House passes Respect for Marriage Act to protect rights for same-sex couples

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed legislation to recognize same-sex marriages at the federal level, according to an article by The New York Times.

Following concerns that the Supreme Court being conservative could affect prior rulings regarding marriage equality and the right to contraception, House Democrat leaders opted to bring forth the Respect for Marriage Act.

The bill will support the rights for same-sex couples that were put in place in 2015, when same-sex marriage came to be protected under the 14th Amendment by the Court, according to the article, and was supported by both parties.

The act requires that the federal government recognize any marriage considered valid in the state where it was performed, which would protect same-sex marriages in approximately 30 states that currently do not allow them, according to the article.

In addition, the bill also would provide extra legal protections to same-sex couples. These include ensuring that all states recognize records, public acts and judicial proceedings for out-of-state marriages.

While House Republicans did not constitute a majority of the bill’s support, the magnitude was unexpected, with the party’s leaders equally split on the bill, which passed with a vote of 267 to 157.

“Today, we take an important step towards protecting the many families and children who rely on the rights and privileges underpinned by the constitutional guarantee of marriage equality,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee. “The Respect for Marriage Act will further add stability and certainty for these children and families.”

The legislature will go through the Senate, where it is unclear whether it will garner the support that it needs to move forward, according to the article.

Though Justice Samuel Alito, author of the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, said that it should not be expected to affect issues other than abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested recently that other cases might need to be revisited, as well.

“You’ve got a ton of people who have entered into gay marriages, and it would be more than a little chaotic for the court to do something that somehow disrupted those marriages that have been entered into in accordance with the law,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).