Respect for Marriage Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1510, 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, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. 8404.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act. I first introduced a version of this legislation in 2009, and I am very proud that after a long journey it will soon be headed to the President's desk and marriage equality will be enshrined in law.
The House took an important step in July when it passed the bill with the support of 47 Republican Members. Now that the Senate has passed an amended version, also with bipartisan support, it is up to us to finish the job.
I find it deeply poignant that as we prepare to bring the 117th Congress to a close, we are on the cusp of a great bipartisan moral victory in defense of a fundamental right of all Americans, a victory that will provide stability and reassurance to the millions of LGBTQ and interracial families that have come to rely on the constitutional right to marry.
The Respect for Marriage Act does three things: First, it repeals the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which blatantly discriminates against same-sex couples, and which still officially remains on the books.
Second, it enshrines marriage equality for Federal law purposes, requiring the Federal Government to consider a person to be married if the marriage is valid in the State where it was performed.
Finally, it prohibits anyone acting under color of State law from denying full legal effect to a valid out-of-state marriage based on the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the two individuals in the marriage.
The Senate amendment does not change any of these substantive provisions. Rather, it adds language that explicitly affirms that existing constitutional and other legal protections for religious liberty remain in effect. The Senate amendment does not create any new substantive legal rights, but rather, it clarifies that the bill does not affect the existing legal rights or benefits of religious persons or entities. It also explicitly clarifies that the bill does not require or authorize the Federal Government to recognize polygamous marriages.
It is because of this compromise--the result of the hard work of Senators Tammy Baldwin and Susan Collins--that the amended bill passed the Senate by a vote of 61-36 with 12 Republican Senators voting in support.
While marriage equality remains constitutionally protected today, we have learned in recent months that rights once thought to be fundamental and forever secure can, in fact, be taken away. Indeed, in the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization--a decision overturning nearly 50 years of precedent recognizing a constitutional right to abortion--Justice Clarence Thomas went out of his way to write a separate concurrence calling on the Court to reconsider all of its substantive due process decisions, including Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision recognizing a right to marriage equality.
In light of this concurrence, even if one accepts the Dobbs majority's assurances that the constitutional right to marriage equality is settled law, Congress must use this opportunity to provide additional reassurance to the many American families who have come to rely on this guarantee. After all, we were told that the right to abortion was settled law.
The Respect for Marriage Act cements respect for married couples, which all Americans--including those in this Congress--should support and value.
I thank the co-chairs of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, the chairs of the Congressional Tri-Caucus, and incoming House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries for joining me in introducing this legislation. I also thank my chief of staff, Amy Rutkin, who helped to do so much to guide this legislation through the House.
I urge all Members to support this Senate amendment to H.R.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Craig).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Jackson Lee), a member of the committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, why are we here this morning? We are here because dignity should be part of life in America. We are here because the Founding Fathers, imperfect as they were, said we are here to create a more perfect union.
We are specifically here because a Justice on the United States Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, appallingly stated that other cherished, fundamental rights should be subject to abrogation, writing: ``In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.''
It is shameful that we would have to be here today, but I proudly stand with my community, those who understand and recognize that it is crucial for the Respect for Marriage Act to pass so that respect can go for the loving relationships, the families, the daughters, the sons, the aunts and uncles, and all the husbands and wives that come as family.
Let me be very clear: I am the only Member in the Texas delegation that voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. I voted against it.
DOMA was wrong then, it is wrong now, and I continuously stand with all of you to pass H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in strong support for H.R. 8404, the ``Respect for Marriage Act'' and the collaboration in the Senate last week that enabled it to pass the Senate and return to the House for today's vote.
I am very concerned that the archaic dictum that the Supreme Court used in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization to justify overturning the well-established and reaffirmed right to abortion could be further weaponized in the future to strip away other fundamental rights, including the right to marriage equality.
Specifically, in his concurring opinion to the Dobbs decision, Clarence Thomas appallingly stated that other cherished, fundamental rights should be subject to abrogation, writing, ``. . . in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.''
Thomas left no doubt about his regressive, byzantine intentions, adding, ``. . . we have a duty to `correct the error' established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. __
To prevent Thomas's dream scenario from inflicting a nightmare on the rest of the country, the Respect for Marriage Act would codify in federal law our essential rights conferring marriage equality for same sex and interracial couples, protecting the rights of Americans to marry who they choose.
It would also repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 that problematically defined marriage as being between one man and one woman.
I am always concerned when someone's rights are being infringed, which is why I wholeheartedly supported the version of this bill that passed the House earlier this year.
Even with the Senate amendment, I still recognize the great strides that will be achieved with passage of this bill in its current form. The Senate's embrace of this legislation, with strong bipartisan support, demonstrates the bill's alignment with bedrock American values and its strong support among the American people, across political ideologies.
After witnessing the Senate's passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, I am proud to say that we are on a path to guaranteeing marriage equality for every American.
The Supreme Courts' rulings in Loving v. Virginia, and Obergefell v. Hodges were founded on the promise of unenumerated rights and due process for all American people as guaranteed in the 9th and 14th amendments of our nation's Constitution.
The 9th Amendment states that the federal government does not retain final authority over rights not listed in the Constitution--which, in effect, includes the right to marry someone regardless of their sex or race. That very personal and intimate right is retained by the people.
Additionally, the 14th Amendment ensures that no right afforded to the American people can be taken away without due process of law, while also guaranteeing to all Americans that they shall have equal protection under the law.
The same law that applies to a Black man wishing to marry a Hispanic woman must be applied equally to an Indigenous woman wishing to marry a White woman, a nonbinary individual wishing to marry a man, and so on.
That is the Constitutional promise in the United States.
Marriage Equality is not a right that can be stripped away by a conservative faction of the United States Supreme Court, nor by extremist Republican legislators.
It is a fundamental aspect of our democracy.
The assurances of the 14th Amendment became part of our national governing documents as a protection against those who would use their power to wipe away the freedoms of others without restraint or consent of the governed.
It is unfortunate that we must rely on its strength again today.
We cannot and will not allow Republican lawmakers and conservative Justices to continue to toy with the rights of the American people.
That is why I strongly support the Respect for Marriage Act and commend my friends in the Senate for garnering bipartisan support for this 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 still officially remains on the books.
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 those in the marriage.
It would also authorize the U.S. Attorney General to enforce these protections and would allow recourse for any person harmed by a violation of this provision.
We will not back down from demanding marriage equality.
We will not back down from demanding racial justice.
We will not back down from demanding equal rights for all of the American people.
I strongly support H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act, and encourage my colleagues to pass this bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), a member of the committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).
Mr. TORRES of New York. Madam Speaker, I dedicate my remarks to two civil rights icons, Edith and Judith Windsor.
Today, we repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which degraded marriage under the pretense of defending it. Today, we put the equality of same- sex love in its rightful place under the protection of Federal law.
We will not leave it to the forces of hate and the relics of the past to be the final word on the fate of love.
We, in the LGBTQ community, will be the arbiters of our own legal equality and the authors of our own marital destiny, our equal right to marry the people that we love in the country that we love with the pride that we love.
Today, that right makes America a more perfect union.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Respect for Marriage Act.
In all my decades of public service, I have never wavered in my support for the LGBTQ+ community. In 1990, I introduced the first legislation in New York State history to grant legal recognition to same-sex couples.
When the Defense of Marriage Act was introduced in 1996, I was one of 67 House Members to vote against it. I knew then what I know now: DOMA was a bigoted, discriminatory solution to a problem that never existed.
It never made sense that I, or anyone in this body or in this country, could get in a cab and marry the cabdriver that same day or some stranger on the street, but a bold, brave New Yorker and a friend of mine named Edie Windsor could not have her marriage recognized.
She sued. She won in court. Today, this law will codify her court case. I dedicate my remarks to her and thank her for her lifelong commitment to LGBTQ rights and equality.
Madam Speaker, I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Respect for Marriage Act because every American deserves to have their union recognized and respected in law.
Since the Obergefell and Loving decisions, millions of families rely on the constitutional guarantee that marriage equality affords. Yet, we just saw what happens when half our population relies on this High Court to protect our sacred rights.
Recent far-right Court nominees broke their pledges to respect the precedent of Roe, and look at the legal chaos, unequal treatment, and financial and physical ruin they have unleashed.
We can no more rely on their word than we can their apologists who say these legal extremists will uphold marriage equality.
This bill ensures that by guaranteeing that same-sex and interracial couples have a legal right to build a life with someone who shares their love.
I am honored to stand with the LGBTQ+ community to make this a more just, equal, and perfect union. Without these rights and this legislation, America can never truly aspire to that.
Madam Speaker, I remind all of my colleagues that history is watching, and I urge them to vote ``yea'' on the Senate amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a member of the committee, and the soon-to-be Democratic leader.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House of Representatives.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have been listening to this debate on the Republican side and it is self-contradictory. On the one hand, don't worry about it. Obergefell is not threatened. It is the law of the land. The Supreme Court has decided it. There is no threat. You guys are exaggerating the threat to Obergefell.
On the other hand, this bill is catastrophic. My God, it will change things.
Well, how will it change things if Obergefell is going to keep going? This bill will threaten the institution of marriage somehow.
Really? I don't think it will threaten the institution of marriage, especially since it is irrelevant since Obergefell is going to continue. You can't argue out of both sides of your mouth.
I would also point out, as I will in my closing statement, that contrary to the fears expressed about religious liberty, almost every church group in the United States has endorsed this bill. I will read a list in my closing statement.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
The Senate amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act represents a carefully negotiated compromise that maintains all of the bill's substantive protections for marriage equality, while affirming that the religions liberty and conscience protections available under current law remain unaffected by the bill.
For these reasons, leading national organizations have endorsed the bill as amended by the Senate, including the ACLU, GLAD, PFLAG, Human Rights Campaign, and Lambda Legal.
In addition, a broad interfaith coalition that includes the Interfaith Alliance, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church USA Office of Public Witness, the Union for Reformed Judaism, the Anti- Defamation League, the Hindu American Foundation, Muslims for Progressive Values, and the Sikh Coalition, all endorse the Senate amendment to this bill.
This is a long-overdue bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it with a big vote.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source