Comment The Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would enshrine the right to same-sex and interracial marriage in federal law, is only four short pages. But in the week since the House passed the measure on a bipartisan vote and Democratic leaders said they planned to take it up in the Senate, few Republican senators have found the time to read it — or so they said Tuesday. “I haven’t read it,” said Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.). “We’re still looking into it,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said. “I’m not going to comment on how I’m going to vote until I see the bill — if it passes,” Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) said. The reality is that senators have little trouble understanding what the bill does: It repeals the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 and requires states to give “full faith and belief” to any marriage between two people, regardless of “gender, race, nationality, or national origin of those individuals” — mirroring action taken by the Supreme Court in 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The tricky part is the politics: Despite the fact that 7 in 10 Americans now approve of same-sex marriage, the issue remains a hot one for Republicans. They still see the religious right as a key part of their electoral coalition and remain wary of being baited by Democrats to highlight what some of them believe is a purely speculative threat to same-sex marriage rights nationwide when Republicans they preferred to talk about rising inflation and slowing the economy. The House on July 19 approved a bill that would federally protect same-sex marriage, but it is unclear whether the legislation can pass the Senate. (Video: Hadley Green/The Washington Post) House passes same-sex, interracial marriage protections with bipartisan support “Most of our members will say: Why are we having this vote right now when no one is talking about it?” said Sen. John Thune (RS.D.), the No. 2 Senate GOP leader. “It looks like the Democrats are using it as a distraction.” But in the eyes of Democrats, making same-sex marriage a federal law became much more than a political stunt with the Supreme Court’s ruling last month that overturned the constitutional right to abortion that had been in place since Roe v. Wade decision 49 years ago. Like interracial and same-sex marriage rights, the federal right to abortion was grounded in the constitutional theory of substantive due process that recognizes “immeasurable” rights such as the right to privacy. While the court’s review opinion last month held that the abortion decision should not “cast doubt on non-abortion precedents,” a concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas did just that — calling on the high court to “reexamine all these Substantial precedents of due process of the Court,” including Obergefell and Griswold v. Connecticutwhich protected access to contraception and Lawrence v. Texaswhich overturned state sodomy laws. “We are in the post-Roe world, where marriage equality, contraceptive freedoms — everything is on the table as far as the Supreme Court is concerned,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “And this issue in particular is on the right-wing majority’s hit list. As inconceivable as the reversal Roe it was just a year ago, this should be considered in jeopardy.” A handful of Senate Republicans have already said they support the effort, including Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Thom Tillis (NC). A fifth Republican, Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.), said last week he had “no reason to oppose” the measure, while also accusing Democrats of “creating fear over an issue in order to further divide Americans.” political benefit”. That’s five more Republicans than supported Democrats’ codification efforts earlier this year Roe in view of the decision of the Supreme Court. But Democrats will need at least 10 to rally them to put up a vault. Amid GOP support, Senate Democrats see hope for same-sex marriage vote Dozens of Republicans are expected to oppose the measure if it comes up for a vote. Among those who said Tuesday they would have no qualms about voting “no” was Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), who said in a statement that the bill was “an attempt by Democrats to score political points by manufacturing hysteria and panic, in addition to escalating the ongoing attacks against the Court.” But many simply do not take a stand. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is leading the waiting parade, telling reporters Tuesday that he will continue to keep his powder dry until Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (DN.Y. ) schedule a vote. Asked for his position on the bill, McConnell said, “I’m not going to make a comment on it until it actually comes up in the Senate.” That stance was comfortable for many Republicans this week: Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), a member of McConnell’s leadership team, said she was “hearing from both sides of the issue” and remained undecided. “I’ll see if it comes up, and then I’ll make a decision,” said Sen. Richard Burr (RN.C.), while Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) declined to state his position, noting, “I don’t I know whether we vote for it or not.” Behind the scenes, these senators are under pressure from some of their colleagues, including Collins, Portman and Tillis, as well as the two openly LGBTQ Democratic senators Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) . “We’re just trying to deal with it,” Tillis said. “At the end of the day, members have to make their own decisions, but in my opinion, it’s very different from the bill that Senator Schumer put on the floor for codification Roe v. Wade. … This is an honest codification of the existing law.” Republicans, meanwhile, are under pressure from elements of their political coalition to oppose the bill. A letter sent Tuesday to McConnell, signed by leaders of the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, the Alliance Defending Freedom and dozens of other social conservative organizations and foundations, said the measure would “endanger people of faith” and would result in “silencing those with the long-held belief that marriage between one man and one woman is necessary for human flourishing.” “It has nothing to do with protecting rights. Its text betrays an intent to stigmatize and disenfranchise — especially those of people of faith,” said the letter, which was first reported by Politico. The religious right’s biggest ally in its effort to stop the bill from advancing may be a looming legislative backlog in the Senate, as well as a series of health-related absences that could prevent the Senate from mustering the 60 votes necessary to beat a filimaster. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) is recovering from hip replacement surgery, while Murkowski and Sen. Joe Manchin III (DW.Va.) have tested positive for the coronavirus in recent days. “We’re working very hard to get 10 Republican senators,” Schumer told reporters Tuesday. “Between that and the diseases, we’re not there yet.” He did not list the same-sex marriage bill among his top priorities for action before the Senate’s summer recess begins next week, but listed bills to boost investment in research and development, lower prescription drug prices and improve of veterans’ health care. Baldwin said Tuesday that the bill is “gaining more support every day” but that the absences are a concern. “We will do it when we have the votes and the time,” he said, adding, “I wouldn’t be surprised if we have significantly more at the end [than those who are] making a public commitment to this point.” But Democrats’ insistence on waiting for enough GOP support to hold a vote, amid Republican reluctance to publicly take up the legislation, has created a Catch-22 for now. “My guess is it’s definitely not going to happen until they’re convinced they have 10 Republicans,” said Thune, who has opposed same-sex marriage in the past but has not taken a position on the Respect for Marriage Act. “I think quite a few of them are hoping it will just go away,” Blumenthal said, citing his own conversations with Republicans. “But when push comes to shove … I think if you put it on the floor today, it would go through. What I’m hearing is, “You know, our base is tough on this, but how can we defy history?” “
