In America, recognition of equality not dictated by the lines on a map
Credit where credit is due. A bipartisan coalition of 61 senators, including 12 Republicans, voted to pass the Respect for Marriage Act out of the U.S. Senate.
The current version of the bill provides certainty for same-sex couples by codifying (making law by legislation rather than by court order) that same-sex or interracial marriages that were already performed cannot be “undone” if the Supreme Court overturns its rulings in Obergefell v. Hodges (the case that made same-sex marriage legal in the U.S.) or Loving v. Virginia (the case that made interracial marriage legal in the U.S.).
It also requires every state to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages performed in other states — just as they do for heterosexual couples and single-race couples.
Finally, the bill provides some protections for religious organizations that do not wish to provide support for same-sex marriages.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that legislators voted in favor of a policy with such overwhelming support — more than 70% in the latest Gallup poll. And yet, with the Republican Party at war with itself, getting significant support from Republicans was never a guarantee.
In a floor speech, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., credited the “outstanding and relentless work” of Republican Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, as well as Democratic Sens. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, in building the coalition necessary to pass the bill through the Senate.
We applaud those five senators, as well as Sen. Mitt Romney from our neighboring state of Utah, and the eight other Republican senators and 47 Republican members of the US House for working across the aisle on this important legislation.
Unfortunately, Rep. Mark Amodei, R-nev., was not among them. He will get a second chance when the bill returns to the house for reconciliation.
Amodei released a statement in July, following his “nay” vote in the House. In the statement he criticized the bill for moving too quickly through the legislative process. More than five months later, we hope he’s had time to read it, analyze it and thus will vote for dignity rather than injustice this time around.
In his statement, Amodei also said that “At the state level, this issue has been dealt with by the people of Nevada in a straightforward and transparent fashion. They did not ask for, nor do they need direction from a body of 435 individuals — 431 of whom are not from Nevada.”
That’s a curious statement for a United States congressman — a man whose literal job is to propose, analyze and vote on federal legislation that affects all 50 states.
Does Amodei not understand that the reason his Nevada driver’s license allows him to legally drive in California and Utah is because the federal government says it must?
Without this legislation, people legally married in Nevada might not see their marriage recognized in, say, Florida — a state where far-right culture warriors are already attacking the basic constitutional rights of LGBTQ+ people. This bill specifically protects Nevadans outside of our state’s borders — including the 145,000 LGBTQ+ Americans who call Nevada home.
Take note: We aren’t criticizing Amodei because of his political party affiliation or because he believes in policies that are different than us. We’re criticizing him because his own statement seems to imply that he either doesn’t know what his job is or isn’t interested in doing it — which should be concerning to all Nevadans of all political stripes.
Besides, it wasn’t as if this issue came out of nowhere. Familial and reproductive rights became a topic of interest for federal lawmakers following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn 50 years of precedent on abortion rights.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas proudly declared his support overturning the right to access and use contraceptives; the right for two consenting adults to engage in sexual relations with someone of the same sex; and the right to marry a person of the same sex. Worse, Thomas and his ilk embrace a future when your rights as an American can be dependent on the state you happen to reside in or even pass through.
While no other justices joined his opinion, the threat is clear and imminent.
The Respect for Marriage act is an excellent first step toward addressing the threat posed by Thomas and his extremist colleagues on the high court, and we applaud the bipartisan negotiations that have moved it forward thus far. Yet, we are hopeful that even as Republicans take control of the House in January, we can go further and do more.
Americans should not have to bear the cost or burden of traveling to a different state to get married simply because their partner is of the same sex or a different race. It is degrading and harkens to an era in our nation’s history that we hoped was in the past.
Similarly, no adult couple should have to worry about whether the state they are in has outlawed the use of contraceptives or criminalized their choice to have sex with a consenting adult partner of the same sex. Such regulations are a clear overreach and intrusion of government at any level into our personal lives and private homes.
Perhaps most importantly, further action must be taken to address the rise in hate crimes in the United States. Just this week, the Justice Department released a report showing that LGBTQ+ people, Jewish people and immigrants are the focus of an explosive growth in violent threats from the far right. While the Respect for Marriage Act recognizes the essential humanity of LGBTQ+ Americans, that recognition is of little value to vulnerable populations facing murderous rhetoric targeting their children, families and communities.
So as we celebrate the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act in the Senate, we are asking for our legislators — Rep. Amodei included — to do more, to go further and the secure the equal rights and dignity of all Americans.