[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       Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed.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 ========================= 




                          ____________________