RFMA: A Bipartisan Step Forward

by on

More from Andy Craig, on why the prosecution of small business owners being forced to provide expressive services for same-sex marriages is a consequence of anti-discrimination laws, not marriage equality.

7 Comments for “RFMA: A Bipartisan Step Forward”

  1. posted by Jorge on

    “Really doesn’t get any more all-encompassing and absolute than this section in particular.”

    I’m not sure I agree. I would be happier with a statement that it does not permit any federal agency action or sanction. However, that kind of language would not survive a compromise.

    If Sinema is for it, I’m for it. If both Simema and Baldwin are for it, all the better. They got the Collins-plus centrists on board, great. They got Ernst to vote for it. Ernst??? Doesn’t actually surprise me, but that not a nothingburger at all. I would take the two votes over 60 and call it a slam dunk.

    So they got to it by going a little short of the Supreme Court decisions and saying states have to recognize other states’ marriages. That’s good enough for me. I’d be worried that would lead to the Supreme Court case being overturned.

    • posted by Jorge on

      Oy vey. It seems the bill grabbed someone really conservative. Time published a piece with (in my view) an unwarranted level of nastiness on Cynthia Lummis (R-WY).

      https://time.com/6237700/cynthia-lummis-same-sex-marriage-vote/

      “For the sake of our nation today and its survival, we do well by taking this step, not embracing or validating each other’s devoutly held views, but by the simple act of tolerating them,” Lummis said in a statement whose intentions may not have meant to fly like a brick, but still did damage.

      Her home state isn’t happy with her either. I decided to watch the speech being referenced. I liked it. I think the Time author just doesn’t like being called on his own intolerance.

      She also posted on Youtube the “Colloquy with Senator Sinema on Respect for Marriage Act”. Oh lovely, I’m having a hard week, I could use a Sinema nerd storm.

  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    The Respect for Marriage Act, which (a) codifies the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution as it applies to marriages performed in the several states, and (b) repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, offers a minimal level of protection to married couples if and when SCOTUS overturns Loving, Obergefell, Windsor, Zablocki other decisions in the Griswold line protecting the right to marry.

    If the Respect for Marriage Act becomes law, states and the federal government will have to respect the validity of marriages performed in the several states. The Act does not change the law (the full faith and credit clause has been operative since the Constitution was adopted), but effectively prohibits states or the federal government from evading the clause by claiming a critical public policy exemption to the clause in the case of marriage.

    The Act does not codify Loving, Obergefell, Windsor, Zablocki other decisions in the Griswold line protecting the right to marry, and if any/all of those decisions are overturned, individual states will be able, once again, to prohibit interracial, same-sex marriage and so on, but existing marriages will be somewhat protected, at least.

    A small step, but an important step nonetheless.

    Although a majority of Republicans in both House and Senate voted or will vote against the Respect for Marriage Act, it is good to see that a minority of Republicans support the Act. That’s progress of a sort.

  3. posted by Kosh III on

    “totally distinct and independent things: civil marriage for same-sex couples and anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation”

    Total BS

    Opposition to marriage equality is because of the DISCRIMINATION by avowed “Christians” and their allies in hate in the GOP.

    • posted by Jorge on

      That may be true as a social matter with respect to people’s motivations.

      As social policy matters, they are just two different things. One is premised on the concept that gays actually marry and should be encouraged to marry–expanding promotion of the family. The other looks at gays as individuals in comparison to other individuals, and is focused on removing barriers and discouragements for them as individuals.

      So while government encouragement and government barring discouragement are two sides of the same coin, that means they are two very different expressions of government power.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      “Opposition to marriage equality is because of the DISCRIMINATION by avowed “Christians” and their allies in hate in the GOP.”

      Sophistry about “totally distinct and independent things” aside, all one has to do to understand that anti-gay discrimination was at the heart of the 30-odd anti-marriage amendments enacted 2004-2008 is to (a) read the legislative history of the amendments enacted in the several states, and (b) read the anti-marriage amicus briefs filed with respect to Obergefell.

  4. posted by Edward TJ Brown on

    This is a good example of what happens when LGBTQ Democrats and Republicans work together.

Comments are closed.