PA Senators Split On Same-Sex, Interracial Marriage Protections

PENNSYLVANIA — Senators in Pennsylvania responded differently Monday on landmark legislation codifying federal protections for marriages between same-sex and interracial couples.

The Respect For Marriage Act came before the full Senate a day after it cleared a procedural hurdle after receiving enough Republican support to break a filibuster. The final vote was 61-35, with 12 Republicans joining Democrats in passing the watershed legislation.

While Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, a Democrat, voted in favor of the legislation, Sen. Pat Toomey was among four Republicans who didn't vote.

The Biden administration is moving quickly to pass the bill before Democrats lose the House majority in January. The House must reconsider the bill with Senate amendments after 47 Republicans joined Democrats in passing the Respect for Marriage Act in July.

“I hope we can get it done with all due speed because millions of Americans deserve equal justice under the law and the peace of mind knowing their right to marry the person they love is protected,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said Monday.

During July's House vote, three of Pennsylvania's Republican members of Congress — Reps. Scott Perry, Brian Fitzpatrick, and Dan Meuser — crossed party lines to support the bill. The remainder of the state's Republican delegation voted against the measure, while all Democratic representatives supported it as expected. Read more: Respect For Marriage Act: How PA Republican House Members Voted

The legislation wouldn’t codify the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, nor would it require states to allow same-sex marriage. It would, however, require states to recognize all marriages that were legal when they were performed, and protect current same-sex marriages.

It would also protect interracial marriages by requiring states to recognize legal marriages regardless of “sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.”

The issue gained momentum after the June Supreme Court decision that reversed Roe v. Wade, ending 49 years of constitutional protections on abortion. The decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case was one of the few times in history the Supreme Court has invalidated an earlier decision declaring a constitutional right.

It sparked fears other landmark cases, including the one legalizing same-sex marriages, could fall next. In his concurring opinion in the Dobbs case, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that if the Constitution's Due Process Clause doesn't guarantee the right to an abortion, it doesn't guarantee other substantive rights, either.

Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion that the high court "should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell" — landmark decisions regarding the right to contraception, the invalidation of anti-sodomy laws and the right to same-sex marriage.

Thomas — a Black man married to a white woman — didn't bring up Loving v. Virginia, which overturned laws banning interracial marriage. But his opinion led to speculation that the Supreme Court could eventually reverse course on the matter.

President Joe Biden’s signature on the Respect For Marriage Act would be a major victory for Democrats as they usher out their two years of consolidated power in Washington, and a massive win for advocates who have been pushing for decades for federal legislation legalizing same-sex marriages.

It’s noteworthy that legislation codifying marriage protections even made it to the floor for debate, Schumer said.

“A decade ago, it would have strained all of our imaginations to envision both sides talking about protecting the rights of same-sex married couples,” he said.

The Senate version includes three Republican-negotiated amendments that protect the rights of religious institutions and others to still oppose same-sex marriages.

Toomey spoke against the Respect For Marriage Act earlier this month. The senator claimed that same-sex marriage rights aren't in jeopardy and defended adoption agencies that don't wish to place children with same-sex couples.

"Faith-based adoption agencies, such as Philadelphia’s Catholic adoption agency, have already come under attack for adhering to their faith, even though there are other local adoption agencies that will place children with same-sex couples," Toomey said Nov. 16 in a statement. "This legislation would dramatically increase the risk of litigation designed to put those faith-based organizations out of business."

Supporters say they’re unnecessary because they are already amending the bill to clarify that it does not affect rights of private individuals or businesses that are currently enshrined in law. That amendment would also make clear that a marriage is between two people, an effort to ward off some far-right criticism that the legislation could endorse polygamy.

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who has been lobbying his fellow GOP senators to support the legislation for months, points to the number of religious groups who are supporting the bill, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some of those groups were part of negotiations on the bipartisan amendment.

“They see this as a step forward for religious freedom,” Tillis said.

The support of some religious groups reflects the changing public sentiment on the issue — recent polling has found more than two-thirds of the public supports same-sex unions. But Congress has been slower to act.

Most Republicans still oppose the legislation, saying it is unnecessary and citing concerns about religious liberties. And some conservative groups stepped up opposition in recent weeks.

Along with Tillis, Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Ohio Sen. Rob Portman supported the bill early on and lobbied their GOP colleagues to support it.

Also voting for the legislation were Republican Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Todd Young of Indiana, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Mitt Romney of Utah, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, and Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska.

The growing GOP support for the issue is a sharp contrast from even a decade ago, when many Republicans vocally opposed same-sex marriages.

Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat who is the first openly gay senator and has been working on gay rights issues for almost four decades, said earlier this month that the newfound openness from many Republicans on the subject reminds her “of the arc of the LBGTQ movement to begin with, in the early days when people weren’t out and people knew gay people by myths and stereotypes.”

Baldwin, the lead Senate negotiator on the legislation, said that as more individuals and families have become visible, hearts and minds have changed.

“And slowly laws have followed,” she said. “It is history.”

The Associated Press contributed reporting.