[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 191 (Thursday, December 8, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8827-H8838]
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 1510, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 8404) to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure 
respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes, with 
the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate 
amendment.
  Senate amendment:

        Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Respect for Marriage Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) No union is more profound than marriage, for it 
     embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, 
     sacrifice, and family.
       (2) Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage 
     are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and 
     honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, 
     Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs 
     are due proper respect.
       (3) Millions of people, including interracial and same-sex 
     couples, have entered into marriages and have enjoyed the 
     rights and privileges associated with marriage. Couples 
     joining in marriage deserve to have the dignity, stability, 
     and ongoing protection that marriage affords to families and 
     children.

     SEC. 3. 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       Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed.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. 4. 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. 5. 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 
     between 2 individuals and 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 between 2 
     individuals and 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. 6. NO IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND CONSCIENCE.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made 
     by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a 
     religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise 
     available to an individual or organization under the 
     Constitution of the United States or Federal law.
       (b) Goods or Services.--Consistent with the First Amendment 
     to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, 
     including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, 
     nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and 
     ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based 
     social agencies, religious educational institutions, and 
     nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, 
     practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of 
     such an organization, shall not be required to provide 
     services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or 
     privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a 
     marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such 
     services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or 
     privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of 
     action.

     SEC. 7. STATUTORY PROHIBITION.

       (a) No Impact on Status and Benefits Not Arising From a 
     Marriage.--Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this 
     Act, shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status, 
     or right of an otherwise eligible entity or person which does 
     not arise from a marriage, including tax-exempt status, tax 
     treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, 
     agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, 
     certification, accreditation, claim, or defense.
       (b) No Federal Recognition of Polygamous Marriages.--
     Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall 
     be construed to require or authorize Federal recognition of 
     marriages between more than 2 individuals.

     SEC. 8. 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.

                            Motion to Concur

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
  The text of the motion is as follows:

       Mr. Nadler of New York moves that the House concur in the 
     Senate amendment to H.R. 8404.

[[Page H8828]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1510, the 
motion shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  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 in which 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, I rise in strong support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 
8404, the Respect for Marriage Act. I first introduced a version of 
this legislation in 2009, and I am very proud that after a long journey 
it will soon be headed to the President's desk and marriage equality 
will be enshrined in law.
  The House took an important step in July when it passed the bill with 
the support of 47 Republican Members. Now that the Senate has passed an 
amended version, also with bipartisan support, it is up to us to finish 
the job.
  I find it deeply poignant that as we prepare to bring the 117th 
Congress to a close, we are on the cusp of a great bipartisan moral 
victory in defense of a fundamental right of all Americans, a victory 
that will provide stability and reassurance to the millions of LGBTQ 
and interracial families that have come to rely on the constitutional 
right to marry.
  The Respect for Marriage Act does three things: First, it repeals the 
so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which blatantly discriminates 
against same-sex couples, and which still officially remains on the 
books.
  Second, it enshrines marriage equality for Federal law purposes, 
requiring the Federal Government to consider a person to be married if 
the marriage is valid in the State where it was performed.
  Finally, it prohibits anyone acting under color of State law from 
denying full legal effect to a valid out-of-state marriage based on the 
sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the two individuals in the 
marriage.
  The Senate amendment does not change any of these substantive 
provisions. Rather, it adds language that explicitly affirms that 
existing constitutional and other legal protections for religious 
liberty remain in effect. The Senate amendment does not create any new 
substantive legal rights, but rather, it clarifies that the bill does 
not affect the existing legal rights or benefits of religious persons 
or entities. It also explicitly clarifies that the bill does not 
require or authorize the Federal Government to recognize polygamous 
marriages.
  It is because of this compromise--the result of the hard work of 
Senators Tammy Baldwin and Susan Collins--that the amended bill passed 
the Senate by a vote of 61-36 with 12 Republican Senators voting in 
support.
  While marriage equality remains constitutionally protected today, we 
have learned in recent months that rights once thought to be 
fundamental and forever secure can, in fact, be taken away. Indeed, in 
the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health 
Organization--a decision overturning nearly 50 years of precedent 
recognizing a constitutional right to abortion--Justice Clarence Thomas 
went out of his way to write a separate concurrence calling on the 
Court to reconsider all of its substantive due process decisions, 
including Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision recognizing a right to 
marriage equality.
  In light of this concurrence, even if one accepts the Dobbs 
majority's assurances that the constitutional right to marriage 
equality is settled law, Congress must use this opportunity to provide 
additional reassurance to the many American families who have come to 
rely on this guarantee. After all, we were told that the right to 
abortion was settled law.
  The Respect for Marriage Act cements respect for married couples, 
which all Americans--including those in this Congress--should support 
and value.
  I thank the co-chairs of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, the chairs of 
the Congressional Tri-Caucus, and incoming House Democratic leader 
Hakeem Jeffries for joining me in introducing this legislation. I also 
thank my chief of staff, Amy Rutkin, who helped to do so much to guide 
this legislation through the House.
  I urge all Members to support this Senate amendment to H.R. 8404, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats want Americans to believe that the Supreme 
Court at any moment--in fact, the chairman just referenced this--at any 
moment could step in and overturn its opinions in Obergefell and 
Loving. It is just not true. The Supreme Court is not poised to 
overturn its opinions in either of those decisions.
  Just look at what the Court has said. The Dobbs opinion does not 
undermine other substantive due process rights in any way. Just in case 
anyone is not clear on the meaning of does not undermine them in any 
way, the Court later reiterated that the Dobbs decision should not be 
misunderstood or mischaracterized `` . . . to cast doubt on precedents 
that do not concern abortion.''
  The Court condemned the alarmist idea that the Dobbs decision would 
lead to the overturning of other cases as ``perhaps . . . designed to 
stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights 
. . . ''
  It is that unfounded fear that brings us here today.
  Democrats have conjured up this nonexistent threat based on one line 
in Justice Thomas' concurrence in Dobbs, and they are misunderstanding 
or deliberately misrepresenting what Justice Thomas wrote.
  Justice Thomas made the same point that he has made for years: that 
the collection of rights secured by the doctrine of substantive due 
process is better understood as being a function of the Constitution's 
privileges and immunities clause. That is it.

  From his statement that a body of law should flow from one place in 
the Constitution instead of another comes the hyperbolic arguments that 
we have heard about the necessity of this bill.
  After the House last considered this bill in July, the Senate was 
forced to make significant changes to the bill. Unfortunately, those 
changes do not go far enough in protecting religious liberty.
  For example, the Senate amendment does not protect a private entity 
that is determined to be a State actor as a result of the services they 
provide on behalf of a government. These entities could be adoption 
agencies, shelters, or other service providers operated by a religious 
organization under contract with a city or State.
  Across the country, people of faith serve their neighbors and their 
communities through these charitable efforts, but this bill could force 
them to abandon their faith or abandon the service. That is an 
unacceptable outcome in the United States.
  For years, the Democrats have been playing a dangerous game with the 
Court. They want Americans to believe that the Court lacks transparency 
and struggles with its ethics. That is simply not true.
  This bill is simply the latest installment of the Democrat's campaign 
to intimidate the highest court in our land. They have engaged in a 
smear campaign against sitting Justices and nominees. Democrats have 
stood on the steps of the Court and threatened Justices by name for not 
ruling the way they want in high-profile cases. Democrat members of the 
Judiciary Committee, including the chairman, have introduced a bill to 
pack the Court; to add four Justices to our highest court--not one, not 
two, not three, but four, because they simply want to take it over.
  Democrats have held hearings to showcase fringe legal and conspiracy 
theories about the Court and its rulings.
  In fact, later today, the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to 
again suggest that the Court has somehow been compromised based on a 
totally unsubstantiated allegation that Justice Alito leaked 
information 8 years

[[Page H8829]]

ago about an opinion in the Hobby Lobby case.
  There is just one problem: Justice Alito denies this allegation. The 
individual who allegedly was the conduit for the leak denies it ever 
happened. Even the media admits there are holes in the story.
  Politico said this:

       We spent several months attempting to corroborate the 
     allegation but was unable to locate anyone who heard about 
     the decision directly from Alito or his wife before the 
     release of the case.

  The New York Times reported that there are ``gaps'' in the 
allegation. The New York Times is the one who broke the story. They 
reported there are gaps in this allegation about a leak from Justice 
Alito 8 years ago. Gaps in an allegation.
  Do you know what that is? That is liberal-speak for that story 
doesn't add up. But the Democrats are determined to not let the truth 
get in the way of their story and their intimidation tactics on the 
Court.
  This is not the way we are supposed to operate. I hope that we can 
vote this bill down. I hope it does not pass because I think it is 
dangerous and takes the country in the wrong direction.
  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).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, today we will vote for equality and 
against discrimination by finally overturning the exclusionary, 
homophobic Defense of Marriage Act and guaranteeing crucial protections 
for same-sex and interracial marriages.
  By passing the Respect for Marriage Act, we will ensure that all 
Americans continue to be afforded the same rights by the government--no 
matter what the Supreme Court may decide in the future.
  As we take this vote, we can take pride in the progress that we have 
made but also must acknowledge the work that lies ahead.
  The idea of marriage equality used to be a farfetched idea; now it is 
the law of the land and supported by the vast majority of Americans. 
Marriage bans used to be a partisan tool. Now, the Respect for Marriage 
Act has received strong bipartisan votes in both Chambers.
  Protecting marriage equality is now a bipartisan idea that I hope all 
my colleagues will embrace. I urge all those here today who previously 
voted against this bill to reconsider, be part of history, and join us 
in voting for its passage today.
  Today's vote is a monumental win in the fight for LGBTQ+ equality, 
but the work does not stop here. We remain the only minority group in 
America where in a majority of States it is still legal to discriminate 
against us in several key areas of life.
  We must continue to work for full equality for the LGBTQ+ community, 
including by enacting additional protections at the State level and 
finally passing the Equality Act to ensure explicit Federal protections 
against anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination.
  I want to end by thanking Chairman Nadler for his extraordinary 
leadership. He has been a champion of this bill for more than 13 years. 
I was proud to join him and others in introducing the Respect for 
Marriage Act again this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' vote for equality, 
and vote to be certain that we live in a country where all Americans 
have equal access to the important institution of marriage.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the great State of Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to adamantly oppose H.R. 
8404, the disrespect for marriage act. This unnecessary and misguided 
legislation not only disrespects the importance of traditional marriage 
for the health of a family, but also disrespects people and 
organizations of faith who have the constitutional right to carry out 
their mission in accordance with their most deeply held beliefs.
  With a crisis at the border, inflation skyrocketing, and a Federal 
budget that is nowhere to be seen just a week before Christmas, 
Democrats have made it abundantly clear that this disrespectful policy 
is their priority.
  Let's be clear: Obergefell is not in danger, but people and 
institutions of faith are.
  This bill only serves to further demonize biblical values by 
establishing a private right of action against organizations who 
believe in natural marriage, opening the floodgates for predatory 
lawsuits against people of faith. The bill's only purpose is to hand 
the Federal Government a legal bludgeoning tool to drive people of 
faith out of the public square and to silence anyone who dissents.
  Sadly, the Senate rejected three amendments that would have 
eliminated the private right of action and prevented the government 
from infringing on the freedom of religion.
  Instead, a flimsy amendment that includes vague language unlikely to 
protect anyone was included.
  Unfortunately, and likely intentionally, this hollow amendment 
provides no tangible protections for religious schools, no protections 
for faith-based adoption and foster care agencies, no protections for 
Christian businesses who contract with the government, and no 
protections for civil servants who justly believe marriage is between 
one man and one woman.
  The bill's implications: submit to our ideology or be silenced.
  This is yet another step toward the Democrats' goal of dismantling 
the traditional family, silencing voices of faith, and permanently 
undoing our country's God-woven foundation. This is the Democrats' 
priority.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell you my priority: Protect religious liberty, 
protect people of faith, and protect Americans who believe in the true 
meaning of marriage.
  I hope and pray that my colleagues will find the courage to join me 
in opposing this misguided and dangerous bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Allred).
  Mr. ALLRED. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say that we received 
amazing news this morning. Brittney Griner is coming home.
  This is a huge relief for her, her wife, Cherelle, and her family 
after months of uncertainty in Russia's sham justice system. I thank 
President Biden, Secretary Blinken, and all at the State Department who 
made this happen.
  Today, in a strong symbol of the stark differences in the freedoms 
between our two Nations, the U.S. Congress will vote in a bipartisan 
way to pass the Respect for Marriage Act enshrining marriage equality 
into Federal law and protecting marriages just like Brittney's.
  I am proud to vote today to say that love is love no matter who you 
are or where you live and no matter what any future extreme or out-of-
touch Supreme Court may say.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' 
and standing up for freedom.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the great State of Virginia (Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition 
to the so-called Respect for Marriage Act. Honestly, this bill should 
be called the disrespect for marriage act.
  This bill certainly disrespects God's definition of marriage, a 
definition that has served His creation well for more than 5,000 years 
of recorded history. And His definition is the only one that really 
matters.
  This bill would codify into Federal law the Supreme Court's wrongly 
decided Obergefell decision and ensure that the marriage laws in the 
most liberal State--irrespective of how more radical they might become 
in the future, think polygamy, bestiality, child marriage, or 
whatever--must be legally recognized in all States.
  It was wrong when the Supreme Court made law in the Obergefell 
decision requiring that the marriage law in Massachusetts had to become 
the law of the whole country when Massachusetts approved gay marriage.
  This was overriding the will of the people and their elected 
Representatives as no other State to that point had been able to pass 
through referendum or State legislature a gay marriage law.
  The fact is that traditional, biblical marriage is the foundation of 
a strong society and a strong culture.

[[Page H8830]]

  I will say it once again: almost everything that plagues our society 
is a failure to follow God's design for marriage, morality, and the 
family. The perfect, omniscient, and immutable God knows what He is 
doing.
  But this legislation repeals the correct definition of marriage in 
Federal code and requires the Federal Government to recognize any 
marriage if the marriage was valid in the State where it was performed.
  Perhaps even worse, this bill eliminates all religious freedom 
protections for churches or other faith-based organizations and 
requires everyone to participate in and recognize gay marriage.
  It empowers the IRS with their newly hired 87,000 agents who 
apparently need something to do to go after the religious institutions 
that simply seek to operate according to their beliefs. In fact, the 
bill does nothing to prevent the IRS from attacking and harming the 
religious organizations that have made an incredible impact in our 
communities across our Nation.
  It is simply designed to undermine marriage as a union between one 
man and one woman. God's perfect design is, indeed, marriage between 
one man and one woman for life, and it doesn't matter what you think or 
what I think. That is what the Bible says.
  This proposal is yet another Democrat attempt to undermine the 
fundamental values which formed our Nation and continue to hold our 
country together: recognition of the institution of marriage as between 
one man and one woman and respect for the freedom to operate according 
to your sincerely held religious beliefs.
  The legislation we are considering today is a sobering indication of 
the erosion of the moral values that made this Nation great.
  As President Reagan once said: ``America is great because America is 
good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be 
great.''
  All great nations in societies fall from within. With Democrats 
threatening all sense of values and decency and family today by 
sexualizing kids in school, redefining sex and gender, and trans-
surgery and mutilation of minors, it makes no sense for any Republican 
to support their efforts to codify their views on marriage.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues in this body to join me in 
strongly opposing this bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, it is never too late to do the right thing. 
Thanks to bipartisan work in the Senate, the Respect for Marriage Act 
comes back to the House with added language that should allay anyone's 
fears or misunderstandings, yet still ensure we can legally recognize 
marriage as it is currently recognized in this country.
  It would be wrong to say that my husband, Phil, and I have a marriage 
that is any different from anyone else's marriage here in this body. My 
workplace health insurance should extend to my husband just like yours 
extends to your spouse. I should be able to visit my husband in the 
hospital, if need be, just like you can visit your spouse. My earned 
benefits for retirement, Social Security, our property rights, our 
benefits through our taxes, and so much more should be no different, 
regardless of if your spouse is named Samuel or Samantha.
  That is what we will do today. With the revised Respect for Marriage 
Act, denying legal recognition to any legally married couple would be 
so far out of the mainstream that it would actually be discrimination. 
I am sure no one here would intend to discriminate against me and my 
spouse, as I would never against you and yours.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone's support for this bill.
  Mr. JORDAN. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Respect for 
Marriage Act. Over my time in Congress as the first openly gay Member 
of color elected in history, the fight for LGBTQ equality has remained 
a critical and personal focus of mine. Last week, the Senate took long-
overdue action to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and when my 
colleagues and I pass the Respect for Marriage Act in the House today, 
it will mean the world to me, my loved ones, and to millions of 
Americans.
  Nearly 10 years ago, at the start of my career in Congress, the 
Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that marriage equality is a 
fundamental protected right. We took to the streets in fervent 
celebration of this cornerstone victory for our community.
  This bill will pass today, but it is a reminder of the necessity of 
our vigilance in the fight for human rights and the need to hold the 
judicial branch accountable. We must rise to the challenge, and we will 
prevail.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to what I believe is 
the inappropriately named Respect for Marriage Act because if what my 
colleagues have just said were actually all that was here, it would be 
a different story to some degree. But that is not what we are talking 
about.
  The bill betrays our country's commitment to the fundamental right of 
religious liberty by depriving religious and faith-based organizations 
of their tax-exempt status and depriving individual people of faith of 
being able to carry out fully their faith without repercussions. 
Licenses and government contracts are also put at risk here with this 
legislation.
  As a result, religiously affiliated and faith-based organizations 
will be at risk of being compelled to make hiring decisions in 
contradiction to their tenets. And I am not just talking about 
Christian religions. We are talking about all that are impacted by 
this.
  It puts us at risk for Catholic Charities' ability to find foster and 
adoptive homes for children in need; or a gospel rescue mission's 
ability to serve the homeless; and it would likely be the end of the 
school choice initiatives that rely on religious schools--schools of 
faith--to serve at-risk children trapped in failing schools. 
Additionally, businessowners across the country who conduct their 
businesses based on their sincerely held faith, beliefs, and principles 
would be subject to lawsuits simply because they have a traditional 
view of marriage.
  Again, if all that my colleagues have just even recently said were 
the only thing about this legislation, it would be another story; but 
it isn't, it goes way beyond. A deep appreciation for and commitment 
to following science in the positive endeavor of continuing the human 
race is important.

  Mr. Speaker, I ask for opposition to this legislation and a more 
thoughtful approach.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig).
  Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Speaker, my wife, Cheryl, and I were married 14 years 
ago when one of the first States in our country allowed us to do so. It 
took years and a Supreme Court ruling to acknowledge and grant the 
legal protections that come with marriage across this great land. In 
the ensuing years, we raised our four sons, and we expanded our family 
of six to nine, adding two daughters-in-law and a grandson to that mix.
  I am standing here today because in the year 2022, families like mine 
are, once again, concerned that an activist, out-of-step Supreme Court 
is going to take those rights away. Just so we are clear, that Supreme 
Court and the Members in opposition of this legislation today are out 
of step with the American people.
  Today, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Respect for 
Marriage Act, a bill that takes the longstanding and overdue step of 
repealing DOMA and ensures that same-sex and interracial marriage is 
recognized in every State, no matter who is sitting on the Supreme 
Court.
  We have made progress. Mr. Speaker, let's not go back.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just first say, the previous speaker 
talked about being out of step with the American people.
  Are you kidding me?
  The Democrats are the party who think men can use women's restrooms; 
the Democrats are the party who think boys can participate in girls' 
sports; the Democrats are the party who think you can take the life of 
an unborn child

[[Page H8831]]

right up until their birthday; and the Democrats are the party who 
actually had a witness in committee who said that she thought men could 
get pregnant.
  And we are the ones who are out of step?
  You have got to be kidding me.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State 
of Florida (Mr. Mast).
  Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, what is our job here?
  We are going to take an oath in a couple of weeks here really 
outlining our job: supporting and defending the Constitution of the 
United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic.
  I took that oath as a member of the military; I have taken that oath 
numerous times as member of the U.S. House of Representatives. The U.S. 
House of Representatives, a bicameral body, 435 of us, are meant to do 
the work of protecting we the people of the United States of America 
who elect us, and I want to quote our colleague on the other side, Ms. 
Scanlon, who was talking about what we don't have time for here as our 
colleague, Chip Roy, was asking for amendments to ensure that we the 
people's religious freedom was not prohibited, that the free exercise 
thereof was not prohibited.

                              {time}  0945

  Adopting an amendment by our colleague, Chip Roy, she said, would 
unsettle the Senate. God forbid the work that we do here in the House 
of Representatives unsettles the work that is done in the Senate. Our 
job must be to just do their bidding of what they decide in the Senate 
and not represent as 1 of 435.
  But, no, that is not the real case. Our job is to represent our 
constituents, we the people, not to worry about whether we unsettle or 
don't unsettle the Senate.
  Let me give you another quote from our colleague about why we don't 
have the time to prohibit or to prevent prohibiting the free exercise 
thereof. She said that this Congress is coming to a close, and we don't 
have time to make changes to this legislation.
  We don't have the time? Wait a second. In the U.S. House of 
Representatives, our oath is to support and defend the Constitution of 
the United States of America. It is our singular job here, and we don't 
have the time to do it?
  That is what the majority is telling us: We don't have time to make 
changes to the bill, to ensure that the free exercise thereof, of our 
people's religions, is not infringed upon. They are saying we don't 
have time.
  What the hell are we doing here if we don't have the time to do it? 
What the hell are we doing?
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, why are we here this morning? We are 
here because dignity should be part of life in America. We are here 
because the Founding Fathers, imperfect as they were, said we are here 
to create a more perfect union.
  We are specifically here because a Justice on the United States 
Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, appallingly stated that other 
cherished, fundamental rights should be subject to abrogation, writing: 
``In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive 
due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.''
  It is shameful that we would have to be here today, but I proudly 
stand with my community, those who understand and recognize that it is 
crucial for the Respect for Marriage Act to pass so that respect can go 
for the loving relationships, the families, the daughters, the sons, 
the aunts and uncles, and all the husbands and wives that come as 
family.
  Let me be very clear: I am the only Member in the Texas delegation 
that voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. I voted against it.
  DOMA was wrong then, it is wrong now, and I continuously stand with 
all of you to pass H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in strong support for H.R. 8404, the 
``Respect for Marriage Act'' and the collaboration in the Senate last 
week that enabled it to pass the Senate and return to the House for 
today's vote.
  I am very concerned that the archaic dictum that the Supreme Court 
used in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization to justify 
overturning the well-established and reaffirmed right to abortion could 
be further weaponized in the future to strip away other fundamental 
rights, including the right to marriage equality.
  Specifically, in his concurring opinion to the Dobbs decision, 
Clarence Thomas appallingly stated that other cherished, fundamental 
rights should be subject to abrogation, writing, ``. . . in future 
cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process 
precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.''
  Thomas left no doubt about his regressive, byzantine intentions, 
adding, ``. . . we have a duty to `correct the error' established in 
those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. __x-8 __ 
(2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). 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.''
  To prevent Thomas's dream scenario from inflicting a nightmare on the 
rest of the country, the Respect for Marriage Act would codify in 
federal law our essential rights conferring marriage equality for same 
sex and interracial couples, protecting the rights of Americans to 
marry who they choose.
  It would also repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act 
(DOMA) of 1996 that problematically defined marriage as being between 
one man and one woman.
  I am always concerned when someone's rights are being infringed, 
which is why I wholeheartedly supported the version of this bill that 
passed the House earlier this year.
  Even with the Senate amendment, I still recognize the great strides 
that will be achieved with passage of this bill in its current form. 
The Senate's embrace of this legislation, with strong bipartisan 
support, demonstrates the bill's alignment with bedrock American values 
and its strong support among the American people, across political 
ideologies.
  After witnessing the Senate's passage of the Respect for Marriage 
Act, I am proud to say that we are on a path to guaranteeing marriage 
equality for every American.
  The Supreme Courts' rulings in Loving v. Virginia, and Obergefell v. 
Hodges were founded on the promise of unenumerated rights and due 
process for all American people as guaranteed in the 9th and 14th 
amendments of our nation's Constitution.
  The 9th Amendment states that the federal government does not retain 
final authority over rights not listed in the Constitution--which, in 
effect, includes the right to marry someone regardless of their sex or 
race. That very personal and intimate right is retained by the people.
  Additionally, the 14th Amendment ensures that no right afforded to 
the American people can be taken away without due process of law, while 
also guaranteeing to all Americans that they shall have equal 
protection under the law.
  The same law that applies to a Black man wishing to marry a Hispanic 
woman must be applied equally to an Indigenous woman wishing to marry a 
White woman, a nonbinary individual wishing to marry a man, and so on.
  That is the Constitutional promise in the United States.
  Marriage Equality is not a right that can be stripped away by a 
conservative faction of the United States Supreme Court, nor by 
extremist Republican legislators.
  It is a fundamental aspect of our democracy.
  The assurances of the 14th Amendment became part of our national 
governing documents as a protection against those who would use their 
power to wipe away the freedoms of others without restraint or consent 
of the governed.
  It is unfortunate that we must rely on its strength again today.
  We cannot and will not allow Republican lawmakers and conservative 
Justices to continue to toy with the rights of the American people.
  That is why I strongly support the Respect for Marriage Act and 
commend my friends in the Senate for garnering bipartisan support for 
this act.
  This Act would ensure that an individual be considered married as 
long as the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed.
  This ensures that same-sex and interracial couples would continue to 
enjoy equal treatment under federal law--as the Constitution requires.
  This bill would go further by officially repealing the Defense of 
Marriage Act.
  While the Supreme Court effectively rendered DOMA inert with its 
decision in Obergefell, this unconstitutional and discriminatory law 
still officially remains on the books.
  H.R. 8404 would repeal DOMA once and for all.
  The Respect for Marriage Act would also prohibit any person acting 
under color of state

[[Page H8832]]

law from denying full faith and credit to an out-of-state marriage 
based on the sex, race, ethnicity or national origin of those in the 
marriage.
  It would also authorize the U.S. Attorney General to enforce these 
protections and would allow recourse for any person harmed by a 
violation of this provision.
  We will not back down from demanding marriage equality.
  We will not back down from demanding racial justice.
  We will not back down from demanding equal rights for all of the 
American people.
  I strongly support H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act, and 
encourage my colleagues to pass this bill.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Chu).
  Ms. CHU. Madam Speaker, I rise today to give my strongest support for 
the Respect for Marriage Act.
  It is hard to believe that today, in 2022, we are still fighting to 
protect the right of all Americans to marry the person they love.
  The Supreme Court's actions this summer have shown us that we cannot 
take our rights for granted. No one should have to live in fear that a 
Supreme Court decision could invalidate their marriage in the blink of 
an eye.
  The Respect for Marriage Act enshrines the right to marry the person 
you love, regardless of gender, race, or identity, into Federal law.
  It finally repeals the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act from 
our lawbooks, and it reaffirms our commitment to a promise of equality 
for all by ensuring critical Federal and State protections for same-sex 
and interracial marriages.
  I have spent my career fighting for the rights of the LGBTQ+ 
community, both at the State and Federal levels, and so I am proud to 
stand on the House floor today in support of the Respect for Marriage 
Act.
  Sending this bill to the President's desk sends a powerful message 
that love is love, that family is family, and that this Congress stands 
together against hate and discrimination.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Garcia), a member of the committee.
  Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support people's 
right to love and their equal protection under the law. The Respect for 
Marriage Act will reaffirm marriage equality as the law of the land.
  All Americans, no matter who they are and who they love, deserve 
dignity and equal treatment under the law.
  Madam Speaker, back home in my State of Texas, people are literally 
scared. Entire families are considering fleeing Texas for fear of what 
the MAGA GOP will do to their partners and their loved ones.
  Earlier this year, the far-right Texas GOP declared homosexuality as 
an abnormal lifestyle choice in their official platform. Yes, they put 
it in their platform.
  Last month, Texas Republicans pre-filed 17 bills targeting the LGBTQ+ 
community for our next legislative session in Texas.
  To my LGBTQ constituents and neighbors back home, know that I am here 
for you. House Democrats will not waver in our fight for human dignity 
and equality under the law.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas).
  Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Respect for 
Marriage Act.
  Growing up in New Hampshire as a gay person, I wasn't sure if there 
would be a place for me or if I would be able to have a family of my 
own. I was lucky to be surrounded by people who embraced me for who I 
am and to live at a time when hearts, minds, and laws were changing for 
the better.
  Next year, I will marry the love of my life. It is unthinkable that 
if the Supreme Court heeds Justice Thomas' call that our marriage might 
be recognized in New Hampshire where we live but not across the 
country.
  That is the reality that many couples fear, one that will jeopardize 
their ability to visit a spouse in the hospital or access all the 
benefits that couples do, one that would strip millions of Americans of 
their rights and their dignity.
  That is a threat that we can't ignore. I hope my colleagues will heed 
the calls of their constituents and the call of history and cast a vote 
in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act to say that love is love and 
to respect people's individual freedoms in this country.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Crow).
  Mr. CROW. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8404, the 
Respect for Marriage Act, a bill to ensure critical protections for 
same-sex and interracial marriages.
  Madam Speaker, 19 days ago, Coloradans woke up to the news of yet 
another mass shooting impacting our community. This violence was the 
direct result of intolerance and discrimination. It was the direct 
result of efforts by some elected officials to seize on hate and 
villainize the LGBTQ+ community.
  Today, we have the opportunity to reject the ugly vitriol and stand 
with the LGBTQ+ community in Colorado and nationwide. Today, we have 
the opportunity to protect all Americans, regardless of how they 
identify or whom they love.
  The Respect for Marriage Act will uphold marriage equality under 
Federal law, repealing the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. This 
bill ensures that the Federal Government won't stand in the way of a 
person's right to marry whom they love.
  I thank Chairman Nadler for leading this effort and the Congressional 
Equality Caucus for their ongoing work to promote equality for all, 
regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
bill.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Torres).
  Mr. TORRES of New York. Madam Speaker, I dedicate my remarks to two 
civil rights icons, Edith and Judith Windsor.
  Today, we repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which degraded marriage 
under the pretense of defending it. Today, we put the equality of same-
sex love in its rightful place under the protection of Federal law.

  We will not leave it to the forces of hate and the relics of the past 
to be the final word on the fate of love.
  We, in the LGBTQ community, will be the arbiters of our own legal 
equality and the authors of our own marital destiny, our equal right to 
marry the people that we love in the country that we love with the 
pride that we love.
  Today, that right makes America a more perfect union.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in support 
of the Respect for Marriage Act.
  In all my decades of public service, I have never wavered in my 
support for the LGBTQ+ community. In 1990, I introduced the first 
legislation in New York State history to grant legal recognition to 
same-sex couples.
  When the Defense of Marriage Act was introduced in 1996, I was one of 
67 House Members to vote against it. I knew then what I know now: DOMA 
was a bigoted, discriminatory solution to a problem that never existed.
  It never made sense that I, or anyone in this body or in this 
country, could get in a cab and marry the cabdriver that same day or 
some stranger on the street, but a bold, brave New Yorker and a friend 
of mine named Edie Windsor could not have her marriage recognized.
  She sued. She won in court. Today, this law will codify her court 
case. I dedicate my remarks to her and thank her for her lifelong 
commitment to LGBTQ rights and equality.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to 
support this bill.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H8833]]

  

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the 
Respect for Marriage Act because every American deserves to have their 
union recognized and respected in law.
  Since the Obergefell and Loving decisions, millions of families rely 
on the constitutional guarantee that marriage equality affords. Yet, we 
just saw what happens when half our population relies on this High 
Court to protect our sacred rights.
  Recent far-right Court nominees broke their pledges to respect the 
precedent of Roe, and look at the legal chaos, unequal treatment, and 
financial and physical ruin they have unleashed.
  We can no more rely on their word than we can their apologists who 
say these legal extremists will uphold marriage equality.
  This bill ensures that by guaranteeing that same-sex and interracial 
couples have a legal right to build a life with someone who shares 
their love.
  I am honored to stand with the LGBTQ+ community to make this a more 
just, equal, and perfect union. Without these rights and this 
legislation, America can never truly aspire to that.
  Madam Speaker, I remind all of my colleagues that history is 
watching, and I urge them to vote ``yea'' on the Senate amendment.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).
  Mr. PETERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Respect for 
Marriage Act. Today, we celebrate equality, fairness, and love.
  Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell, all loving couples 
have had a right to marry across our country. However, if the Supreme 
Court won't protect Americans, especially in light of the repeal of 
Roe, we in Congress must do everything in our power to defend those 
freedoms.
  The Respect for Marriage Act ensures Federal marriage equality by 
guaranteeing the Federal rights, benefits, and obligations of 
marriages. Today's legislation provides certainty for those couples, 
and all future couples, that the Federal Government will continue to 
recognize their marriages, no matter where they live or who they are 
married to.
  I am proud to support this historic bill alongside members of both 
parties to protect the rights of San Diegans and Americans across the 
country.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
  Mr. NORCROSS. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of marriage 
equality.
  The bills we write and pass regularly affect millions of lives. 
Rarely is the legislation we vote on so personal as the bill we are 
voting on today, the Respect for Marriage Act.
  My daughter and her wife are two of the estimated 26 million 
Americans whose freedom to marry will be protected by this bill. Their 
son, my 1-year-old grandson, Reza, can now grow up without risk to his 
family. Love is a precious thing.
  Madam Speaker, I know my daughters will now know our Nation respects 
their marriage. You cannot legislate love, but you can give love the 
protection of our laws. I thank the gentleman and I urge my colleagues 
to vote for this.

                              {time} 1000

  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
  Ms. TLAIB. Madam Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with our LGBTQ+ 
community who have fought for equal dignity under the law for decades.
  For far too long our LGBTQ neighbors have been discriminated against 
simply for being who they are and loving who they love. Today, if that 
case is overturned, same-sex couples would not be allowed to marry in 
the State of Michigan.
  Every single American, no matter their faith, race, gender identity, 
or sexual orientation has the right to marry the person they love.
  I am proud to be here today in the people's House as Congress takes 
this historic vote to send this legislation to President Biden's desk.
  Today, we take one more step toward equality and justice for all. May 
we continue to build upon this progress by ensuring that all LGBTQ+ 
neighbors have what they need to thrive and be protected under law.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a member of the committee, and 
the soon-to-be Democratic leader.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I thank the chair for yielding and for 
his leadership.
  The founding document of this country, the Declaration of 
Independence, reads:

       We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are 
     created equally, entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit 
     of happiness.

  Those words were eloquent in their articulation and complete in their 
application.
  As the great Barbara Jordan once pointed out, initially they didn't 
apply to enslaved Africans or women, Native Americans, poor people of 
every race, and certainly it didn't apply to the LGBTQ+ community. But 
through a process of constitutional amendment ratification, court 
decision, and legislation, those words have increasingly been brought 
to life as we journey toward a more perfect union.
  That is the work that is being done today with the Respect for 
Marriage Act, particularly because of a radical, right-wing, reckless, 
and regressive Supreme Court majority that threatens freedom and 
marriage equality.
  Madam Speaker, that is why I urge my colleagues to support the 
Respect for Marriage Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Craig). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I support the Respect for Marriage Act, 
I respect freedom, liberty, and justice for all.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the committee.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong and joyful support of 
the Respect for Marriage Act.
  As the mother of an incredible trans daughter, I am here to fight for 
her rights and those of all LGBTQ+ people, who for too long have been 
denied the dignity and the respect that they deserve. And as someone 
who is myself in an interracial marriage, it is far past time that we 
codify those rights.
  An extremist Supreme Court and hateful State legislators want to roll 
back the hard-won progress that we have made. But we are here to say in 
a bipartisan way, we will not tolerate this, we will codify these 
rights once and for all.
  This is the beginning. I also call on the Senate to pass the Equality 
Act to ensure that LGBTQ+ people can enjoy the same rights as everyone 
else in the country.
  But today, Madam Speaker, let's get this bill done. Vote ``yes'' on 
codifying the right to marry the one you love. Vote ``yes'' on the 
Respect for Marriage Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I am going to miss this 1 minute, let me 
tell you that.
  This bill was passed with a very bipartisan vote in this House this 
past July. I rise in strong support of the Respect for Marriage Act, 
which this bill has been slightly amended and sent to us.
  Like many Americans across the country, I was sickened and deeply 
sorry by the violent attack on an

[[Page H8834]]

LGBTQ+ nightclub in Colorado Springs just a few weeks ago. It was a 
manifestation of hate, a manifestation of prejudice, a manifestation of 
bigotry, a manifestation of thinking one is better than the other, that 
somehow we are not all equal in the eyes of our Constitution and in the 
eyes of God.
  It was a somber reminder of how safe spaces still are not safe for so 
many. One of the Club Q survivors, a young man named Anthony, said that 
as he lay wounded on the floor his first thought--not surprisingly, 
which he believed may be his last thought--was of his husband of 14 
years, Jeremy.
  What the Justices said some years ago and what we have said in our 
legislation is that who you love is your choice. One of the first votes 
I cast in the Maryland State Senate in 1967 was the repeal of the 
miscegenation statute. The Supreme Court, that same year, had ruled 
that unconstitutional. That because a Black male wanted to marry a 
White woman or a White woman wanted to marry a Black male or an Asian 
or of some other ethnicity or race, that somehow we would interpose our 
own judgment denying that all people are created equal, endowed by 
their creator--not by us, not by the Constitution--by their creator 
with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness. Certainly, the pursuit of happiness means that 
you can love whom you chose.

  The love that Anthony felt for his husband in that moment reflected a 
basic emotional instinct that makes us all human.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today for the millions of people like Anthony 
and Jeremy who deserve to continue living proudly and happily and 
safely in same-sex and interracial marriages.
  In doing so, I stand for all Americans who cherish the liberty, 
equality, and justice promised to them under our Constitution.
  Last summer, the Supreme Court, largely the Republican faction of the 
Supreme Court--they will resent that phrase, I am sure--violated that 
sacred promise with their radical ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, breaking 
nearly 50 years of precedent, contrary to what some of those Justices 
said to the United States Senate their premise would be. They deprived 
women of their constitutional right to reproductive healthcare, to 
control their own bodies, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness.
  In the process, they also opened the door for future challenges to 
Obergefell v. Hodges, United States v. Windsor, and Loving v. Virginia, 
which dealt with you couldn't marry a person of another color.
  The Obergefell and Windsor precedents protecting same-sex marriage 
have stood for 7 and 9 years respectively, not the half a century that 
the others had, but the same proposition. It is not your business. I am 
shocked that conservatives who have a libertarian bent believe that 
somehow we ought to get involved in this.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this.
  I remember the most conservative member of the State Senate, in which 
I served for 12 years, got up in talking about a woman's right to 
choose, and said: It is not my business. It is not government's 
business. It is not the legislators' business. It is my business. It is 
her business.
  The Loving precedent protecting interracial marriage has stood for 55 
years. Justice Thomas perhaps would opine that it is not a right that 
is found in the Constitution.
  After the Supreme Court disregarded decades of precedent to overturn 
Roe v. Wade, we have no reason to expect it won't do the same to 
marriage equality. We believe that all men are created equal and all 
women, and men and women together.
  Americans have grown accustomed to knowing that they have a 
constitutional right to equal marriage. Those living in same-sex and 
interracial marriages should not have to live with the fear that their 
government could rescind legal recognition of their families at any 
moment. That is not America. That is not content of character, as 
Martin Luther King urged us to pursue--character.
  They must be able to live confidently, knowing that their marriages 
will be recognized wherever they go in America--no matter the city, 
county, or State.
  Our Democratic House majority knows that no State ought to be able to 
deny full faith and credit to legal marriage between consenting 
American adults, and a lot of Republicans agree with us.
  This is not a partisan issue. I hope it is not a partisan issue in 
this vote. It certainly was not a partisan issue when we passed it to 
the Senate. It was not a partisan vote in the United States Senate.
  We know the best way to protect that most basic right to marriage 
equality is to enshrine it in Federal statute. That is why we took 
swift action last summer to pass the Respect for Marriage Act through 
the House and why I am proud to bring it to the floor again today.
  Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler and the staff of the 
committee. I thank Representative Cicilline and all the co-chairs of 
the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus. This is not a caucus issue; this is a 
country issue. This is a constitutional issue. This is a fairness 
issue. This is justice for all.
  I thank Chairman Ruiz and the Democratic Caucus chairman, Mr. 
Jeffries, who has been very involved in this bill, and Chairwoman 
Beatty, they all have worked hard on this bill.
  Similarly, I appreciate the House Republicans who joined us in 
supporting this bill--a significant number of House Republicans. I 
would hope that all Republicans would do it on the theory that this is 
not our business, that people are free to make their own decisions, not 
the government making these decisions.
  I also thank the 62 Senators, including 12 Republicans that came 
together to advance this critical legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, all 
435 of us, to stand up and say this is a free country. It is a country 
that believes in equality for all. This is a country that the 
representatives of our Constitution, our Declaration, and of our laws 
would stand up united in saying: You are free to love who you choose. 
It is not our choice.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, what happened in Colorado, as the 
gentleman referenced, was wrong as wrong could be. We all understand 
that.
  But you know what else is wrong?
  The 100 churches and crisis pregnancy centers that were attacked in 
the aftermath of the Dobbs decision--actually, when the leak happened. 
Dozens and dozens of those attacks happened between the leak of the 
opinion and the opinion itself, all designed to intimidate the Supreme 
Court.
  And what did this body do while that was happening and Supreme Court 
Justices' homes were being--protests, harassed, all kinds of things 
said about their family, an assassination attempt on one of those 
justices, Justice Kavanaugh--what did this body do?

  They waited a month to pass legislation to give our highest court 
members the protection they needed. This body did that.
  There is no place for violence. But let's be clear: Let's condemn all 
of it. Let's do what we can to protect against it, and let's not stay 
on this concerted effort to intimidate the Court.
  By the way, Madam Speaker, we have yet to have a hearing on the leak 
of the Dobbs decision, but in 1 hour and 15 minutes we are going to 
have a hearing on the fake leak that was brought up about Justice Alito 
in the Hobby Lobby case.
  Why can't we get to the bottom of what happened earlier this year 
with the Dobbs decision that resulted in all that violence--over 100 
churches and crisis pregnancy centers attacked?
  I would like to have a hearing on that. I hope at some point the 
chairman will--we will look into doing that next year when we convene 
the new Congress.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I just want to make clear, the gentleman 
indicated that we did nothing. The Justices of the Supreme Court had 
full protection. The issue was the families and the families of 
Members, but it ought to be on the public record that

[[Page H8835]]

the Supreme Court Members were protected.
  Mr. JORDAN. Reclaiming my time, the fact is, the Senate passed the 
bill and you guys waited a month before we passed it on the House 
floor, and you know that is accurate.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, you represented 
that the Justices were unprotected. That is not accurate, sir.
  Mr. JORDAN. Justices' families; I will correct that. But you guys 
waited a month to do that when they were being threatened. That is my 
point.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have been listening to this debate on the Republican side and it is 
self-contradictory. On the one hand, don't worry about it. Obergefell 
is not threatened. It is the law of the land. The Supreme Court has 
decided it. There is no threat. You guys are exaggerating the threat to 
Obergefell.
  On the other hand, this bill is catastrophic. My God, it will change 
things.
  Well, how will it change things if Obergefell is going to keep going? 
This bill will threaten the institution of marriage somehow.
  Really? I don't think it will threaten the institution of marriage, 
especially since it is irrelevant since Obergefell is going to 
continue. You can't argue out of both sides of your mouth.
  I would also point out, as I will in my closing statement, that 
contrary to the fears expressed about religious liberty, almost every 
church group in the United States has endorsed this bill. I will read a 
list in my closing statement.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for the 
Respect for Marriage Act, an historic step forward in Democrats' fight 
to defend the dignity and equality of every American.
  Let us salute those who have legislated and advocated relentlessly to 
make this bill the law of the land. I thank the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, Equality Caucus Chair   David 
Cicilline, and all of the members of the Equality Caucus, and the 
grassroots activists out there, without whose mobilization so many 
pieces of legislation to expand freedom in our country would not be 
possible.
  I say that because when I came to this floor 35 years ago, my first 
speech on the floor, after I was sworn in, was to talk about--say that 
I came here to fight HIV and AIDS. What I learned after that is we had 
to fight against discrimination against people with HIV and AIDS.
  Two people who were so significant in that are Phyllis and Del, Del 
Martin and Phyllis Lyon, champions in our country. Well, I will talk 
about them in a moment.
  First, I want to salute the Senate for its strong bipartisan 
legislation, the leadership of Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and 
Senator Tammy Baldwin, and the bipartisan, strong support that this 
House gave the legislation to send it over to the Senate.
  Marriage equality has been law across our country since 2015 and, 
proudly, even longer in the State of California. Indeed, my thoughts 
today are with Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, two dear friends and iconic 
trailblazers. I have brought their picture to the floor time and time 
again to talk about freedom and dignity and respect so many times.
  Nearly two decades ago, their enduring love made history as they 
joyfully, joyfully said their vows in San Francisco City Hall, the 
first. In the years since, the same euphoria has blessed couples and 
bonded families in every corner of America.
  Yet, since the Supreme Court's monstrous decision overturning Roe v. 
Wade, rightwing forces have set their sights on this basic personal 
freedom.
  In his concurrent opinion, Clarence Thomas explicitly called on the 
Court to reconsider its ruling in Obergefell. While his legal reasoning 
is twisted and unsound, we must take Justice Thomas at his word and the 
hateful movement behind him at their word.
  We must act now, on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, to combat bigoted 
extremism and uphold the inviolability of same-sex and interracial 
marriages.
  Once signed into law, the Respect for Marriage Act will help prevent 
rightwing extremists from: Upending the lives of loving couples, 
traumatizing kids across the country, and turning back the clock on 
hard-won progress.
  This legislation takes several steps to uphold marriage equality 
under Federal law.
  First, it tears the bigoted, unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act 
off the books for good. When that bill was passed, our colleagues 
understood that it was not constitutional. Why else would they have 
tried to strip the judicial review of the Defense of Marriage Act if 
they thought it could take the test of judicial review?
  Today's vote will codify a legal reality already handed down by the 
Supreme Court and ensure DOMA can never again be used to justify 
hateful discrimination.
  Second, the Respect for Marriage Act will enshrine married couples' 
right to equal protection under Federal law, from tax filings to Social 
Security, to bereavement and veterans' benefits.
  Third, this legislation will require that every State recognize all 
valid out-of-state marriages, regardless of any heinous restrictions 
imposed by particular State law.
  This legislation is the latest step in House Democrats' fight to win 
full equality for LGBTQ Americans and forge a more perfect union that 
our children and their children, all of our children deserve.

  Fighting alongside tireless advocates, we transformed the fight 
against HIV/AIDS, here at home and around the world; and I thank 
President Bush for his leadership in that regard as well, all of our 
Presidents--well, up until a certain point.
  We tossed Don't Ask, Don't Tell into the dustbin of history. We 
enacted fully inclusive Federal hate crimes legislation, protecting 
Americans from the scourge of bigoted violence, with the Matthew 
Shepard Act; our friend, Barney Frank, our former colleague, was so 
instrumental in passing that legislation.
  Today, we will include marriage equality into Federal law now and for 
generations to come.
  I am just going to speak personally for a moment because, as I 
mentioned earlier, my first words on the floor of this House were about 
fighting against HIV and AIDS and discrimination that goes with that.
  My final bill as Speaker the first time, one of the final bills that 
I signed was the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Now, one of the final 
bills that I will sign in the enrollment will be this beautiful 
legislation, the Respect for Marriage Act that we are passing today.
  Today, we stand up for the values the vast majority of Americans hold 
dear, a belief in the dignity, beauty, and divinity, divinity, spark of 
divinity in every person, an abiding respect for love so powerful that 
it binds two people together.
  San Francisco's--when we talk about freedom, I think of Harvey Milk. 
He once told his supporters: ``I have tasted freedom. I will not give 
up that which I have tasted.''
  Thus, today, this Chamber proudly stands with the forces of freedom, 
not going back, and justice.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a resounding bipartisan ``aye'' vote in favor of 
the Respect for Marriage Act in loving memory of Del Martin and Phyllis 
Lyon, my dear friends, and iconic pioneers, and I urge a strong 
bipartisan vote.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York). The 
Chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as 
guests of the House and that any manifestation of approval or 
disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of the House.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``no'' vote based on 
arguments we have made on the floor today. I think this is--I just urge 
a ``no'' vote. I think this is the wrong way to go.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Senate amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act represents a 
carefully negotiated compromise that

[[Page H8836]]

maintains all of the bill's substantive protections for marriage 
equality, while affirming that the religions liberty and conscience 
protections available under current law remain unaffected by the bill.
  For these reasons, leading national organizations have endorsed the 
bill as amended by the Senate, including the ACLU, GLAD, PFLAG, Human 
Rights Campaign, and Lambda Legal.
  In addition, a broad interfaith coalition that includes the 
Interfaith Alliance, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran 
Church in America, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church 
USA Office of Public Witness, the Union for Reformed Judaism, the Anti-
Defamation League, the Hindu American Foundation, Muslims for 
Progressive Values, and the Sikh Coalition, all endorse the Senate 
amendment to this bill.
  This is a long-overdue bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it 
with a big vote.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I am in strong opposition of H.R. 8404, 
the so-called Respect for Marriage Act.
  I remain steadfast in my longstanding belief that marriage, as has 
been the tradition in this nation and around the world, is between one 
man and one woman.
  To my colleagues who may be swayed by the inadequate attempts made in 
the Senate to increase religious protections in this flawed piece of 
legislation: The changes simply do not do enough to protect those that 
could face the harmful effects of this bill.
  The overly vague provisions of this bill leave far too much to be 
interpreted and decided by the courts. We, as Members of Congress, 
should be compelled to protect the religious freedom of Americans and 
should not leave this cornerstone of our Constitution to the whim of 
the courts.
  ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .''
  In passing this bill, our government IS making a law that prohibits 
the free exercise of religion. These are not just words. They are 
fundamental to our country and who we are as a people.
  Moving forward, court cases concerning private entities exercising 
their religious freedom, much like cases heard this week at the Supreme 
Court, will face new challenges. They will now be litigated under the 
rubric of a national policy in which the court could interpret someone 
not recognizing same-sex marriages, or even abstaining from providing 
website design services for a same sex marriage, as akin to racial 
discrimination.
  This bill goes far beyond the protection of same-sex marriage. 
Instead, it exposes private entities to government discrimination based 
solely on their deeply held religious beliefs.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this legislation 
before us today.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of The Respect 
for Marriage Act because everyone should be able to marry who they 
love. This important law will protect same-sex and interracial 
marriages.
  When I was serving in the Oregon State Legislature in 2007, I helped 
pass the Oregon Family Fairness Act to give same-sex couples many of 
the rights afforded to married couples. In 2014, a federal district 
court judge found that Oregon's ban on same-sex marriages violated the 
Oregon Constitution, and in 2015 the United States Supreme Court held 
in Obergefell that all people have the right to marry who they love.
  It is imperative that we pass the Respect for Marriage Act because 
Justice Thomas cast doubt on rights grounded in privacy, including 
same-sex and interracial marriages, in his concurring opinion in Dobbs 
v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The Respect for Marriage Act 
will enshrine this fundamental right into law and so it continues to be 
protected.
  Although it is essential that we pass the Respect for Marriage Act, 
this legislation is a compromise. The bill as passed includes an overly 
expansive exemption for faith-based nonprofit organizations. This 
exemption is disappointing because it will allow legalized 
discrimination and undermine the fundamental principles of fairness 
this legislation is intended to uphold.
  As Vice Chair of the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, I am proud 
to continue standing with members of the LGBTQI+ community and their 
allies as we pass the Respect for Marriage Act. I remain committed to 
continue fighting against discrimination, including by enacting the 
overdue Equality Act to close gaps in civil rights protections.
  No one should face prejudice and violence because of who they are or 
who they love. I urge my colleagues to support the Respect for Marriage 
Act and swiftly send this bill to President Biden's desk.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to underscore the crucial 
importance of the religious liberty provisions in the Respect for 
Marriage Act and to ensure the legislative intent behind these 
provisions is crystal clear.
  As you know, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell 
v. Hodges from 2015 established a constitutional right to same-sex 
marriage. When Obergefell was argued, then-Solicitor General Verrilli 
was asked whether recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex 
marriage would lead to churches, religious organizations and other not-
for-profits potentially having their tax-exempt status reconsidered, in 
light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bob Jones University v. U.S. 
Solicitor General Verrilli responded that ``it's certainly going to be 
an issue.'' In recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage 
in 2015, the United States Supreme Court did not reconsider the Bob 
Jones University precedent, leaving this ``issue'' unresolved.
  The Senate Amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act that we are 
voting on today, answers this question, and a number of others, 
providing strong protections for religious liberty, especially when 
combined with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
  It is my understanding that section 2 of the Respect for Marriage 
Act, in light of the Supreme Court's Bob Jones v. United States 
decision in 1983, would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from 
successfully arguing that the United States now ``national policy'' 
favoring same-sex marriage use this national policy to deny tax-exempt 
status to religious organizations.
  Section 2 of the bill states that a variety of reasonable views on 
the role of gender in marriage exist today, based on both decent and 
honorable religious and philosophical beliefs. The bill states that all 
views are due proper respect by the Federal Government.
  Furthermore, Section 2 of this bill states that the Federal 
Government recognizes religious liberty as an integral component of our 
national policy regarding marriage. Section 2 of this bill was 
explicitly included to ensure that the provisions of the Bob Jones case 
relating to the tax-exempt status of organizations are not applicable 
to this bill.
  Bob Jones University v. U.S., decided in 1983 before Congress enacted 
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, upheld the IRS' decision to 
rescind Bob Jones University's tax exemption on the basis of a ``firm 
and unyielding'' national policy against racial discrimination. Section 
2 affirms that diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are 
held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable 
religious or philosophical premises. This finding preempts an analogy 
between the Court's analysis in the Bob Jones University case about 
race and beliefs about marriage, and is a statement of policy 
respecting diverse views about the role of gender in marriage.
  I'd like to discuss another provision which is central this bill--
section 4, which grants ``full faith and credit'' under Article IV, 
Section 1 of the United States Constitution to marriages performed in 
each of our states, strengthening federalism and making our 
constitutional structure work.
  Section 4 of the bill states that no person ``acting under color of 
State law'' may deny 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.'' The phrase ``acting under color 
of State law'' is also used in our civil rights statutes to refer to 
the actions of state and local government officers and employees with 
respect to rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and 
Federal law.
  It is my understanding that use of this phrase in section 4 of the 
bill is intended to incorporate the United States Supreme Court's 
interpretation of this term, including but not limited to the Rendell-
Baker v. Kohn and NCAA v. Tarkanian cases.
  I'd like to now turn to section 6 of the bill, which provides that no 
church or religious non-profit will be forced to solemnize or conduct a 
marriage ceremony under this bill.
  It is my understanding that section 6(b) bars any civil claim or 
cause of action relating to a nonprofit religious organization's 
refusal under that section to solemnize or celebrate a marriage and 
that such a refusal cannot create a civil claim or cause of action.
  The text of section 7 also makes no reference to ``compelling 
governmental interests.'' Section 7 provides that nothing in this bill 
should be construed to deny or alter the benefit, status or right of an 
otherwise eligible individual or legal entity in relation to tax-exempt 
status, tax treatment, contracts, loans, scholarships, licenses and 
other agreements not arising from a marriage.
  It is my understanding that, in conjunction with section 2, which 
eliminates a successful analogy to the Bob Jones case, section 7 would 
prevent the Internal Revenue Service from using the Respect for 
Marriage Act to

[[Page H8837]]

alter or remove the tax-exempt status of an entity for expressing 
beliefs in opposition or support of same-sex marriage. This bill is 
intended to enshrine a national policy of respect for all views 
surrounding marriage, and to enact some of the strongest religious 
liberty protections since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 
1993. This legislation also ensures that religious liberty will have 
more of a central role in future debates in our courts and in the halls 
of Congress.
  Mrs. MURPHY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to underscore the 
crucial importance of the religious liberty provisions in the Respect 
for Marriage Act and to ensure the legislative intent behind these 
provisions is crystal clear.
  As you know, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell 
v. Hodges from 2015 established a constitutional right to same-sex 
marriage. When Obergefell was argued, then-Solicitor General Verrilli 
was asked whether recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex 
marriage would lead to churches, religious organizations and other not-
for-profits potentially having their tax-exempt status reconsidered, in 
light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bob Jones University v. U.S. 
Solicitor General Verrilli responded that ``it's certainly going to be 
an issue.'' In recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage 
in 2015, the United States Supreme Court did not reconsider the Bob 
Jones University precedent, leaving this ``issue'' unresolved.
  The Senate Amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act that we are 
voting on today, answers this question, and a number of others, 
providing strong protections for religious liberty, especially when 
combined with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
  It is my understanding that section 2 of the Respect for Marriage 
Act, in light of the Supreme Court's Bob Jones v. United States 
decision in 1983, would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from 
successfully arguing that the United States now has a ``national 
policy'' favoring same-sex marriage, and use this national policy to 
deny tax-exempt status to religious organizations.
  Section 2 of the bill states that a variety of reasonable views on 
the role of gender in marriage exist today, based on both decent and 
honorable religious and philosophical beliefs. The bill states that all 
views are due proper respect by the Federal Government.
  Furthermore, Section 2 of this bill states that the Federal 
Government recognizes religious liberty as an integral component of our 
national policy regarding marriage. Section 2 of this bill was 
explicitly included to ensure that the provisions of the Bob Jones case 
relating to the tax-exempt status of organizations are not applicable 
to this bill.
  Bob Jones University v. U.S., decided in 1983 before Congress enacted 
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, upheld the IRS' decision to 
rescind Bob Jones University's tax exemption on the basis of a ``firm 
and unyielding'' national policy against racial discrimination. Section 
2 affirms that diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are 
held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable 
religious or philosophical premises. This finding preempts an analogy 
between the Court's analysis in the Bob Jones University case about 
race and beliefs about marriage, and is a statement of policy 
respecting diverse views about the role of gender in marriage.
  I'd like to discuss another provision which is central to this bill--
section 4, which grants ``full faith and credit'' under Article IV, 
Section 1 of the United States Constitution to marriages performed in 
each of our States, strengthening federalism and making our 
constitutional structure work.
  Section 4 of the bill states that no person ``acting under color of 
State law'' may deny 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.'' The phrase ``acting under color 
of State law'' is also used in our civil rights statutes to refer to 
the actions of State and local government officers and employees with 
respect to rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and 
Federal law.
  It is my understanding that use of this phrase in section 4 of the 
bill is intended to incorporate the United States Supreme Court's 
interpretation of this term, including but not limited to the Rendel/
Baker v. Kohn and NCAA v. Tarkanian cases.
  I'd like to now turn to section 6 of the bill, which provides that no 
church or religious non-profit will be forced to solemnize or conduct a 
marriage ceremony under this bill.
  It is my understanding that section 6(b) bars any civil claim or 
cause of action relating to a nonprofit religious organization's 
refusal under that section to solemnize or celebrate a marriage and 
that such a refusal cannot create a civil claim or cause of action.
  The text of section 7 also makes no reference to ``compelling 
governmental interests.'' Section 7 provides that nothing in this bill 
should be construed to deny or alter the benefit, status or right of an 
otherwise eligible individual or legal entity in relation to tax-exempt 
status, tax treatment, contracts, loans, scholarships, licenses and 
other agreements not arising from a marriage.
  It is my understanding that, in conjunction with section 2, which 
eliminates a successful analogy to the Bob Jones case, section 7 would 
prevent the Internal Revenue Service from using the Respect for 
Marriage Act to alter or remove the tax-exempt status of an entity for 
expressing beliefs in opposition or support of same-sex marriage. This 
bill is intended to enshrine a national policy of respect for all views 
surrounding marriage, and to enact some of the strongest religious 
liberty protections since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 
1993. This legislation also ensures that religious liberty will have 
more of a central role in future debates in our courts and in the halls 
of Congress.
  The SPEAKER. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1510, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 258, 
nays 169, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 513]

                               YEAS--258

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Armstrong
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Bacon
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carey
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cheney
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Emmer
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gimenez
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hinson
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jacobs (NY)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Joyce (OH)
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Mace
     Malinowski
     Malliotakis
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meijer
     Meng
     Mfume
     Miller-Meeks
     Moore (UT)
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Obernolte
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (NY)
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Stevens
     Stewart
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--169

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brooks

[[Page H8838]]


     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Conway
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davidson
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Jackson
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Norman
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sempolinski
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Steube
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Walberg
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Owens
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brady
     Hollingsworth
     Kinzinger
     Zeldin

                              {time}  1111

  Ms. LEE of California changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to concur was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The motion to reconsider is laid on the table.


    members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

     Axne (Pappas)
     Baird (Bucshon)
     Bass (Cicilline)
     Beatty (Neguse)
     Brooks (Fleischmann)
     DeFazio (Pallone)
     Doyle, Michael F. (Pallone)
     Gibbs (Smucker)
     Gohmert (Weber (TX))
     Gonzalez (OH) (Moore (UT))
     Gosar (Weber (TX))
     Hayes (Neguse)
     Herrera Beutler (Stewart)
     Huffman (Levin (CA))
     Jacobs (NY) (Sempolinski)
     Johnson (LA) (Graves (LA))
     Johnson (OH) (Fulcher)
     Johnson (TX) (Pallone)
     Kahele (Correa)
     Kildee (Pappas)
     Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
     Lawrence (Garcia (TX))
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Long (Fleischmann)
     Meeks (Meng)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Newman (Correa)
     O'Halleran (Pappas)
     Palazzo (Fleischmann)
     Pascrell (Pallone)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Peltola (Correa)
     Pressley (Neguse)
     Ruppersberger (Sarbanes)
     Rush (Beyer)
     Simpson (Fulcher)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Suozzi (Cicilline)
     Swalwell (Correa)
     Titus (Pallone)
     Welch (Pallone)
     Wexton (Beyer)
     Williams (GA) (McBath)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). The Chair will remind all 
persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and 
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in 
violation of the rules of the House.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________