Respect For Marriage Act: What Exactly Does The Bill Mean For Same-Sex Couples?

The Senate Tuesday passed the Respect For Marriage Act in a bipartisan vote. A dozen Republicans voted with Democrats to send the Act to the House in a 61-36 vote.

The Respect For Marriage Act would codify marriages and was a step taken by Senate Democrats to protect LGBTQ+ and interracial marriage rights following the Supreme Court's overturning of abortion rights, CNN reported.

While the bill's passage in the Senate is significant, it is not a fix-all for LGBTQ+ rights. The bill does not require all states to allow same-sex marriage. In 2015 the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell V. Hodges made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. If the Supreme Court decides to overturn the 2015 ruling, then the previous state-by-state decisions on same-sex marriage would go back into effect, similar to what happened after the overturn of Roe.

The Respect for Marriage Act would not force states to allow same-sex marriage, but it would force states to recognize same-sex marriages that happened in other states as long as the marriage was valid. The bill would also repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The Washington Post reports that the law stayed on the books even after it was found unconstitutional in the 2013 Supreme Court decision of United States vs. Windsor and later Obergefell V. Hodges.

The bill also allows for religious exceptions, specifically ones that protect non-profit and religious organizations from providing aid and support to same-sex marriages. The Washington Post reported that the bill's acceptance of religious liberties was praised by Republican congresspeople and religious groups, even receiving the support of the Mormon Church.

"Passing this bill is our chance to send a message to Americans everywhere: No matter who you are, who you love, you deserve dignity and equal treatment under the law," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor Monday.

After the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe V. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court should revisit previous rulings. Thomas named the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut ruling that legalized the right to purchase contraceptives without government interference, the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas legalizing same-sex relationships, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote in the Supreme Court's final opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the case that overturned Roe V. Wade in June. "Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous'... we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."

The House passed the Respect for Marriage Act in July, but in a bipartisan decision, the Senate decided to postpone their vote until after the midterm elections.

One of the Democrats crossing party lines to encourage Republican support for the Act is Democratic Senator from Wisconsin Tammy Baldwin. Baldwin was the first openly gay person to be elected to the Senate and tweeted that the Act is essential because every American knows someone in a same-sex or interracial relationship.