government would only recognize marriages between one man and one woman, and further stipulated that the marriage laws of one state (including same-sex marriages) don’t have to be recognized by another state. That law has not been enforced since the Obergefell decision, but technically remains on the books and could be enforced again, if the Supreme Court dissolves marriage equality rights the same way it dismantled abortion protections.
In addition to repealing DOMA, the Respect for Marriage Act would also require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, in the event that the Supreme Court undoes Obergefell.
“The Supreme Court’s extremist and precedent-ignoring decision in Dobbs v. Jackson has shown us why it is critical to ensure that federal law protects those whose constitutional rights might be threatened by Republican-controlled state legislatures,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) said on Monday.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) also said that it was necessary for the bill to pass, as “extremist Justices and lawmakers” plan to “take aim at more of our basic rights.”
It’s expected that the bill will pass in the House — however, it’s unclear as of right now whether the Senate will also pass the legislation. On Monday, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin), the first out lesbian in the Senate, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) introduced the bill in that chamber, along with Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine.
“I take great pride in being a part of this bipartisan effort to protect the progress we have made on marriage equality, because we cannot allow this freedom and right to be denied,” Baldwin said in a statement regarding the legislation.
Although the bill has bipartisan support in the Senate, it is unlikely that enough Republicans will cross partisan lines with Democrats in order to defeat a Senate filibuster, which requires 60 senators in order to pass any legislation. At least 10 Republicans are needed, alongside every senator who caucuses with the Democrats, in order for that threshold to be met.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 48 hours to add 230 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.