Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE US HOUSE of Representatives has passed a bill that would provide federal protection for same-sex marriage amid fears that the Supreme Court could roll back recognition of such unions.
The Respect for Marriage Act was approved in the Democratic-controlled chamber by a vote of 267 to 157 but its prospects are uncertain in the Senate.
47 Republican lawmakers joined Democrats in voting for the bill, which was met with scattered applause on the House floor when it passed.
Democrats have 50 seats in the 100-member Senate and 10 Republican votes would be needed to bring the measure to the floor.
The Respect for Marriage Act would force US states to recognise a valid marriage performed in another state, providing protection for not only same-sex unions but also interracial marriages.
The bill repeals the 1996 Defence of Marriage Act that defined a marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down part of the Defence of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to married same-sex couples, in 2013 but the law had remained on the books.
“The bipartisan Respect for Marriage Act will enshrine and protect marriage equality and make sure legal, same-sex and interracial marriages are recognized,” said Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.
The Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling enshrining nationwide abortion rights, on 24 June, sparking forecasts that conservative justices could revisit other landmark decisions.
Same-sex marriage remains a high-value target for some Republicans and the religious right in the United States, although 71% of Americans in a Gallup poll in May said they support such relationships.
By bringing the Respect for Marriage Act to a vote in the House, Democrats forced Republicans to go on the record on the issue ahead of the November midterm elections.
Clarence Thomas, one of the most conservative justices on the court, in his concurring opinion overturning abortion rights, ignited fears that other progressive gains could also be in danger.
Thomas argued that the court should also examine its rulings on contraception and same-sex marriage.
Thomas — whose wife Ginni Thomas has pushed false claims that Donald Trump won the last election — was the only judge making such arguments out of the nine who sit on America’s highest court.
But the court’s shift to the right under Trump, who appointed three new conservative justices, has Democrats, activists and progressive groups fearing its future rulings.
The House plans to vote later this week on the Right to Contraception Act, which would protect access to contraceptives.
© AFP 2022
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
A step in the right direction and at least some republicans had the guts to vote yes to this bill.
@Pat Casey: Hate the assumption that if you’re against abortion, you should also be against same sex marriage. Most people I know that isn’t in favour of allowing abortion in all circumstances and voted against repealing the 8th, actually voted for gay marriage in this country.
@Longlin: And yet, here you are, inexplicably bringing abortion into an article about same sex marriage rights
@OnlyHereForTheComments: The entire article is based on the assumption that the Supreme Court in the US would roll back gay marriage rights, based on their decision to over rule Roe in recent weeks. I simply don’t want to the two positions to go always hand in hand as they are completely different in my opinion.
@Longlin: So why did Justice Thomas deliberately name Obergefell as a case that should be revisited in his concurring opinion if he wasn’t firing a shot across of the bow of marriage equality?
@Tricia G ☘️: If you read my first comment, it was in response to a comment expressing surprise that some Republicans would vote for a bill protecting marriage equality. I simply stated that positions on these two topics aren’t always linked and are two entirely different propositions in my opinion. I’ve no huge interest in US politics and not following these developments closely other than reading articles like this, so I can’t comment on the Obergefell case or any others over there. I’ll leave that to experts such as yourself.
@Longlin: I don’t agree with you, the backward red necks who struck down Roe v Wade won’t stop until the USA, the “home of freedom” looks more like Afghanistan under the Taliban.
157 republicans voting no to marriage equality tells you everything you need to know about the overarching ethos that drives that party’s policy making. America is going backwards at a rate of knots.
@OnlyHereForTheComments: The land of the freet they say.
The Court’s shift to the right under Trump? Ginsburg should have retired while Obama was President rather than waiting for the first female President to be elected. A vanity project gone horribly wrong methinks ..
@Brian O’Brien: Now do Trump’s other two appointees
From my understanding this is exactly what the Supreme Court wants. If it’s not in the constitution it’s up to the legislator to make it law, not the courts.
@james s: Equal Protection under the law is in the US Constitution. 14th Amendment
But will it pass the Senate?
Clarence Thomas is evil.
have your say