President Joe Biden, in a White House ceremony on Dec. 13, signed the Respect for Marriage Act, codifying federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriage.
The measure replaces provisions that legally define marriage as solely between a man and a woman with provisions that recognize any marriage “between two individuals that is valid under state law.” The bill also effectively requires states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
That’s a reason to celebrate for the LGBT community, which had expressed concerns that their ability to marry needed safeguards.
However, the new federal law creates concerns for others, some experts say, as it could encroach on the freedoms of individuals who refuse to participate in same-sex marriages by making them vulnerable to lawsuits.
Two Republican House members noted those concerns before the chamber’s Dec. 8 vote. The bill had been sent back to the House after a change of wording by the U.S. Senate.
The new version included amendments regarding religious liberty and a section describing the importance of marriage and perspectives on it. The bill also protects interracial marriage.
The bill’s opponents said they were concerned about some provisions in the measure.
Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and Scott Perry (R-Pa.) rescinded their support of the bill on its second pass through the House, saying they didn’t think it sufficiently protects the religious liberty of those who feel it would be wrong to participate in ceremonies of same-sex couples. One other Republican changed to a “no” vote. Another voted present, signaling neither support or opposition. Four other Republicans didn’t vote.
“Today’s vote in the House of Representatives sends a clear message: love is winning,” Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a written statement following passage by the chamber.
“The fact that this bill passed with strong bipartisan support in both chambers proves that marriage equality is supported by a wide swath of the American people.”
Following Senate approval of the measure on Nov. 29, Biden expressed his satisfaction that bipartisan support had helped underscore “the essential right of LGBTQI+ and interracial couples to marry.”
He said that if it was approved by the House, he'd “promptly and proudly sign it into law.”
The vote affirms the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized the ability of same-sex couples to marry as a fundamental right.
There had been concern that the Court’s ruling could be challenged, putting same-sex marriage in danger, when the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson decided to pass abortion regulation back to states. The June ruling overturned the 49-year-old Roe v. Wade case that had made abortion legal nationwide.
Immediately after that, pundits wondered aloud whether the Court might overturn Obergefell v. Hodges as well.
Religious Liberty
The Respect for Marriage Act does carve out some protections for religious liberty.The bill’s text states that any nonprofit religious organization “shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.”
But experts say it leaves gaps.
For example, it could force wedding vendors to help with a same-sex marriage ceremony, even if doing so goes against their deeply held religious beliefs, experts said.
The Respect for Marriage Act damages religious freedom by forcing people of faith to participate in some elements of same-sex marriage, The Heritage Foundation’s Emma Waters said.
“The bill only protects the solemnization of the marriage, not the other factors surrounding it,” Waters told The Epoch Times.
Waters argued that the bill’s phrasing has major gaps.
For instance, the government can’t force a pastor to marry a same-sex couple. But if he rents his church out for weddings, he could be forced to let them marry there, she said.
Also, the bill still makes it possible to sue a religious institution for discrimination against same-sex couples, she said.
“The way the bill is worded, while it doesn’t require anti-discrimination litigation, it doesn’t prohibit it either,” she said.
Waters said the IRS could potentially use the bill to remove tax-exempt status, take away government grants, and revoke licenses from religious organizations.
Furthermore, the bill’s wording offers no protections for religious people who run private businesses and oppose same-sex marriage for moral reasons.
Under the Respect for Marriage Act, a Christian baker who refuses to use his artistic skills for a same-sex wedding cake could face a lawsuit, Waters said.
Without the Lee amendment, the Respect for Marriage Act will leave anyone who doesn’t support same-sex marriage vulnerable, Waters said.
“Anyone who wants to hold a traditional view of marriage is going to come under fire for this.”
“My record shows that I am a long-standing advocate against discrimination of all types. I, however, cannot support any effort that undermines religious liberties by failing to provide legitimate safeguards for Faith-Based organizations that object based on their deeply-held religious beliefs,” Diaz-Balart said.
Traditional Values
Christian Americans involved in wedding-related businesses could soon find they’re forced to choose between business and conscience.Daniel, a Florida resident, is a Christian who opposes same-sex marriage and owns a wedding venue with his wife. He chose to remain anonymous to protect his business.
Marriage between a man and woman builds society, creates children, and provides far-reaching benefits, he said.
He doesn’t see the same good effects springing from same-sex marriage.
“I believe that a mother and a father are both essential. Without a mother and a father, creating a family, our society ceases to exist,” he said. “Study after study confirms that children do best when they have an intact nuclear family, their mother and father, raising them.”
Daniel said his wedding venue isn’t explicitly religious. But he sees his work as a moral endeavor.
“We both feel very strongly about the importance of family. And if we can help families create a great memory of their start, then what better business can you be in than that?” he said.
Because of his beliefs, Daniel wants to promote and celebrate heterosexual marriage through his business. However, he worries he now could face a lawsuit if he refuses to rent his venue to a same-sex couple.
“If somebody sued me for $100,000, I'd be out of business,” he said. “But I mean, these suits nowadays are in the millions.”
Daniel also refuses to host drinking parties for local fraternities or sororities on his property, because he doesn’t want any share of responsibility if a drunk student does something destructive to others. He said he refuses to facilitate underage or irresponsible drinking.
“I don’t think I should have to be a part of something that I don’t think is good overall for our society,” he said.
Daniel hasn’t yet had a same-sex couple marry on his property. Same-sex couples have toured it but didn’t ask to book his venue. He has hosted many events attended by “same-sex attracted” people without an issue.
“If we were somehow forced to legally [host a same-sex wedding,] we wouldn’t feel good about that payment,” he said. “So we might just turn that money over to our church or some other organization that helps people who struggle with same-sex attraction.”
