enshrine same-sex marriage rights into law and grant gay unions federal protection.
The vote to pass the Respect for Marriage Act was bipartisan – 61 to 36 – with a significant bloc of Republicans joining every Democrat in approving the landmark bill. It now heads to the House where it’s expected to pass as early as next week.
Wisconsin Democrat Sen. Tammy Baldwin, the first openly gay person to serve in the Senate, said its passage should allay the concerns of same-sex and interracial couples worried their civil marriage could be stripped away.
“The Senate has the opportunity to put those fears to rest and give millions of people in same sex and interracial marriages the certainty, dignity and respect that they need and deserve,” she said before the vote.
Senators approved the bill in response to concerns the Supreme Court – with a 6-3 conservative majority – would reverse its 2015 decision recognizing the legitimacy of gay marriage just as it overturned in June the Roe v. Wade decision protecting abortion access.
“With today’s bipartisan Senate passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, the United States is on the brink of reaffirming a fundamental truth: love is love, and Americans should have the right to marry the person they love,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “It will also ensure that, for generations to follow, LGBTQI+ youth will grow up knowing that they, too, can lead full, happy lives and build families of their own.”
A number of Republicans argued the bill would trample on the rights of churches and other faith-based organizations which would be punished if they refused to participate in or recognize gay unions. But bipartisan sponsors of the bill said the religious freedom language inserted in the measure would protect those entities from such infringements.
The latest:
The bill would guarantee federal recognition of any marriage between two individuals if the union was valid in the state where it was performed.
It would also require states to accept the legitimacy of a valid marriage performed elsewhere but not require any state to issue a marriage license contrary to its own law.
Individuals or groups would not be legally required to provide services for a wedding ceremony or celebration if it’s against their religious beliefs. It also would not recognize polygamous unions.
– Savannah Kuchar and Ledge King