Well, the Senate tonight
passing the Respect
for Marriage Act 61 to 36.
And the bill protects
same sex
and interracial marriage
and all the members of Democratic caucus
voting yes, along with 12 Republicans.
The House will take it up next week.
And once it passes,
which is expected to do
it, goes to President
Biden's desk for his signature.
Now, people are celebrating
the bipartisan nature of all of this.
And yes,
we should absolutely cheer
that because bipartisan victories, well,
they're pretty rare these days.
But when you unpack the Respect
for Marriage Act,
there's actually a lot more to it.
Let me explain.
You remember,
of course, back in June
when Roe v Wade was overturned
by the conservative majority
on the Supreme Court.
Well, many people wondered,
including myself,
if marriage rights would be next
and immediately
turn to Congress
to try to do something about it.
What was that?
Well, to codify
the protections that such rights
would not be
at the mercy of a Supreme Court
or any court for that reason,
to ensure
that those rights
were legislatively guaranteed.
So is what President Biden
will sign in line
with the Supreme Court's
landmark 2015 Obergefell decision?
Does it codify what was said there?
Not exactly.
So the new law would assure
full benefits
for marriage
regardless of the couple's sex
or race or ethnicity or national origin.
Federal government
will be required to recognize marriages
that were valid in a state
when performed.
But notice
the nuance of what I just said.
It had to be valid in the state before
the feds are required to recognize it.
The state therefore still holds
some pretty powerful cards.
This ability to define
what exactly
is a so-called valid marriage.
Now, this new law will not require states
to issue a marriage license.
That's contrary to state law
and organization
or religious
won't be required
to perform same sex marriages.
So why do the states retain such power?
Well, there's a word called federalism,
the concept that says
when it comes to power,
Congress has to stay in its lane
and the rest of the road.
Well, it belongs to the state.
Now, if the Supreme Court
were to overturn
Obergefell, which legalized
same sex marriage,
a state could pass a law to ban
same sex marriage.
But that state would be required
to recognize a same sex marriage
from another state.
Now, there is a big exception
in terms of what
the feds would have to recognize,
and that's polygamy.
Uncle Sam won't be required
to protect polygamous marriages
because the federal government will defer
to a state's opinion of marriage.
Well, the law won't offer
all of the protection
that the Obergefell decision offers
as of right now.
Remember there in Obergefell.
States must allow
and recognize same sex marriages
under the due
process and equal protection
clause of the 14th Amendment.
Codifying something into federal law
does not mean you codify it
at the state level.
That's what you call
federalism by design.
Despite the fact that Congress
does not hold
all of the cards, though
they certainly did
play their hand in this matter.
A lot of political games
had to have been played
and successfully
to get where we are today.
The question is, given
that hand, let's
see if the voters at the state level
let the cards
they have been dealt
when it comes to codifying these rights.
I want to bring in Jim Obergefell,
who was the plaintiff in the
now infamous 2015 Obergefell
versus Hodges decision.
Jim, I'm glad to see you.
Welcome to the program. How are you?
Thanks for.
I'm happy to be here.
I wish it were for better reasons,
but thanks for having me on.
You know, it's interesting
because some would look at this, Jim,
and think it's counter intuitive.
Shouldn't people be celebrating
the codification of this decision?
And at first glance,
it sounds like when Congress says
we're going to codify
and make sure we've got same sex
marriage on the books,
that that's exactly what it's done.
But you don't think that it does.
And that explained,
of course, the reasons why.
But do you think
it should have gone further?
And are you celebrating
this Senate victory for now?
No, I am not celebrating, Laura.
I will say
I'm happy that at least
something has been done,
something that we will have
to fall back on.
Should the Supreme Court
overturn Obergefell in the future?
But this act,
I find it curious
that it's called
the Respect for Marriage Act,
because this act does not respect
the LGBTQ community or marriages
or relationships or our families.
And the fact that this act
would allow states to once again
deny marriage licenses
to same sex couples.
Where is the respect in that?
And I've really just continually
come back to this. Laura.
How on earth does my marriage to John
or does any same sex marriage harm
any other person
or or any other marriage in this country?
It doesn't.
So, yes, I'm happy that there is at least
something that will be codified.
Should Obergefell be overturned?
I'm I'm happy to have this as opposed
to having everything be taken away.
But this is not respect for marriage.
This is
this would take us back to a time
where we are once again
second class citizens
who are given something
that isn't
marriage, isn't respected and protected
and offered equally
to every person in this country.
That's my issue
with the Respect for Marriage Act.
Now, to clarify one point that the law
would ensure
I don't want to take away
from any of the points you raise.
But just to clarify for the audience.
If a state were to ban
same sex marriage
in their own respective state,
the law would require them
to respect a marriage
that is same sex
that is valid and in the
in a different state
to honor that sort of notion.
But your point is well taken
about the breadth of protection
not being universal.
And I understand there's also this moment
from Senator Cynthia
Lummis, who is out of Wyoming,
a Republican.
And listen
to what
she had to say today
to explain her vote in favor.
Remember,
it was unanimous, four
Democrats, the Senate
and 12 Republican senators.
Here is her explanation as to why Jim.
For the sake of our nation today
and its survival,
we do well by taking this step,
not embracing or validating each other's
devoutly held views,
but by the
simple act of tolerating them.
And that,
Madam President, explains my vote.
You have to cringe on the idea
of the tolerance aspect.
I suspect that is your view as well.
Absolutely.
And, you know, to your point
earlier, Laura,
the fact that
there could be people in 30 some states
across the nation who are unable to get
a marriage license
and get married in the state
they call home.
That is not equal.
That is not respect.
Now, to this point about tolerance,
you're right.
I have to laugh at that,
because this bill, this act
that had religious
freedom, so-called religious
freedom amendments attached to it.
This is not about respecting
or tolerating
anyone else's religious beliefs.
This is about one specific
group of people
who believe
their interpretation of their religion
is more important than any other
and more important
than human beings in the public sphere.
That is not tolerance.
Religious freedom
means that
people have the ability, the right
to practice their religion of choice,
their faith in their home
and in their house of worship.
It does not mean using their religion
to persecute others
who do not share
that same faith structure.
So this is not about tolerance.
This is about kowtowing
to people
who want preference for their religion,
their interpretation
of their particular religion
in the public sphere.
And that is not religious freedom.
Jim Obergefell, thank you
so much for your insight tonight.
Appreciate it. Thanks, Laura.