Respect for Marriage Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I am going to miss this 1 minute, let me tell you that.
This bill was passed with a very bipartisan vote in this House this past July. I rise in strong support of the Respect for Marriage Act, which this bill has been slightly amended and sent to us.
Like many Americans across the country, I was sickened and deeply sorry by the violent attack on an LGBTQ+ nightclub in Colorado Springs just a few weeks ago. It was a manifestation of hate, a manifestation of prejudice, a manifestation of bigotry, a manifestation of thinking one is better than the other, that somehow we are not all equal in the eyes of our Constitution and in the eyes of God.
It was a somber reminder of how safe spaces still are not safe for so many. One of the Club Q survivors, a young man named Anthony, said that as he lay wounded on the floor his first thought--not surprisingly, which he believed may be his last thought--was of his husband of 14 years, Jeremy.
What the Justices said some years ago and what we have said in our legislation is that who you love is your choice. One of the first votes I cast in the Maryland State Senate in 1967 was the repeal of the miscegenation statute. The Supreme Court, that same year, had ruled that unconstitutional. That because a Black male wanted to marry a White woman or a White woman wanted to marry a Black male or an Asian or of some other ethnicity or race, that somehow we would interpose our own judgment denying that all people are created equal, endowed by their creator--not by us, not by the Constitution--by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly, the pursuit of happiness means that you can love whom you chose.
The love that Anthony felt for his husband in that moment reflected a basic emotional instinct that makes us all human.
Madam Speaker, I rise today for the millions of people like Anthony and Jeremy who deserve to continue living proudly and happily and safely in same-sex and interracial marriages.
In doing so, I stand for all Americans who cherish the liberty, equality, and justice promised to them under our Constitution.
Last summer, the Supreme Court, largely the Republican faction of the Supreme Court--they will resent that phrase, I am sure--violated that sacred promise with their radical ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, breaking nearly 50 years of precedent, contrary to what some of those Justices said to the United States Senate their premise would be. They deprived women of their constitutional right to reproductive healthcare, to control their own bodies, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In the process, they also opened the door for future challenges to Obergefell v. Hodges, United States v. Windsor, and Loving v. Virginia, which dealt with you couldn't marry a person of another color.
The Obergefell and Windsor precedents protecting same-sex marriage have stood for 7 and 9 years respectively, not the half a century that the others had, but the same proposition. It is not your business. I am shocked that conservatives who have a libertarian bent believe that somehow we ought to get involved in this.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this.
I remember the most conservative member of the State Senate, in which I served for 12 years, got up in talking about a woman's right to choose, and said: It is not my business. It is not government's business. It is not the legislators' business. It is my business. It is her business.
The Loving precedent protecting interracial marriage has stood for 55 years. Justice Thomas perhaps would opine that it is not a right that is found in the Constitution.
After the Supreme Court disregarded decades of precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade, we have no reason to expect it won't do the same to marriage equality. We believe that all men are created equal and all women, and men and women together.
Americans have grown accustomed to knowing that they have a constitutional right to equal marriage. Those living in same-sex and interracial marriages should not have to live with the fear that their government could rescind legal recognition of their families at any moment. That is not America. That is not content of character, as Martin Luther King urged us to pursue--character.
They must be able to live confidently, knowing that their marriages will be recognized wherever they go in America--no matter the city, county, or State.
Our Democratic House majority knows that no State ought to be able to deny full faith and credit to legal marriage between consenting American adults, and a lot of Republicans agree with us.
This is not a partisan issue. I hope it is not a partisan issue in this vote. It certainly was not a partisan issue when we passed it to the Senate. It was not a partisan vote in the United States Senate.
We know the best way to protect that most basic right to marriage equality is to enshrine it in Federal statute. That is why we took swift action last summer to pass the Respect for Marriage Act through the House and why I am proud to bring it to the floor again today.
Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler and the staff of the committee. I thank Representative Cicilline and all the co-chairs of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus. This is not a caucus issue; this is a country issue. This is a constitutional issue. This is a fairness issue. This is justice for all.
I thank Chairman Ruiz and the Democratic Caucus chairman, Mr. Jeffries, who has been very involved in this bill, and Chairwoman Beatty, they all have worked hard on this bill.
Similarly, I appreciate the House Republicans who joined us in supporting this bill--a significant number of House Republicans. I would hope that all Republicans would do it on the theory that this is not our business, that people are free to make their own decisions, not the government making these decisions.
I also thank the 62 Senators, including 12 Republicans that came together to advance this critical legislation.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, all 435 of us, to stand up and say this is a free country. It is a country that believes in equality for all. This is a country that the representatives of our Constitution, our Declaration, and of our laws would stand up united in saying: You are free to love who you choose. It is not our choice.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I just want to make clear, the gentleman indicated that we did nothing. The Justices of the Supreme Court had full protection. The issue was the families and the families of Members, but it ought to be on the public record that the Supreme Court Members were protected.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, you represented that the Justices were unprotected. That is not accurate, sir.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source