These are the 47 House Republicans who voted for a bill protecting marriage equality
More than three dozen House Republicans voted for a bill on Tuesday to protect marriage equality, less than one month after Supreme Court Justice
Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion calling for the reversal of landmark cases safeguarding LGBTQ rights.
The House
approved the measure, titled the Respect for Marriage Act, in a 267-157 vote. Seven Republicans did not vote.
(I left out the list)
Gonzalez, Kinzinger, Katko, Upton and Jacobs are not seeking reelection this year, and Davis and Rice lost their primaries for reelection. Zeldin is currently running to governor in New York.
Among the more notable “yes” votes were Stefanik, who is the House GOP conference chair, and Emmer, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. The Hill reached out to their offices for comment.
The bill seeks to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, a measure that Congress passed in a bipartisan fashion and former President Clinton signed into law in 1996 that acknowledged marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”
Additionally, the measure defined spouse as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
The legislation passed on Tuesday, which faces an uncertain fate in the Senate, would roll back the 1996 law and require that couples be considered married if they tied the knot in a state where their marriage was lawful.
The House Judiciary Committee said that provision would ensure that same-sex and interracial couples receive equal treatment to other married individuals on the federal level.
The measure also authorizes the attorney general to initiate civil action against individuals who breach the legislation, and gives people the authority to launch civil action if their rights as laid out in the bill are violated.
Its passage in the House comes less than one month after the Supreme Court issued a ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion to the decision that called for the reversal of two landmark decisions protecting LGBTQ rights.
The conservative justice said the bench should reconsider all substantive due process precedents established by the court, naming Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 ruling that barred states from outlawing consensual gay sex, and Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling protected same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.
Mace wrote in a
statement that she voted for the bill because she believes two individuals, regardless of race or gender or orientation, should be allowed to marry if they want to.
“I always have and always will support the right of any American to marry. This vote is no different. I believe any two people, regardless of the color of their skin or gender or orientation or otherwise, should be free to enter into marriage together,” she said.
“If gay couples want to be as happily or miserably married as straight couples, more power to them,” she added.
Bacon said that while he believes “in the traditional definition of marriage,” he does not believe “the government should dictate who can marry each other based on gender, race, or ethnicity.” He noted that he made his decision to vote yes after talking to faith and community leaders.
“Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious establishments have the right to decide within their walls and congregations who they will perform marriages for, but the federal government does not. This has been the law for seven years and many thousands have been married with this as law of the land,” he said in a
statement.
“Americans should have the right to their private lives. The Supreme Court showed that all viewpoints can be respected,” he added.
In a video posted on
Twitter following Tuesday’s vote, Meijer said he supported the measure because he viewed the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe as the bench telling Congress to do its job and not rely on the court to legislate.
“What happened with the Dobbs concurrence by Justice Thomas was this question of the constitutional basis for those Supreme Court decisions,” he said, pointing to Obergefell and Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case that protects interracial marriage.
“And what this court has said, they’ve said Congress, do your job, don’t rely on the courts to do the legislating, take up that legislation yourself. And that’s frankly what this bill was,” he added.
He continued, saying that the bill is an effort to ensure there isn’t “absolute chaos” if Obergefell or Loving were overturned.
The Michigan Republican noted, however, that he does not believe there is a current threat to or a “political appetite to threaten” Obergefell or Loving.
“I voted in favor of this thing tonight. I think it’s the right choice from a limited government standpoint, from a liberty standpoint and frankly just from avoiding any circumstance where that type of chaos could come down the line,” he added.
More than three dozen House Republicans voted for a bill on Tuesday to protect marriage equality, less than one month after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion calling for the re…
thehill.com
