-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I rise today to underscore the crucial importance of the religious liberty provisions in the Respect for Marriage Act, which was just passed by the Senate, and to ensure the legislative intent behind these provisions is crystal clear.

As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges from 2015 established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

When Obergefell was argued, then-Solicitor General Verrilli was asked whether recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage would lead to churches, religious organizations, and other not-for-profits potentially having their tax-exempt status reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bob Jones University v. United States. Solicitor General Verrilli responded that ``it's certainly going to be an issue.''

In recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court did not reconsider the Bob Jones University precedent, leaving this issue unresolved.

The Respect for Marriage Act, with the substitute amendment that I cosponsored with Senators Sinema, Collins, Baldwin, Portman, and Tillis, answers this question and a number of others, providing strong protections for religious liberty, especially when combined with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

I want to thank my friend, the Senator from Arizona, for her hard work on this bill and her willingness to address key questions around religious liberty in a thoughtful and bipartisan way.

It is my understanding that section 2 of the Respect for Marriage Act, in light of the Supreme Court's Bob Jones v. United States decision in 1983, would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from successfully arguing that the United States now has a ``national policy'' favoring same-sex marriage and would prevent the IRS from using this national policy argument to deny tax-exempt status to religious organizations.

I want to ask my friend, the Senator from Arizona, is this your understanding, as well?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LUMMIS. Yes, it is my understanding that use of this phrase in section 4 of the bill is intended to incorporate the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of this term, including, but not limited to, the case Rendell-Baker v. Kohn and NCAA v. Tarkanian cases.

I would like to now turn to section 6 of the bill, which provides that no church or religious nonprofit will be forced to solemnize or conduct a marriage ceremony under this bill.

Is it your understanding that section 6(b) bars ``any civil claim or cause of action,'' without exception, relating to a church or religious organization's refusal to solemnize or celebrate a marriage under this section, and the text does not state that it can be overruled by a court in finding a ``compelling governmental interest''?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LUMMIS. Yes, that is my understanding, as well, regarding the scope of section 7.

This bill is intended to enshrine a national policy of respect for all views surrounding marriage and to enact some of the strongest religious liberty protections since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. This legislation also ensures that religious liberty will have more of a central role in future debates in our courts and in the Halls of Congress.

I would like to thank my friend from Arizona for her tireless work on these issues and her willingness to work together, as always.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source