Last week, the Senate passed the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill with bipartisan support that enshrines protections for same-sex and interracial marriages into federal law. The act also overturns the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that federally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Ryan Reed, associate professor of political scientist at Bradley University sat down with reporter Collin Schopp to talk about what exactly the act does, its historical significance and what it means for LGBTQ couples across America.
This transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Broadly speaking, starting with a baseline, what is the Respect for Marriage Act?
Ryan Reed: Well, the Respect for Marriage Act, it does a few things. It repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed back in 1996, which was a federal law that said marriage is only between one man and one woman. So it defined marriage at the federal level. It also meant then that same-sex marriages would not be recognized by the federal government. It also said that states didn't have to recognize such marriages. So (Respect for Marriage) repeals that. So it means that federal government will continue to recognize same-sex marriages. So will state governments, regardless of what the Supreme Court might do in the future with regard to the Obergefell decision, which is what legalized recognition of same-sex marriages across the United States. And so it also ensures the federal government will recognize marriages, regardless of race, ethnicity, or national origin. The reason that comes up is because the only reasons those marriages are recognized today is because of a previous Supreme Court decision called Loving v. Virginia. And so while I don't suspect that that will be overturned, people are becoming concerned about the courts willingness to overturn precedent, even if it's a long held precedent, particularly with regard to rights in the sort of fallout and aftermath of the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade.
And how much would you say the Dobbs decision contributed to this happening now this year?
Ryan Reed: One hundred percent. I mean, I think that people were maybe a little concerned about a six-three conservative Supreme Court majority, many of them religious conservatives, who are not necessarily huge proponents of same-sex marriage rights. But I don't think anyone thought this is something Congress needs to really get on right now. But I think in the aftermath of Dobbs, people were like: ‘oh, what things might the court do in the future?’ This was one of the things that obviously came up.
What are things that people might think (the Respect for Marriage Act) does that it doesn't do?
Ryan Reed: So, the first thing that it doesn't do is require states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Now, the Obergefell decision did require that, right, and while it's in effect, states have to do that, even if they still have same-sex marriage bans on the books in their states, they can't enforce those bans. And when someone goes to the county clerk, and they're a same-sex couple, that clerk can't refuse to issue a marriage license on the basis of their gender or sex. So this law still doesn't require that. What it does say is, if a state decided to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses, that couple could go to a state that does issue those licenses, and get a license that says they’re getting married. Their home state would have to recognize that marriage. Just like anybody else, if you fly off to Vegas and get married, right? They come home and they're married at home, right? Same case here, states would have to recognize that marriage. So that's the first thing. I know that there were certainly some religious liberty concerns, particularly among conservatives, in Congress and elsewhere. The bill specifically then stipulates, there was an amendment that stipulates, that nonprofit religious organizations will not have to provide support for same-sex marriages. So a church cannot be forced, for example, to hold a same-sex wedding.
Are there practical benefits to same-sex couples being able to have their marriage be recognized?
Ryan Reed: Sure, absolutely. In terms of hospital visitation rights, if you're a spouse, the hospital is going to let you in. If you're not, they're going to use their own sort of determination of whether you can where you can be in your partner's hospital room with them and make decisions for them if they are in a coma, for example. In addition, inheritance rights are sort of automatic. You don't have to get a lawyer to make that happen for you. In addition, there are tons of tax benefits to being married rather than just partnered and not having a legally recognized marriage. In a lot of places, there might be cohabitation restrictions. If two people are not married, they might not be able to rent a house or an apartment together. If the landlord says they can't. If they're married, they're married, right? And so they don't face that. And housing discrimination for gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans individuals is still a reality in many places.
How sort of unique or rare is the passage of an act like this? Does the federal government often enshrine things like this?
Ryan Reed: So before the Defense of Marriage Act back in ‘96, the federal government never said anything about marriage. Except for through the Supreme Court, say the Loving v. Virginia decision, for example. But otherwise, the federal government generally leaves this sort of up in the air, to every state, right. So that's why you might have different ages, for example, that a state might say you have to be before you are allowed to get a marriage license, right. And so in many ways, it's left up to the states. The federal government didn't really wade into this until ‘96, when there was a bit of a panic that Hawaii might legalize same sex marriage. That didn't happen in 1996. Although I think, you know, that was enough of a sort of salacious story to some people that the government got very worried about this. And so we had a Defense of Marriage Act, right? But before that the government hadn't said anything. As far as social movements go, if you look back to 96, only 27% of Americans supported same sex marriage rights. That was the first year that Gallup [polls] had actually asked that question. So 27%, so about a quarter of the country. It took till about 2011 to get a slim majority of the country on board with same-sex marriage recognition. But this year, we hit 71%, right? And so I think that's why you also saw bipartisan support in Congress, because this is no longer just an issue of support on the left or among independents, a slim majority of Republicans now support same sex marriage, right? They're still at a lower rate than independents or Democrats, but the majority of them do. So you saw crossover in the aisle, where previously you may not have seen much Republican support in Congress for a law like this. You actually saw 12 senators crossover to vote with all Democrats. You saw 47 House members who were Republicans who crossed over to vote with Democrats for this.
What was the political climate that led to the Defense of Marriage Act passing under the Clinton administration?
Ryan Reed: I mean, people really panicked. So I was, I'm going to tell him myself a little bit. I was a senior in college in 1996, right? I'm also a gay man. So I was paying attention to this. And, you know, it was it was a time where most people, just as the polling suggests, thought it was absurd, that same-sex couples could be married just like anybody else. Right? Not only did they think it was absurd, they thought it was dangerous, right? I mean, you have a Defense of Marriage Act, right? It's defending against something attacking marriage, and that was kind of the climate in the country that the the gays and lesbians, bisexual people were attacking the concept of marriage by wanting to be married to their partners.
What does this mean for you?
Ryan Reed: Well, I'm a gay man who is married. And it means that my husband and I can breathe a sigh of relief now. I mean, you know, if I step outside of being the political scientist and just being a person, we were worried, right? Well, we were concerned and said: “Well, we thought this was solid after Obergefell, right? And now we don't know. Is our government going to sort of forcibly divorce us?” So certainly breathing a sigh of relief and kind of not so worried about our future in this country anymore.
