Respect for Marriage Act
This act provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.
Specifically, the act replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage between two individuals that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)
The act also replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The act allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.
The act does not (1) affect religious liberties or conscience protections that are available under the Constitution or federal law, (2) require religious organizations to provide goods or services to formally recognize or celebrate a marriage, (3) affect any benefits or rights that do not arise from a marriage, or (4) recognize under federal law any marriage between more than two individuals.
Respect for Marriage Act
This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.
Specifically, the bill replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage between two individuals that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)
The bill also replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.
The bill does not (1) affect religious liberties or conscience protections that are available under the Constitution or federal law, (2) require religious organizations to provide goods or services to formally recognize or celebrate a marriage, (3) affect any benefits or rights that do not arise from a marriage, or (4) recognize under federal law any marriage between more than two individuals.
Respect for Marriage Act
This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.
Specifically, the bill replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage between two individuals that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)
The bill also replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.
The bill does not (1) affect religious liberties or conscience protections that are available under the Constitution or federal law, (2) require religious organizations to provide goods or services to formally recognize or celebrate a marriage, (3) affect any benefits or rights that do not arise from a marriage, or (4) recognize under federal law any marriage between more than two individuals.
Respect for Marriage Act
This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.
Specifically, the bill replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)
The bill also replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.
Respect for Marriage Act
This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.
Specifically, the bill replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)
The bill also replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.
1510, Mr. Nadler moved that the House agree to the Senate amendment. (consideration: CR H8827-8839)
On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 258 - 169, 1 Present (Roll no. 513).(text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H8827)
Cicilline moved to table the motion to reconsider the vote
(consideration: CR S6831-6846)
Passed Senate under the order of 11/28/22, having achieved 60 votes in the affirmative, with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 61 - 36. Record Vote Number: 362.(text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR S6771)
(consideration: CR S6809, S6817)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 449.
Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Res. 1232 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8294, H.R. 8373 and H.R. 8404. Provides for one of hour of general debate on each bill as well as one motion to recommit. Amendments are made in order. Resolution also provides for en bloc suspension authority. H. Res. 1230 is considered adopted.
Res. 1232 passed House.
Res. 1232. (consideration: CR H6719-6728)
8294, H.R. 8373 and H.R. 8404. Provides for one of hour of general debate on each bill as well as one motion to recommit. Amendments are made in order. Resolution also provides for en bloc suspension authority. H. Res. 1230 is considered adopted.
8404, the Chair put the question on passage and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Jordan demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
(consideration: CR H6859)
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 267 - 157 (Roll no. 373).(text: CR H6719)
267 - 157 (Roll no. 373). (text: CR H6719)