A ‘bipartisan’ group of lawmakers is proposing a bill that would successfully codify gay marriage at the federal level.
The Respect for Marriage Act is being advanced in the wake of a historical United States Supreme Court judgment in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which reversed Roe v. Wade and returned the problem of abortion back to the states.
In 1973, the Roe choice was anchored to the concept of substantive due process, which is the principle that the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution secure basic rights from federal government disturbance.
The Court fabricated a right of individual privacy that was secured by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment due process stipulation, stating that a female identifying whether to have an abortion falls within the scope of that change’s defenses.
“The central decisions in Roe were (1) that the due process clause is a repository of substantive rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution but deemed worthy of protection by a majority of the Court, and (2) that the freedom to terminate a pregnancy during the first three months is one of those rights,” according to the University of California Hastings Law Journal.
Ten years prior to Roe, the Court was poised to remove the doctrine completely, writing:
We refuse to sit as a “super-legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation,” and we emphatically refuse to go back to the time when courts used the Due Process Clause “to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a peculiar school of thought.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, in the Dobbs case, wrote a concurring viewpoint ruling the concept of substantive due process a “legal fiction,” arguing that it “exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority.”
He also said the Court has “struggled to define what substantive rights protects” adding that the Court’s method to attempt and determine basic rights makes up policymaking, rather than legal analysis.
Justice Thomas wrote that the Court should “reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges were cases the Court heard particularly handling the issue of same-sex marital relationships.
Many people inferred Justice Thomas’s opinion to suggest the Supreme Court might someday review and reverse those cases.
The Respect for Marriage Act would rescind the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), codify so-called ‘marriage equality’ in federal law, and offer extra defenses for this ‘marriage equality’, which many argue is a governmental intrusion into a religious sacrament.
“Three weeks ago, a conservative majority on the Supreme Court not only repealed Roe v Wade and walked back 50 years of precedent, it signaled that other rights, like the right to same-sex marriage, are next on the chopping block,” said Chairman Jerrold Nadler in a joint statement. “As this Court may take aim at other fundamental rights, we cannot sit idly by as the hard-earned gains of the Equality movement are systematically eroded.”
He added: “If Justice Thomas’s concurrence teaches anything it’s that we cannot let your guard down or the rights and freedoms that we have come to cherish will vanish into a cloud of radical ideology and dubious legal reasoning.”
The bill would restrict any state from not acknowledging an out-of-state marital relationship based upon the sex, race, ethnic background, or nationwide origin of the people in the marital relationship. It would need that all states accept same-sex marriage as legitimate, as long as the marital relationship stood in the state where it was carried out.
“Maine voters legalized same-sex marriages in our state nearly a decade ago, and since Obergefell, all Americans have had the right to marry the person whom they love,” said Senator Susan Collins (R-ME). This bill is another step to promote equality, prevent discrimination, and protect the rights of all Americans.”
If the Supreme Court reverses previous ‘marriage equality’ rulings, legislators state that this legislation will safeguard same-sex marriage and guarantee they remain acknowledged.