“They said the same thing about Roe.”
That was Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s response last week to the notion that a federal law protecting same-sex marriage isn’t needed.
Some Republican senators have been grousing about the Respect for Marriage Act for weeks.
“I don’t think that’s a pressing matter,” said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., “There’s no threat to same-sex marriage in America.”
Was there a more disingenuous comment uttered in recent days?
This story is for subscribers
We offer subscribers exclusive access to our best journalism.
Thank you for your support.
It’s remarkable that anybody, let alone a U.S. senator, could say such a thing less than four months after a justice on the Supreme Court essentially threatened the legality of same-sex marriage when the court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, which established the constitutional right to abortion a half-century ago.
Rubio isn’t alone. Sen. Ron Johnson, the Wisconsin Republican also up for re-election in November, called the measure “unnecessary” but suggested a while back he might vote for it anyway. Now he appears to have changed his mind.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, ridiculed the legislation “because the law of the land is that people of the same sex can marry.”
Apparently, he didn’t consult Justice Clarence Thomas on that. It was Thomas’ concurring opinion overturning Roe v. Wade in June that led to the Respect for Marriage Act.
Thomas said the argument the court used to determine there was no constitutional right to abortion could also be applied to rulings establishing the rights for same-sex marriage, same-sex consensual relations and contraception.
The Respect for Marriage Act would require states to recognize all marriages that were legal where they were performed. The measure also would protect interracial marriages.
The legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. That law created a federal definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages sanctioned in other states. All of the substantial provisions were struck down in Supreme Court rulings.
Cornyn called the Respect for Marriage Act a “political stunt” and a Democratic push for a “show vote.”
There is indeed a political component to this and it’s making Republicans nervous as they hope to regain majorities in both the Senate and House in November.
According to a Gallup poll in June, support for same-sex marriage among American adults reached a new high of 71 percent. (Gallup also showed 94 percent support for interracial marriage and a Pew Research survey had support for keeping abortion legal at 61 percent.)
Perhaps more politically significant is public opinion by state. In 2017, surveys conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute showed state-sanctioned same-sex marriage had majority support in 44 states — including most Senate battleground states. Four states (Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia) had pluralities in support.
A plurality (48 percent) in Mississippi opposed state-sanctioned same-sex marriage and Alabama was the only state with majority opposition (51 percent). Rubio’s Florida was 61 percent in support, Johnson’s Wisconsin had 66 percent support and Cornyn’s Texas was 55 percent in support.
In July, the House passed the Respect for Marriage Act 267-157, with 47 Republicans voting for it, including Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Bonsall. All Democrats backed the measure.
Schumer, D-N.Y., has said he plans to put the bill up for a vote in the next couple of weeks. Democrats need 10 Republican votes to keep the bill from being blocked by a GOP filibuster.
As of Friday, only three Republicans have said they will vote for the bill: Susan Collins of Maine, Tom Tillis of North Carolina and Rob Portman of Ohio. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, is in a tough re-election race and has not committed to the bill publicly, although she has supported same-sex marriage in the past.
Two months ago, Johnson said he saw “no reason to oppose it” even though he called the bill unnecessary. Recently, he told voters in his state he would not support the bill “in its current state,” according to The Washington Post. He said his earlier comment was to get the media “off my back.”
In late July, more than 80 conservative groups urged Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to oppose the Respect for Marriage Act. Their July 26 letter said the House-passed bill would go beyond codifying same-sex marriage and “imperil religious freedom,” according to the Washington Times.
The opponents said the measure would force the federal government to recognize any state’s definition of marriage, expose faith-based groups and individuals to predatory lawsuits and endanger the tax-exempt status of religious organizations.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Collins are leading bipartisan negotiations to address “religious liberty” concerns. They are drafting an amendment to clarify that the bill leaves intact the protections of a 1993 religious freedom law, according to Politico. Baldwin said the amendment simply “confirms the status quo remains.”
Another amendment also is being discussed to state that marriage is between two people — a response to some conservative groups that say states could legalize polygamous marriages.
Democrats clearly think the public supports the Respect for Marriage Act and, to a point, agree with Cornyn: They want Republicans to show their vote.
But Baldwin, the nation’s first openly gay senator, rejects the notion that this is merely a political ploy. She reportedly confronted Rubio on a Capitol elevator after he called the bill a “stupid waste of time.”
“It’s very real for a whole lot of people,” Baldwin said later.
There once was a time when Supreme Court appointees suggested Roe v. Wade was “settled law” to win Senate confirmation.
Then, not unlike Johnson, they flipped.
Tweet of the Week
Goes to Sahil Kapur of NBC News (@sahilkapur)
“Asked @MittRomney if he sees any merit to Trump’s claims that he’s being politically targeted re: Mar-a-Lago and classified documents. Romney’s terse response: ‘Nah.’”
