The House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill to codify the right to same-sex and interracial marriage after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade — with one justice writing that the right to same-sex marriage should also be overturned.
The final vote was 267-157, with 47 Republicans joining every Democrat in the majority.
Notable among those conservatives was Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming — in a break from her previous stance on the issue, which had publicly put her at odds with her parents and sister, who is gay. In 2021, Cheney reversed his opinion and said, “I was wrong.” (In contrast, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California voted against the legislation on Tuesday.)
Congressman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., opened debate on the bill — the Respect for Marriage Act — that would prevent state marriage discrimination based on “sex, race, ethnicity or national origin.” It would also repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The legislation, Nadler said, “will reaffirm that marriage equality is and must remain the law of the land.”
“Congress must provide further assurance that marriage equality is a matter of settled law. “All married people building their lives together should know that the government must respect and recognize their marriage forever,” Nadler continued.
Concern among some lawmakers and advocates about the legal fate of same-sex marriage has increased since Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson ruling that overturned Roe last month. In his separate majority opinion, Thomas wrote that the court should reconsider its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which guaranteed same-sex marriage nationwide.
While the court’s majority was careful to note that its decision to overturn Roe should not be seen as an indication of future decisions, Thomas’ separate opinion raised alarm among same-sex marriage supporters.
House Democrats have scheduled a vote on numerous bills to codify rights that are not enshrined in the Constitution but have been granted — at least for a period of time, in Roe’s case — by Supreme Court decisions.
“The Supreme Court’s extreme and precedent-setting decision in Dobbs v. Jackson showed us why it is critically important to ensure that federal law protects those whose constitutional rights may be threatened by Republican-controlled state legislatures,” said the majority leader of House of Representatives Steny Hoyer in a statement on Monday.
After Nadler introduced the marriage bill on Tuesday, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, called the proposal an attempt to “intimidate” the Supreme Court and said the threat to same-sex marriage was a “manufactured crisis” — accusing Democrats of using the legislation as political tool.
“Democrats can’t compete on their disastrous record, they can’t compete on accomplishments less than four months before an election,” Jordan said.
Both he and Texas Republican Mike Johnson said there was no need for the bill.
Nadler rejected the idea that Obergefell was hardened and that the bill was unnecessary. “If this decision is not overturned, this bill is unnecessary but harmless. If this decision is overturned, this bill is crucial — and we don’t know what this court will do,” he said.
The Supreme Court is seen as arguments are heard for Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission on December 5, 2017 in Washington, DC
Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images
House Republican Minority Whip Steve Scalise said at a news conference Tuesday morning that Republicans would be free to make their own decision on the bill — reflecting in part how politics around the issue have changed for the GOP in the seven years since Obergefell. Polls show Americans increasingly support same-sex marriage.
“Each member is obviously going to have to vote on this on their own,” Scalise said.
In a show of Republican support for the bill, Rep. Nicole Malliotakis of New York voiced her support shortly before the debate began.
“Today, I will vote to codify same-sex marriage to ensure that our fellow Americans continue to have the right to equal marriage and benefits under federal law,” Maliotakis said in a statement after regretting a previous vote against legalizing same-sex marriage . same-sex marriage in New York when she served in the state assembly.
After passing the House, the bill moves to a divided Senate, where Republican support is also possible, if fragmented. It is unclear if and when the upper house will take it up, given other issues and a looming recess.
“I made my support for gay marriage clear years ago. I’m going to look at what the House does and see what that might mean here on the Senate side,” Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said Tuesday morning. She also listed the Supreme Court’s decisions on abortion access and its ruling guaranteeing contraception for married couples as rights she would like to see codified. (Democratic leaders in the House said this week they would also vote on a bill codifying access to contraception.)
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., criticized the Democrats’ wording of the same-sex marriage proposal but did not say how he would vote on it.
“It’s obviously settled law at the moment. This is a pure messaging account from a country that has failed on essential issues – be it inflation, crime or [southern] border and now we are looking for cultural issues to somehow do better in November,” he said.
Sen. John Thune, RS.D., said the marriage bill would likely attract a “mixed bag” of Republican votes.
The proposal was introduced Monday by a bipartisan group, including Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.
ABC News’ Gabe Ferris and Trish Turner contributed to this report.
Add Comment