Senators Hit Pause: How Congress Passed the Respect for Marriage Act
Passed on December 13th, 2022, the respect for marriage act faced many hurdles in the legislative process. It sought to provide protections for interracial and same-sex couples and their marriages. The bill as it was passed through the House of Representatives, was faced with backlash from Republican voters and legislators who feared the bill would infringe upon their rights to freedom of religion. Senators grappled with the issue of amending the bill to protect the fundamental right of marriage and the right to religious practice and expression.
Many bills are put on hold as legislators prepare for the midterm elections. Having now come and gone, the legislative cycle has picked up its pace once again and bills waiting in line are being put up for discussion once again. One such contentious bill waiting in line was the Respect for Marriage Act. Even though this bill had passed with flying colors in the House of Representatives, with a 267 to 157 vote, the Senate delayed voting on this bill until elections had passes as they believed that the bill would be more likely to make it through the filibuster process by postponing the vote. Despite this bill's astounding passage in the House, it would have been impossible to make it through the Senate without key changes. Though marriage regardless of sex is a fundamental right, many GOP senators possessed major hesitations about this bill's implications on religious freedom.
What is the Respect for Marriage Act and why have bills like it been so contentious?
The Respect for Marriage act attempts to codify protections for marriage between two individuals regardless of sex, race, ethnicity or national origin. People know it chiefly for its most divisive portion… protections for same-sex marriage. The original legislation passed through the House would have replace the already instituted Defense of Marriage act, which held at a federal level that marriage is a union between a woman and a man. The Respect for Marriage act requires states to recognize same-sex marriages as valid.
GOP Senators worries that the Respect for Marriage act, as it was worded originally, put religious liberties of churches at risk; thus, the bill gathered little support from the Republican party lawmakers and its constituents. Lawmakers stalled the vote on this bill until after their midterm elections for fear that its controversy may have cost them re-election. Without a section addressing religious freedom, this bill would not have garnered enough support from the Republican senators, even post-midterms.
Conflicts with the First Amendment
Senators reference the well-known First Amendment to the Constitution. The establishment and exercise clauses of this amendment state that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” After speaking with John Feehery, an American political strategist who works closely with the Republican Senators, in a phone call about this bill, it is clear the main issue with the original wording is its implications for religious freedom in the United States. Republicans are worried that this legislation would have violated their religious liberties by allowing legal action against those who do not acknowledge or “respect” certain marriages because of their religious doctrines. The legislation’s verbiage said nothing to discuss the interaction between church and state. Though the United States claims to have a separation between the two, this is difficult in application, and the lines are becoming increasingly blurred between religion and government.
Cases addressing the blurred lines between one person’s religious freedom and those of another point out the lack of a clear-cut solution to the issue. Just like the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where a cakeshop owner was sued for denying a gay couple’s request for a wedding cake, the intersection between religion and personal freedom is an intricate and untackled hurdle to modern legislation. In the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court held that the cake shop owner was protected by the free exercise clause in the First Amendment. The court goes on to say, “The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” This leaves very little for legislators to work with as it recognizes both civil and religious rights. In this respect, the Respect for Marriage act offers the peace of mind that recognition for the validity of many Americans’ marriages is codified, but for some, its previous language threatened what they claimed to be the fundamental principles of America.
It was evident that the bill will not pass through the senate with the House of Representatives’ original language. It provided no protections for religious organizations or persons, like in the Masterpiece case, from civil suits. Denying people protections for their marriages is a civil rights violation. Additionally, allowing people to practice their religion should not, in turn, impose it upon others. Within the First Amendment of the Constitution, the phrasing is key. It says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Within this first clause, it is stated that the government cannot make any laws that would favor or disadvantage one religion, or force any religion or religious practices upon people.
This can be applied to the bill in varying ways. In one viewpoint, states that pass laws that do not allow marriage of same-sex couples, for religious freedom reasons, as protected by this proposed bill, would effectively be respecting one establishment of religion. On the flip side, the government cannot allow for infringement upon people’s constitutionally-protected religious freedom.
So where do we draw the line between protecting religion and allowing it to infringe upon the freedoms of the lives of others? Persuading either side of the other’s opinion is nearly impossible. Thus, compromise is the most promising way to approach the issue.
Congress’s Compromise
To ensure the bill’s passage to protect the marriages of millions around the country, while protecting religious freedom, the senate added an amendment recognizing the diverse religious beliefs of those around the country. They state, “Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect.” The bill goes on to affirm that it may have no impact on religious liberty, and should not be interpreted to take away any of the constitutional protections existing for religious people and organizations. These changes allow people to freely practice their religion and follow its belief systems while not infringing upon the fundamental rights of others to receive the benefits that marriage affords. While this will not offer protection to major corporations or government entities, it has helped strike a balance for the two opposing sides of this argument, appeasing the GOP while offering codified protection of marriages around the country.