[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 19, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H6719-H6728]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres of New York). Pursuant to House
Resolution 1232, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 8404
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Respect for Marriage Act''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES
CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE
ACT.
Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed.
SEC. 3. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by
this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 1738B
the following:
``Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the
effect thereof
``(a) In General.--No person acting under color of State
law may deny--
``(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a
marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex,
race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or
``(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the
basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the
law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity,
or national origin of those individuals.
``(b) Enforcement by Attorney General.--The Attorney
General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United
States district court against any person who violates
subsection (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief.
``(c) Private Right of Action.--Any person who is harmed by
a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the
appropriate United States district court against the person
who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive
relief.
``(d) State Defined.--In this section, the term `State' has
the meaning given such term under section 7 of title 1.''.
SEC. 4. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.
Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``Sec. 7. Marriage
``(a) For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or
regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual
shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is
valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in
the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the
marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the
marriage could have been entered into in a State.
``(b) In this section, the term `State' means a State, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any
other territory or possession of the United States.
``(c) For purposes of subsection (a), in determining
whether a marriage is valid in a State or the place where
entered into, if outside of any State, only the law of the
jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered
into may be considered.''.
SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this
Act, or the application of such provision to any person,
entity, government, or circumstance, is held to be
unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or any amendment
made thereby, or the application of such provision to all
other persons, entities, governments, or circumstances, shall
not be affected thereby.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Jordan) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert
extraneous material on H.R. 8404.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
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
[[Page H6720]]
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.
{time} 1215
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.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we thought the Democrats were obsessed with President
Trump, but Justice Thomas is a close second. This bill is simply the
latest installment of the Democrats' campaign to delegitimize and
attempt to intimidate the United States Supreme Court.
It started when President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh--that was
just too much for the left to bear--and they launched a smear campaign
in an attempt to derail his nomination.
Then we saw Senator Schumer stand on the steps--remember, a leader in
the legislative branch--stand on the steps of the Supreme Court, a
separate and equal branch of government, and threaten Supreme Court
Justices. He said: I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you,
Kavanaugh, you've released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.
You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful
decisions.
Just last month, a crazed individual attempted to assassinate Justice
Kavanaugh in his home. An assassination attempt on a sitting Justice of
the United States Supreme Court.
For months, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have pursued this
narrative that the Supreme Court is somehow illegitimate. Members of
the committee, including the chairman, have introduced a bill to pack
the Court to add four associate Justices to our highest court.
The committee has held hearings that can only be interpreted as an
attempt to lay the groundwork for an effort to impeach Justice Thomas.
Today, the Democrats bring forward a bill that is completely
unnecessary.
Why are the Democrats going down this path?
Because, frankly, they have nothing else. We are debating this bill
today because it is July of an election year and inflation is at a
level not seen in 40 years. It is the highest inflation rate in 41
years. The price of gas, the price of food, the price of daily
necessities have skyrocketed. We are debating this bill today because
illegal immigration is at unprecedented levels.
Last month, Customs and Border Patrol reported that we have already
surpassed the prior years' total for encounters at our southern border,
and we still have 3 months left in the fiscal year.
We are debating this bill today because they can't talk about the
fact that our country is gripped by an epidemic of violent crime in
every major urban area in this country. Every day, Americans are being
assaulted, robbed, and murdered in our cities.
We are here because the Democrats have no answers and desperately
hope that a manufactured crisis will help them in November. The
Democrats want Americans to believe that the Supreme Court at any
moment could step in and overturn its opinions in Obergefell and
Loving--that is simply not true.
The very decision that Democrats say creates this threat explicitly
denies it--explicitly disclaims it. Here is what the court said in the
Dobbs decision. The Dobbs decision should not be misunderstood,
mischaracterized to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern
abortion.
The court condemned the idea that the Dobbs decision would lead to an
overturning of other cases, stating, ``Perhaps this is designed to
stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil other rights.''
It is this unfounded fear that brings us here today. We are here for
a charade; we are here for political messaging. The Democrats can't run
on their disastrous record, they can't run on any accomplishments. It
is less than 4 months before an election and all Democrats can do is
stoke unfounded fears, and so that is why we are here with this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I hope we can defeat it. I hope it doesn't pass. As I
said, it is unnecessary and wrong. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the chair of the Equality Caucus and a
member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, today's vote is about love. The love that
couples have for each other and the government's role in respecting
that love regardless of their sex or race. Same-sex couples and
interracial couples get married for the same reason others get married:
to make a lifelong commitment to the person they love.
Yet, for too long, our government has rejected that love. They told
these couples they were less than--that their marriages weren't valid;
that they didn't deserve the affirmation or protections that come with
legal recognition.
The Supreme Court made clear in Loving, Windsor, and Obergefell that
this rejection of interracial and same-sex couples and their commitment
to one another was unconstitutional. Today, we have the opportunity to
send a clear message to worried couples that the Federal Government
will continue to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages, no
matter what the future holds.
To Mr. Jordan's suggestion that this is not necessary--tell it to the
millions of LGBTQ families that are worried about the Supreme Court's
intention to rip away more freedoms. They have taken away the freedom
to reproductive care. They have hinted at taking away contraception.
Justice Thomas urged them to look at marriage equality. This is real
for families.
When you talk about inflation, all families are dealing with the cost
of fuel and food, but we don't have to layer on top of that another
fear about the sanctity of your marriage. This is about a fundamental
fairness in our system, ensuring that people can marry the person they
love.
If it is not necessary, then vote for it. If you are right that we
are worried and we shouldn't be, reaffirm it. But don't hide behind
that to justify your refusal to vote for marriage equality in this
country, that every single American has the right to marry the person
they love.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. 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
[[Page H6721]]
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. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentlewoman used the word ``violence.'' Violence? Fifty crisis
pregnancy centers and churches have been attacked in the last 11
weeks--50 in 11 weeks. Think about that.
As I said in my opening statement, the leader of the Senate stood on
the steps of the Supreme Court and said to two specific Justices: You
have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. The Speaker of
this body waited 4 weeks to give protection to Supreme Court Justices'
families after the left had posted online where her kids go to school,
where their family attends church on Sunday morning. And in that
interim, during that time after that bill had come out of the Senate
unanimously, we had the assassination attempt on one of the Justices--
one of the very Justices that the Senate Democrat leader had referenced
in his comments on the steps of the Supreme Court.
And, of course, the Attorney General of the United States refuses to
prosecute anyone who has protested at those Justices' homes in direct
violation of the statute while the case was still pending in front of
the court. Directly on point.
So concerns of violence--yeah, we all have concerns. She is right
about one thing: We all have concerns about violence. But I just want
everyone to understand what is going on as we speak. Fifty pregnancy
centers and churches in 11 weeks. I don't know if we have ever seen
anything like that--that kind attack on the pro-life community.
Even so much that a witness who came in front of our committee for
the second time--she was here a few months ago and came back the second
time. The second time she had to bring security with her because of
threats against her life.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), my good friend and the ranking member on
the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee on the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, a
champion for freedom from Ohio (Mr. Jordan). There is a lot to talk
about here today, but I have to comment on what he just led in with and
this violence that we supposedly all decry. It is a bit of a double
standard, isn't it?
These care pregnancy centers are a vital institution in our country.
They are in all 50 States. There are over 2,700 of these centers doing
vital work every single day. They help millions of American women every
year. They employ and work with over 10,000 medical professionals.
Do you know what their singular goal is?
It is to help women who are in difficult pregnancy situations, to
help care for their unborn children. Who in the world could be opposed
to that?
You know what?
Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke for a lot of our colleagues on the
other side last week. She came out and shrieked they needed to be put
out of business in her State. They needed to get rid of these centers.
It is just incredible.
In the debate on the rule here on this floor in the last couple of
hours, I went down the litany of all those 50 occurrences--at least the
ones we know about, and there are more--where violence has been
perpetrated against these centers--these people who are doing
extraordinary work down in the trenches to help their fellow man.
I ran out of time, I could not list all of them and all of the
vandalism and the destruction and the Molotov cocktails and the hatred
that is spray-painted on the sides of these facilities that are funded,
by the way, by churches and nonprofits and individuals who care about
the sanctity of every single human life in America. Yet, there is just
complete silence on the other side. That is a really sad statement
about where we are.
{time} 1230
I used to be legal counsel for a number of those care pregnancy
centers, so I speak to this with personal experience.
Let me get to the issue of the day. This bill is just another
superfluous exercise. This bill is completely and clearly unnecessary.
Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? The sponsors of this bill know that.
They
[[Page H6722]]
know that we are in a very divisive time in the country, and they are
doing this anyway.
This bill is not only unnecessary; it is more of the same. It is yet
another effort to delegitimize the Supreme Court. As Mr. Jordan
explained, they have been doing that in earnest. Senator Schumer went
to the steps of the Supreme Court and infamously called down the
whirlwind on Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. By the way, it led to a
planned assassination of Justice Kavanaugh, all the lawless protests on
their lawns, threatening their children, and doxing the addresses of
Supreme Court Justices' children. It is just unconscionable. It is
against the law, the plain letter of the law, yet crickets from the
other side.
They want to delegitimize the Court. They tried to pack it. They want
to put four liberal Justices on the Court because they are concerned
about the conservative majority right now. It is a lawless approach and
a lawless response to the lawlessness of the radical left. So, this is
another effort to delegitimize the Supreme Court.
It is also a continued disregard, an utter and total disregard, for
the regular order in this body. I will explain in just a moment why
that is so perilous in a situation like this with a bill like this.
It is also more desperation to focus on anything other than their
policy failures, which Mr. Jordan articulated here a few moments ago.
Nonetheless, there is this bill before us today. Clearly, it is about
simple fear-mongering. This is a partisan bill to make partisan
arguments and to run ads in an election cycle. Do you know why we say
that, Mr. Speaker? Because, as Mr. Jordan said, in the Dobbs opinion,
which supposedly precipitated all this, it is clear if you read the
opinion that this is not only an unnecessary piece of legislation, but
it is divisive and misleading, and they know it. Because why? Anybody
can read the opinion for themselves. Justice Alito wrote the majority
opinion, of course, and he clarified it.
I am a constitutional law attorney. I used to litigate cases about
the Constitution, what it means, and how it should be applied. I did
that for 20 years before I got to Congress. Scarcely is there ever
language this clear written in a Supreme Court opinion.
Let me give you the quote again, Mr. Speaker, in case anybody missed
it, in case you didn't see it or you didn't want to see it. Justice
Alito said in the majority opinion: ``And to ensure that our decision
is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our
decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other
right.'' He continues: ``Nothing in this opinion should be understood
to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.''
Does everybody hear that? I will say that again: ``Nothing in this
opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not
concern abortion.''
Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because abortion is a unique area of
the law. Abortion is about taking the life of another unborn person,
another person, so the Court recognized that this is different and
distinct, and everybody knows that. Everybody recognizes that, even
Justice Clarence Thomas, whom they have worked so hard to demonize.
If you look at page 119 of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, you can see it
for yourself. Justice Thomas said: ``The Court's abortion cases are
unique . . . and no party has asked us to decide `whether our entire
Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised' . . .
Thus, I agree that''--and he quotes Justice Alito--nothing in the
Court's opinion ``'should be understood to cast doubt on precedents
that do not concern abortion.'''
That language is so clear. Anybody in this country can read that and
understand obviously and plainly what that means, every civics student,
every child. But, apparently, our friends on the other side don't like
that language, or they don't want to see it, so they have manufactured
this crisis, this demeaning and divisive debate, trying to reopen
Pandora's box that no one has opened except the Democrats.
This is crystal clear. We ought to take a moment to remember, too,
what did not happen after the Obergefell ruling that did happen after
the Dobbs ruling. Did anybody harass Justice Kennedy at his home after
Obergefell was handed down? No. Did conservatives--those who adhere to
the Judeo-Christian heritage of the country, Evangelicals, and
Catholics--did anybody vandalize businesses to promote their own
viewpoints? Absolutely not. Did Republicans call to abolish the
filibuster and add Justices to the Court? No, because we respect the
institutions of this Nation.
But that is exactly what we are seeing from the left: a death threat
on a Justice, endless protests outside the homes of the Justices,
threats on their children, and threats to pack the Court.
Mr. Speaker, we live in an extraordinarily divided time, and
reopening this policy, which is under no threat of any legislative or
judicial body anywhere, seems more like an attempt by Democrats to
stoke fear before the November elections rather than bringing the
country together.
Mr. Speaker, we could use an effort to bring the country together
right now. To that end, since the Democrats refuse to discuss what
Americans are most concerned with, I will take just a moment, since we
have the moment here, to walk through the failures of the Democrat
policies. It is a quick summary. I won't take long on it.
I have been doing townhalls back in my State of Louisiana, and I can
tell you what the people are concerned about, Mr. Speaker.
They are concerned about soaring prices in the grocery store, at the
gas pump, and their mortgages.
They are concerned about uninhibited illegal immigration at the
border and the utter lawlessness that threatens the very sovereignty,
safety, and security of our country.
They are deeply concerned about rising crime in our cities.
They are concerned about the stunning incompetence at the most basic
functions of government from the Biden administration.
These are what I am hearing back home as I travel the district
holding townhalls and talking to constituents. Those constituents sent
us here--the voters, the people--to be their Representatives and to
work on their behalf, to work on behalf of them and their ability to
provide for their families with little government overreach into their
lives.
From economic failures at home to failures on the border, the
Democrats have time and time again refused to work with Republicans on
how to address the issues at hand. Today is just another example. It is
just more of the same. Here we go, from one vote on an unnecessary bill
that is only being used as a distraction from those failures that I
referenced to a vote on a spending bill that will only make those
failures worse.
I mentioned that part of the problem here, too, is the Democrats are
rushing this bill to the floor outside regular order. They just
completely defied regular order. They released the text for this bill
only hours before its consideration in the Rules Committee last night.
Democrats have held no legislative hearing and no markups on this bill.
We serve on the Judiciary Committee. This would have been within our
jurisdiction. They didn't bother to bring it to a committee.
I remember from civics class that they taught us that this is how a
bill becomes a law: You go through the process; you go to the
committee. We shouldn't even teach that to kids anymore because it
doesn't happen here anymore.
But that recklessness, that carelessness, and that defiance of the
rules, order, and tradition here have real consequences because one of
the consequences in the language of this bill, just one by way of
example, is on page 3 of this private right of action clause. It raised
a lot of eyebrows. We didn't have time to analyze that, debate it, and
thoughtfully talk about that approach. Would that declare open season
on religious persons and institutions? I don't know. It is a question a
lot of people are asking today, scratching their heads, but, again, we
had no opportunity to delve into that, to talk about it, and debate it.
Nothing. So, they present this bill, and they drop it on the country.
Again, I just would reiterate, in summary, people back home ask us,
there
[[Page H6723]]
are lots of problems with things that are going on there, but this
particular bill, what is the problem?
I just summarized it by saying that it is unnecessary, divisive, and
misleading. What is worse is that the proponents of the legislation
know that.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
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.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this bill, and I think
everybody should be in support of it.
It simply says that each State will recognize the other States'
marriages and not deny a person the right to marry based on race,
gender, or sexual orientation. It urges the Federal Government to do
the same thing.
As far as what the Supreme Court said, that we should listen to this
and listen to that, the Senate listened to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh when
they said that Roe v. Wade is precedent. Do you want to listen to them?
Alito, when he was confirmed, said that Roe v. Wade is important
precedent. Do you want to listen to him?
Listen to Thomas, who told you that we need to look at these cases,
and we need to reconsider them. That is gay marriage. He didn't mention
interracial, but it is on the same theory. Of course, he is involved in
an interracial marriage. He wouldn't be married to justice Ginni but
for the Loving decision. He mentioned the other case of Lawrence.
We need to be concerned. This bill is an American bill. Everybody
should be for it. The only reason to be against it is because you
really don't want to go on record of being in favor of those rights
that have been extended to Americans and that are potentially in
jeopardy.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Roy), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle paint with
a broad brush stroke the language offered by Justice Clarence Thomas, a
Justice whom I consider to be a friend, a great defender of the
Constitution, and a great member of the United States Supreme Court
despite being pilloried by the left and laid out as something other
than the great patriot that he is.
In his concurrence, Justice Thomas wrote: ``After overruling these
demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether
other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our
substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could
consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court's
substantive due process cases are `privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States' protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.''
Now, we could have a robust debate in the Judiciary Committee about
this whole issue. We didn't do that. This bill was dropped on the body
yesterday afternoon, an hour and a half before Rules. I went and
testified before Rules, but we had no benefit of a debate in Judiciary
Committee to have a deep discussion about this issue, about the
constitutional implications. Nor did we have the ability to debate the
reality that the words that this codifies Obergefell and Loving are
simply false. It does no such thing.
I do think in this case, as the chairman pointed out, that it is a
full faith and credit recognition issue, but a lot of the rhetoric
coming from the left is that this somehow codifies those two opinions.
It does not.
It does not do that because those opinions recognized rights under
various legal theories, one of which is substantive due process, which
Justice Thomas is pointing out he has concerns with because Justice
Thomas has concerns with how we make law and how we recognize law. He
has concerns about that, the how. It matters, and that is what Justice
Thomas laid out. He never said anything about his conclusion on those
specific questions but rather the how.
As my colleague from Ohio and my colleague from Louisiana both
adequately laid out, the majority opinion lays out very specifically
their view about the implication of the Dobbs opinion on these other
recognized rights under the previous precedent of the Court. But I
think it merits noting that while we are here talking about the
substance of the issue that it does matter when the Court steps in and
makes law because we end up where we are right here. We end up in a
situation with difficult decisions.
For example, when does life begin? When does it begin? When do we
have a duty to protect that life?
We could have a very robust debate here in this body if we ever
actually debated on the floor of the people's House, but we don't.
{time} 1245
When does life begin? It is a complicated question. My colleagues on
the other side of the aisle don't really want to have that discussion,
right?
Does life begin at birth?
Does life begin before birth?
You say, Well, it is up to the mother. Well, it is not up to the
mother a week after birth. We, society, protect that life, right?
So the debate is: Do you protect that life a week before birth? Do
you protect that life at conception? These are actually, difficult
complex questions involving faith, involving values, involving life.
But, no, no. We can't have a debate about that here and have a
reasoned debate because the Court plucked that out from the people, and
the Court manufactured an opinion to define when life begins and how we
should deal with it.
Now, we are talking about other issues, talking about marriage. We
have had opinions that deal with marriage.
Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to put forward
a bill that is clearly political in nature.
They don't want to talk about inflation. They don't want to talk
about wide-open borders. They don't want to talk about rampant crime.
They don't want to talk about the state of this country, in decline,
heading into a recession, where people are hurting across the country.
They don't want to talk about that.
So they bring forward a political bill. And then they want to take
different issues and policy choices, marriage, marriage based on race,
marriage based on sex, that this body didn't define; that State
legislatures did define in varying disagreeable terms across the
Nation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROY. The court steps in in 2015 and now, we are 7 years into
recognition of same-sex marriage. And we can have a debate about the
policy of that decision, but the Court steps in and says, there you go.
[[Page H6724]]
And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to purposely,
for political reasons, conflate lots of different issues.
And I think it is important that my colleagues on this side of the
aisle understand what we are doing here today; that we are going to
vote on the recognition of marriage, as a body, as representatives of
the people. Okay?
Separate from whatever decision a court may make, we are going to
make a decision here about the recognition of marriages across State
lines where there are differences of opinion still to this day about
how one defines marriage.
In the name of full faith and credit, you will go to the people of
Texas, by our elected Representatives, to my Republicans on this side
of the aisle, Republicans will be voting on this floor today on the
question of whether the Federal Government should tell Texas what
marriages they have to recognize, irrespective of what the Court has
said.
That is a vote; that is a choice; that is a decision. We should not
hide behind the use of the Equal Protection Clause with respect to
marriage not being impacted because of race, to then say that marriage
must be recognized for same-sex purposes by a vote by the body, by the
people.
It is a choice, and we should understand that today, and we should
understand what we are voting on since we never had the luxury or the
benefit or the responsibility of debating this in the Judiciary
Committee where we should have debated it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
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.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Garcia).
Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I think we
do understand what we are doing here today; and what we are doing is
supporting people's right to love and their equal protection under the
law, plain and simple.
Extreme, MAGA Republicans continue to weaponize our government
institutions, turning them against the people they are called to
protect.
The Respect for Marriage Act will make marriage equality the law of
the land.
During Pride Month, the extreme Texas GOP openly declared, openly
declared, at their convention their homophobia and bigotry as part of
their agenda. They are going as far as labelling same-sex couples as
having an abnormal lifestyle.
We will not allow this rightwing obsession to impose their personal
religious views on people's private lives to go any further.
To my colleagues across the aisle, and to the Texas GOP, marrying the
person you love is not abnormal. It is, frankly, none of your business.
Abnormal is your obsession with what other people do in their private
lives and in their homes.
``Love is love.'' ``Amor es amor.''
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The chairman of the full committee is right. This legislation would,
in fact, codify Obergefell. But what it would also do is reverse the
law in 35 States, where those States have said, marriage should be
what--you know--traditional marriage. In fact, in 30 of those 35
States, the people of those respective States went to the ballot and
voted for that.
So let's be clear. He is right. You can codify what the Court said in
that decision, but it would undo what the people in the respective
States, 35 States, either in 5 of those States through their elected
Representatives in the legislature, or in 30 of those States where the
people went to the voting booth and voted, it would undo that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court, in the Obergefell
decision, reversed the actions of the people in those 30 or 35 States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Escobar).
Ms. ESCOBAR. Mr. Speaker, once again, we have gotten a glimpse into
the dark future Republicans have in store for Americans unless we stop
them.
The Republican-controlled Supreme Court hasn't just stripped women of
the right to determine their own future by overturning Roe v. Wade, but
Justice Clarence Thomas has invited attacks on access to
contraceptives, private intimacy between adults, and marriage equality.
Last week, our House Democratic majority voted to codify Roe v. Wade,
and this week, the House Democratic majority is here to defend your
right to marry who you love. I rise in strong and urgent support of the
Respect for Marriage Act.
Republicans are intent on turning back the clock to create a group of
second-class citizens with limited rights. When they say they want to
send these issues back to the States, that is code for wanting to
ensure that State legislative bodies can eradicate civil rights
protections.
If you think your hard-earned rights are protected, think again,
because Republicans are coming for you. Democrats, however, are with
you.
To the American public, take note of our votes, and who is with you
and who is not.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am so honored to see you presiding over
this very important legislation. And I thank the gentleman for yielding
and for the leadership of bringing this important legislation to the
floor. Mr. Nadler has been in the lead on this for decades.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for the Respect for
Marriage Act, bipartisan and bicameral legislation to enshrine into law
a fundamental freedom, the right to marry whomever you choose.
As radical justices and rightwing politicians continue their assault
on our basic rights, Democrats believe that the government has no place
between you and the person you love.
Let us salute Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler for his persistent
leadership on this issue. It was 13 years ago, Chairman Nadler,
alongside then-Representative, now-Senator Tammy Baldwin, Senator
Dianne Feinstein, and others introduced a bill by the same name to
repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
Defense of marriage; proposed by somebody who had been married three
times. We don't know which marriage he was defending.
And today, we will finally achieve that long-held goal.
I really don't care how many times somebody is married. I care about
how they try to impose their hypocrisy on others.
Thank you also to the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus Chair
David Cicilline, and all of the members of the Caucus, for being
tireless voices in the fight for full equality.
Mr. Speaker, we are here because just 3 weeks ago, the Republican-
controlled Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ripping away a woman's
freedom over her most intimate health decisions.
These radical Justices took a wrecking ball to precedent of the court
and privacy in the Constitution and placed even more of our cherished
freedoms on the chopping block.
Don't take it from me. Indeed, as Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
declared in his concurrence, this is what he said. These are his words:
`` . . . in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's
substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and
Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is
`demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to `correct the error'
established by those precedents.''
In total defiance of the precedents of the Supreme Court; in total
defiance of what some of the candidates for Justice on the Supreme
Court testified
[[Page H6725]]
that they supported, precedent. And they voted against it. And now,
they want to go after other rights of privacy.
Make no mistake: While his legal reasoning is twisted and unsound, it
is crucial that we take Justice Thomas and the extremist movement
behind him at their word. This is what they intend to do.
Indeed, just yesterday, a Republican Senator declared that the
Obergefell decision was clearly wrong, plainly suggesting rightwing
interest in taking aim at marriage equality.
We must act now to defend same-sex and interracial marriages from
this bigotry and extremism.
In the wake of the Dobbs decision, with marriage rights now squarely
in Republican crosshairs, Democrats are ferociously fighting back.
With the landmark Respect for Marriage Act, we ensure that marriage
equality remains the law of the land, now and for generations to come.
Importantly, this legislation will repeal the unconstitutional and
discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act.
The Republicans knew that the Defense of Marriage Act was
unconstitutional when they passed it. You know how I know that? Because
shortly thereafter, they introduced a bill to overturn--to make sure
that the Defense of Marriage Act was not subjected to judicial review.
Some of them proclaimed at that time that Marbury v. Madison, which
established the principle of judicial review was wrongly decided, and
they wanted to rid the process of judicial review from the Defense of
Marriage Act, recognizing, admitting that they knew it cannot withstand
judicial review.
So while it was sent to--the Defense of Marriage--to the dustbin of
history with United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges, our
bill finally takes it off the books for good. That way, no future
administration or majority in Congress can wield this appalling policy
as a weapon against our LGBTQ loved ones.
This legislation also guarantees that no married couple can be denied
equal protection under Federal law. This is really very important--from
tax provisions to Social Security benefits, and more--even if the Court
were to erase marriage freedom, God forbid.
Finally, this legislation blocks States from denying recognition to
valid, out-of-state marriages, even if a State were to enact heinous
restrictions.
By passing the Respect for Marriage Act today, House Democrats, in a
bipartisan, bicameral--and I salute the Chairman for that announcement
that he made--take another step to defend freedom for the American
people.
{time} 1300
Last week, our proud pro-choice, pro-women Democratic majority passed
two major bills to restore and protect health freedom.
Our Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act will ensure
that the fundamental right to travel and obtain needed healthcare
remains in the hands of the American people, not in those of extreme
rightwing politicians which is the future House Republicans' desire.
Our Women's Health Protection Act will, once again, make the
protections of Roe v. Wade the law of the land.
Later this week, the House will pass the Right to Contraception Act
so that every couple may determine the size and timing of their
families as protected by Griswold v. Connecticut.
Not just couples; people. Contraception. Contraception. Can you
believe they are going after contraception? Well, believe it because
they have been going after contraception for decades in the Congress.
Now the Associate Justices have given us clear warning that this is
in their sights.
The contrast could not be clearer: While Democrats work to protect
and expand freedom in our country, Republicans seek to punish and
control our most intimate personal decisions.
Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous and unconscionable that today, a
radical Republican Party seeks to wind back the clock on decades of
hard-fought progress.
As we pass this landmark legislation today, we salute the generations
of activists and advocates, organizers and mobilizers, who fought
relentlessly to advance the all-American ideal of full equality for
all.
I say often that our inside maneuvering can just go so far. The
outside mobilization produces the best possible results.
Personally, it is with some emotion that I think about my close
friends, the iconic Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin of San Francisco. They
were an inspiration to so many of us in San Francisco, in California--
indeed, the country--teaching us that equality is not about tolerance.
It is about respect. It is about taking pride.
This bill makes crystal clear that every couple and their children--
imagine if you are the children of a marriage equality or an
interracial couple, and you see the Congress of the United States and
the Supreme Court of the United States making an assault on your
parents' marriage, how damaging that can be.
This bill makes crystal clear that every couple and their children
have the fundamental freedom to take pride in their marriage and have
their marriage respected under the law.
With that, I urge a strong--hopefully a strongly bipartisan vote for
the Respect of Marriage Act. I, again, salute the chairman for his
great work.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House just said,
``Republicans knew the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional
when they passed it.''
Did the 118 Democrats who voted for that legislation know the same
thing? Did the President of the United States, President Clinton, when
he signed it into law, did he know it was unconstitutional?
I mean, I have heard some ridiculous things said on the House floor
in my time here in the United States Congress, but that one--that one--
was right up there.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Johnson), my good friend.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
We have just been treated to a master class of misinformation. The
Speaker also just said, ``Can you believe they are going after
contraception?''
Give me a break. She knows that is not true. There is not a single
Republican even talking about that or any of these other categories of
the law. This is designed to divide the country. This bill is a
shameful effort at that.
Mr. Nadler, when we were talking about our concerns about the care
pregnancy centers being under assault, to make his case that pro-lifers
are violent, he referenced the terrible murder of Mr. Slepian, an
abortion provider, in 1998. That was a quarter century ago.
We are talking about the last 11 weeks. We have had 50 care pregnancy
centers vandalized, attacked with Molotov cocktails, spray-painted,
threats being made to Supreme Court Justices. There is no equivocation
here at all.
Mr. Cohen implied that the conservative Justices misled the Senate in
their confirmation hearings. We have got the receipts on that. It is
demonstrably untrue.
Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion in Dobbs, said
during his 2006 confirmation that Roe was `` . . . an important
precedent of the Supreme Court.''
``It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long
time.''
But he declined to call the ruling ``settled law.''
Justice Thomas, in 1991 in his hearings, he declined to comment on
his views on Roe at all. He said, ``I do not think that at this time
that I could maintain my impartiality as a member of the Judiciary and
comment on that specific case.''
Justice Gorsuch, 2017 confirmation hearings, he said Roe was `` . . .
a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in
1992 and in several other cases.''
``So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme
Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.''
However, he refused to signal how he would rule in future cases on
abortion.
Justice Kavanaugh, 2018 confirmation hearings, echoed Gorsuch by
saying that Roe was an ``important precedent,'' but he indicated during
his confirmation that he would be open to overturning ``settled law,''
including
[[Page H6726]]
Roe, citing a long list of past Supreme Court cases.
Justice Barrett, she was much more reserved on the Roe precedent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, in her confirmation hearings
in 2020, she said she was committed to obeying ``all the rules of stare
decisis,'' promising that ``if a question comes up before me about
whether Casey or any other case should be overruled, that I will follow
the law of stare decisis, applying it as the Court is articulating it,
applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by
later facts in law, just all the standard factors.'' ``I promise to do
that for any issue that comes up.''
She said that she had to remain neutral on it as an umpire, as they
all did.
The record is clear. The quotes are there. Anybody can Google this.
What they are presenting here on this floor is not true. It is
demonstrably untrue, and they are doing it for partisan purposes. Every
time they talk, they reaffirm our position on that.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the far-right 6-3
majority on the Supreme Court is on a rampage against basic freedoms
currently enjoyed by the American people.
In his concurring opinion in Dobbs, Justice Clarence Thomas gave us a
heads-up that the Court is next coming for the ability of same-sex
couples to get married.
I am one of only nine openly gay members of this body. For me, this
is personal. I still remember where I was on June 24, 2011, the day the
New York State legislature passed marriage equality.
I was living with my friends in New York City, but I was still
closeted, and I was so afraid, still, that someone might find out the
truth about my being gay.
So, instead, I closed the door to my room and cried tears of joy by
my lonesome. Finally, my home State of New York had recognized me as a
full human being, affirmed all of those scary, yet beautiful feelings
that I had bottled up inside for decades; wondering, hoping one day
that the world would change.
Four years later, the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell sent
this same message to millions of LGBTQ+ Americans. I remember being
struck then by the words of Justice Kennedy who authored the opinion.
``It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect
the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it
so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their
hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of
civilization's oldest institutions. They ask only for equal dignity in
the eyes of the law.''
Well, since Obergefell, nearly 300,000 same-sex couples have been
married. Imagine telling the next generation of Americans--my
generation--that we no longer have the right to marry who we love.
Congress can't allow that to happen.
I am proud to introduce along with my colleagues, including
Representative Nadler, the Respect for Marriage Act, which would codify
the right to marriage equality under Federal law, but we have to do
more than that. We have to expand the Supreme Court of the United
States to protect fundamental rights once and for all.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York, (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).
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.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Respect
for Marriage Act to enshrine the right to marry the person you love
under Federal law by repealing the discriminatory Defense of Marriage
Act.
In the wake of the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade, the
doors have been swung wide open for unelected judges to further strip
protections from the American people.
This crucial bill reaffirms our commitment to a promise of equality
for all, erasing further discrimination still on the books against
same-sex marriage, and protecting the constitutional right to marriage
equality, including interracial marriage. We will not allow the clock
to be rolled back even further.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative we pass the Respect for Marriage Act.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple bill--whether or not you
support current law on marriage in this country, which includes for the
LGBT and the interracial couples across the Nation.
My friend from Ohio said this bill is unnecessary. This bill is very
necessary because the extremist-packed Supreme Court recently took away
a half a century of law on Roe.
In that decision, Justice Clarence Thomas said they should revisit
marriage equality. We have people in this House and in the Senate, like
Senator Ted Cruz, who have said the exact same thing.
Here is what I want, I want to make sure that my husband, Phil, can
visit me in the hospital, should I have to go back again, like when I
had a triple bypass a few years ago.
I want to ensure my husband has my earned benefits for retirement and
Social Security. I want to make sure that my husband is taken care of
just like your spouses are taken care of.
If I was the entity on the other side of the aisle, I would be more
concerned when my own Member is accused of having cocaine-fueled orgies
than worrying about the morality of my marriage.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Allred).
Mr. ALLRED. Mr. Speaker, we hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.
With these words, our Founders summed up the entire theory of what
[[Page H6727]]
has become our constitutional Republic. But since the Supreme Court's
ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, we have seen inalienable rights, like
the right to choose how and who to form a family with, openly
questioned by Justices on the Supreme Court and rightwing politicians.
Mr. Speaker, love is love. It took us far too long to recognize the
right for same-sex couples to marry. Within 7 years since it was,
millions of Americans have come to expect that they, too, will be able
to fall in love and marry the person of their choosing.
What right could be more foundational? Their marriages, their family,
their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is worth
protecting, and that is why I will proudly vote for the Respect for
Marriage Act.
{time} 1315
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, before us is a bill, the Respect for
Marriage Act.
I woke up this morning, got ready to come over to the Capitol, and as
I often do, I glanced over to pictures of my family, and I glanced to a
picture of my 9-month-old grandson. I couldn't be happier about the
newest addition to our family. I couldn't be prouder of the two people
who brought him into the world, my daughter Corey and her wife Hedya.
When my daughter told me she wanted to get married, I told her what
every good parent should tell their children, that if this is the
person you want to spend the rest of your life with, I couldn't be
happier for you.
Shortly after that announcement of wanting to get married, my
daughter had some terrible news. Her fiancee just found out she had
breast cancer. With decisions facing them, they decided to get married
right away.
Given all the complications that come with managing treatment, the
decision to get married quickly was incredibly important. As I stood at
their wedding, in a U.S. court, with a Federal judge presiding over
their union, I knew it was only made possible because of a recent
Supreme Court decision.
Today, we consider that legislation. That same Court has opened the
door to dismantling families like mine, splitting this little guy's
family apart potentially. We can't let that happen.
We are talking about marriage, two committed people, to make sure
they have a secure family, and all we have to do is vote ``yes.'' Don't
complicate the issue. It is that simple.
I don't speak about the religious beliefs of my colleagues, but I
have to ask: What God would find fault in this baby and his two
mommies? There is nothing wrong with this. This is pure love. It is
what we all should aspire to.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' so we are equal in
all States.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8404, the
Respect for Marriage Act.
Like many Americans, I was deeply disturbed by Justice Thomas'
opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, which actually named marriage equality as
the next piece of settled case law that he is intent on destroying.
Let's face it, marriage equality is at risk in America, and we must
pass legislation to enshrine the right to marry for same sex and
interracial couples before it is too late.
Early in my career, when I was a State representative, I supported
legislation to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. I
remember discussing this bill with my late father, who grew up during
the civil rights movement. He was no activist, but he firmly believed
that all Americans should be entitled to equal civil rights.
Just like the Jim Crow laws, which legalized discrimination, that
existed during his lifetime, he believed that our Nation's
discriminatory treatment of LGBTQ Americans would mark a shameful
chapter in our Nation's history.
When the Supreme Court legalized marriage equality, we turned a page
granting equal protection under the law for all Americans, no matter
who they love. But now I fear that future is no longer guaranteed.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this bill so that marriage equality remains the law of the
land.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset and the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy)
have said, we think this legislation is unnecessary.
Justice Alito was very clear--again, it has been read several times--
the Dobbs decision should not be misunderstood or mischaracterized to
cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.
The Court couldn't have been clearer. The Obergefell decision undid
what 35 States have as law in their respective States. Thirty of those
States it was the vote of the people, as I said before. But this
legislation is going to, I guess, just go after the decision of the
respective States, and, as I said, the voters in those States.
I think it is also, as we have indicated, a further effort to
intimidate the Court. We have had Senator Schumer's statements on the
Supreme Court steps, we have had the AG's inaction with regard to
protestors at Justices' homes, and, of course, we have had the
Democrats' introduction of a bill to add four Associate Justices to the
Supreme Court to pack the Court, and not focus on some of the things
that are so pressing.
I mean, Mr. Johnson was right when he talked about 50 attacks on
churches and pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in 11 weeks. That last
clause is important. In that short a time frame, that sustained effort
by the left to go after the pro-life community and places of worship is
as wrong as it gets. I would love to have a hearing on that issue and
what actions we might be able to take to help stop that because that is
not supposed to happen in our great country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the legislation, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
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,
[[Page H6728]]
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.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v.
Jackson demonstrated not only the extremist majority of justices'
disregard for constitutional precedent; it also showed their disregard
for the individual liberties of the American people. As if depriving
women of their constitutional right to reproductive health care weren't
enough, Justice Thomas' concurring opinion specifically opened the door
to the overturning of United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v.
Hodges--and implicitly we can read this to mean Loving v. Virginia as
well. These cases established constitutional protections for same-sex
and interracial marriage in America.
Today, 1.1 million Americans arc in same-sex marriages. Almost ten
times as many are in interracial marriages. One of the very first votes
I took as a young state senator in Maryland after my first election to
public office was to repeal our state's vile and racist anti-
miscegenation law. That was in 1967, five years after the Supreme
Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia. Fifty-five years have now
passed since that ruling. It has been nine and seven years,
respectively, since the Windsor and Obergefell rulings. Americans have
become used to knowing that they have a constitutional right to equal
marriage. Indeed, American women had gotten used to the security of
knowing that they had a constitutional right to reproductive choice for
forty-nine years until last month.
Just as was the case with the immediate aftermath of the Dobbs
ruling, at least thirty-five states already have laws or amendments in
their state constitution that would outlaw same-sex marriage if
Obergefell were overturned. We must do everything in our power to
ensure that Republican-controlled state legislatures don't have the
opportunity to restrict the rights of LGBTQ or interracial couples in
America. Neither government officials nor Supreme Court justices should
be able to decide that consenting American adults cannot marry. That's
why I'm bringing the Respect for Marriage Act to the Floor today to
codify the marriage equality precedents set by Loving, Windsor, and
Obergefell into federal statute.
I want to thank Chairman Nadler, Rep. Cicilline, all the Co-Chairs of
the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, Chairwoman Beatty, Chairman Ruiz,
Chairwoman Chu, and Democratic Caucus Chairman Jeffries for taking the
lead on this crucial legislation.
We cannot afford to underestimate the risk to marriage equality. We
cannot afford to be complacent and take for granted the rights we have
under the constitution as Americans. The millions of same-sex and
interracial couples throughout the United States should not have to
live with the fear that extremist Supreme Court justices--who act as
though they are legislators--could end legal recognition for their
families or prevent millions of others from being able to build
families with equal legal status. They deserve the assurance that their
marriages will always be recognized in every city, county, and state
across the country. That is the overwhelming consensus of the American
people, and it is the clear view of our constitution.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting `yes' on this legislation
to protect and respect marriages across our country.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the
Respect for Marriage Act of 2022. Thank you to Judiciary Chair Jerrold
Nadler for introducing H.R. 8404, LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus Chair David
Cicilline, and Tri-Caucus Chairs for your leadership to fight for equal
rights for all communities.
Everyone should have the equal right to marry whomever they love--
whatever their identity, race or ethnicity.
While the Supreme Court ruled the discriminatory Defense of Marriage
Act unconstitutional, in the wake of the Court's decision to overturn
Roe, we cannot rely on the Court alone to protect our rights. First,
they attacked our reproductive rights, but next, they'll attack our
right to marriage. What's next?
It is unconscionable that any person should face a situation where
their marriage is threatened or rendered invalid because of the
dangerous whims of the few who want to take this country backwards.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the entire House to support this bill, protect
our right to marriage, and defend our people from the senseless assault
on our liberties.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1232, the
previous question is ordered on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
July 19, 2022, on page H6728, in the second column, the
following appeared: The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section
3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this
question are postponed.
The online version has been corrected to read: The yeas and nays
were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of
rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed.
========================= END NOTE =========================
____________________