Respect for Marriage Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1232, I call up the bill (H.R. 8404) to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. 8404.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8404 the Respect for Marriage Act would reaffirm that marriage equality is, and must remain, the law of the land.

Over the past several decades, millions of LGBTQ people in loving and supportive relationships have married and formed families, particularly after the Supreme Court ruled, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that the Constitution protects marriage equality.

An estimated 2 million children are being raised by LGBTQ families today. An enormous body of research shows that stable and loving families are the foundation for children's well-being and success, and children do best when their families have the critical legal protections to care for one another.

Thankfully, marriage equality remains constitutionally protected, and there is no indication that it will be overturned in the foreseeable future. It is--and should forever be considered--settled law.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court's recent position in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, which extinguished the constitutional right to abortion, has raised concerns among some people that other rights rooted in the constitutional right to privacy may be at risk, notwithstanding the Court's assurance that Dobbs was limited to abortion. This includes the right to marriage equality.

In fact, in a concurring opinion in Dobbs, Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly called on the Court to reconsider its decisions protecting other fundamental rights, including the right to same-sex marriage. And although Justice Thomas did not mention the right to interracial marriage, that right relies on the same constitutional doctrines as the right to same-sex marriage, and, therefore, it could be vulnerable to a legal challenge in the future as well.

Even if we accept the Court's assurance in Dobbs that its decision does not call other rights into question, Congress should provide additional reassurance that marriage equality is a matter of settled law. All married people who are building their lives together must know that the government will respect and recognize their marriages--for all time.

The Respect for Marriage Act, which I introduced with the co-chairs of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, the chairs of the Congressional Tri- Caucus, and the House Democratic Caucus chair, Hakeem Jeffries, is an updated version of the bill that I first introduced in 2009.

The first provision would repeal the odious Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA--the 1996 law that discriminates against married same-sex couples. While that law was ruled unconstitutional, it remains on the books, and it must be removed.

The bill would also enshrine marriage equality for Federal law purposes and would ensure that States give full legal effect to valid out-of-state marriages regardless of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the individuals in the marriage.

This legislation would provide additional stability for the lives that families have built upon the foundation of our fundamental rights. Congress must pass the Respect for Marriage Act to dispel any concern or any uncertainty for families worried by the implications of the Dobbs decision. And it must pass the Respect for Marriage Act to enshrine in law the equality and liberty that our Constitution guarantees.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsors of this legislation and the leadership of our chairman, and, as well, the millions of families that are, in fact, families.

My good friend from Ohio started out with the litany of violence, of which none of us stands for, we abhor violence. We believe in the freedom of speech and the right to petition. There are countless acts of violence against those who are seeking reproductive freedom and countless acts of violence against the LGBTQ community.

Listen to the violence against transgender parents just trying to help their children, or the violence that started in the early days of this community seeking their freedom and their rights. I know it well from the LGBTQ+ community in Houston and the Caucus and the leaders who started out in those early years. I know that they suffered from just the simple position that they were different.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Constitution of the United States of America because that is what the Respect for Marriage Act exemplifies. It exemplifies a recognition of the Constitution. As the legislation says, the full credit and faith to marriage equality.

I believe that our friends have gotten it wrong. There is a constitutional right to privacy. And morally there is a right to love who you love and to establish a family as you desire.

It is horrific to believe that with the elimination of the precedent of 50 years of Roe v. Wade, one Justice decided to say, wait, there may be more. There may be an ending to marriage equality. There may be an ending to any number of constitutional rights.

Well, I am here today to say, I support enthusiastically H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act, codifying the constitutional right to privacy and the constitutional right to marriage.

Mr. Speaker, over and over again, I would ask my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in strong support of H.R. 8404, the ``Respect for Marriage Act.''

This Act would enshrine in federal law marriage equality for same sex and interracial couples.

It would also repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 that problematically defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

The Supreme Court's backwards ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that was used to justify overturning the right to abortion could be weaponized in the future to strip away other fundamental rights, including the right to marriage equality.

In his concurring opinion in Dobbs, Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly called on the Supreme Court to reconsider its decisions protecting other fundamental rights, including the right to same-sex marriage recognized in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Although Justice Thomas conveniently chose not to mention the right to interracial marriage--a right he currently enjoys--that right relies on the same constitutional doctrines as the right to same-sex marriage, and, therefore, could also be on the chopping block.

The night before the Dobbs ruling, LGBTQI+ couples and people in interracial relationships went to sleep confident in the legality of their marriages.

They had no reason to believe that the next morning five individuals would pass a ruling that would strip women of their right to abortion and threaten the legality of their marriage unions.

On June 24th, amidst the horror of the Court's ruling against abortion rights, innocent LGBTQI+, Black, and Brown people had to also grapple with the possibility that the legality of their marriages might be violently stripped away.

We cannot and will not allow Republican lawmakers and Conservative Justices to toy with the rights of the American people.

That is why I strongly support the Respect for Marriage Act.

This act would ensure that an individual be considered married as long as the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed.

This ensures that same-sex and interracial couples would continue to enjoy equal treatment under federal law--as the Constitution requires.

This bill would go further by officially repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.

While the Supreme Court effectively rendered DOMA inert with its decision in Obergefell, this unconstitutional and discriminatory law, however, still officially remains on the books.

Therefore, H.R. 8404 would repeal DOMA once and for all.

The Respect for Marriage Act would also prohibit any person acting under color of state law from denying full faith and credit to an out- of-state marriage based on the sex, race, ethnicity or national origin of the individuals in the marriage.

It would also authorize the U.S. Attorney General to enforce these protections and would create recourses of action for any individual harmed by a violation of this provision.

If conservative lawmakers and Justices want to wage war against human and civil rights, we are ready to meet them toe for toe.

We will not back down for marriage equality.

We will not back down for racial justice.

We will ensure equal rights for all American people.

I strongly put my full support behind H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act, and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, much of what the prior two speakers said was absolute nonsense. Some was true.

Unfortunately, pregnancy crisis centers have been the targets of terrorism, and that is deplorable. But so have abortion clinics. They didn't mention that. Abortion clinics have also been the targets of terrorism.

The murder of Dr. Bernard Slepian comes to mind. That is equally deplorable, and we should stop both of them if we can.

The rest of what they said was nonsense.

The Supreme Court logic, the substantive due process logic by which the Court overthrew Roe v. Wade, applies equally to Obergefell, to Loving, and to Lawrence, in other words, to the right to contraception, to the right to gay marriage, and to the right to interracial marriage, for that matter.

Justice Thomas mentioned all that specifically. Yes, he said, this case doesn't involve that. We are not deciding that yet, which is the portion of his concurrence that Mr. Johnson read, but read the rest of his concurrence where he said specifically that we should overrule or reconsider Obergefell and Lawrence, which is gay marriage, which is consensual sodomy.

He didn't mention Loving, though, for some reason, which is interracial marriage. Maybe the fact that he is intermarried and so is Senator McConnell had something to do with it. But the same logic applies there, so that is not nonsense.

Note that they offered no argument against this bill at all. We didn't hear anything about the merits of the bill.

Much of what the gentleman from Texas just said was irrelevant; but he made one correct point. He said that the bill before us today codifies Obergefell. It does, and if Obergefell is not overruled by the Supreme Court, it is not necessary, but it is also not harmful.

If Obergefell is overruled by the Supreme Court, as Justice Thomas hints it might be, then passing this bill becomes vital.

And as to recognizing marriage in one State or another State, obviously, if you get married in Texas and you go to Nevada, you don't get unmarried. You can't be married in one State and not in another State.

Garcia).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court, in the Obergefell decision, reversed the actions of the people in those 30 or 35 States.

Escobar).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans want to talk about anything but marriage equality today. It is almost like they don't have any good arguments to make on marriage equality.

Mr. Speaker, my husband, Randy, and I have been together for 30 years. We have raised three remarkable kids from diapers to college diplomas. During all those years, during all that time together, we have only been legally married since 2014. We had a 22-year engagement before an 8-year marriage.

When I was elected as a Member of Congress in 2012, my husband, Randy, couldn't have health insurance through this body. His spouse ID said companion on it, and we had to fight to get him one of these security pins we all wear.

But through hard work and a historic coalition, through great allies and partnerships, love won. On the day the Supreme Court decided we had equality rights for marriage in this country, a bunch of us stood in front of the Court and sang the national anthem because it is a beautiful thing when your country catches up to you.

Today, we are going to vote for the Respect for Marriage Act to decide and to make clear whether or not we will go back.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, whether or not every American, despite their race or their sexuality, has the freedom to marry the person they love; it is a simple choice, and I know where I stand. Every Member of Congress will get to stand and be counted today, and you can choose between equality or discrimination.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Chu).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Respect for Marriage Act provides additional stability for the millions of American married couples and families that have ordered their lives around the constitutional guarantee of marriage equality. It has nothing to do with attacks on abortion clinics. It has nothing to do with attacks on so-called pregnancy crisis centers. It has to do with marriage.

This legislation repeals an unconstitutional and discriminatory statute that the Court has effectively rendered inoperative, but which remains on the books. It is time to appeal this abhorrent law and fix the mistake that Congress made a generation ago while we reinforce and cement current law.

As I pointed out before, the Obergefell decision is a decision of the Supreme Court. If that decision is not overturned, this bill is unnecessary but harmless. If that decision is overturned, this bill is crucial, and we don't know what this Court is going to do. Despite what Justice Alito said, Justice Thomas suggested that the decision on gay marriage ought to be overruled.

We have seen this Court overrule other precedent in Dobbs, so who can be confident that the Court will not overturn the Lawrence decision or, rather, the Obergefell decision? Who can be confident of that? The answer is no one.

As to the gentleman from Ohio's comment that the people in, I think he said, 33 States or whatever have decided that gay marriage should not be, and it should be up to the people of each State, that is absurd. And that is why we have one of the provisions of this bill. You can't be married in Texas and not be married in New York or vice versa. You can't lose your marriage status by crossing a State line.

This legislation is very necessary to make sure that people have the right to remain married, that gay couples have the right to get married, have the right to stay married, and that is why leading national organizations have endorsed the bill, including the ACLU, the Equality Federation, Family Equality Council, Freedom for All Americans, GLAAD, the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Black Justice Coalition, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the National Women's Law Center, and PFLAG. They know what is going on. They know what is at stake.

Mr. Speaker, this is a long overdue bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source