Anonymous
Source: Office of Rep. Salud Carbajal
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Congressman Salud Carbajal to enshrine the marriage equality for same sex and interracial couples, repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and provide additional legal protections for marriage equality.
In a vote of 267 to 157, the House today approved the Respect for Marriage Act to codify the right of marriage of equality guaranteed by Supreme Court decisions in Obergefell and Loving, and prohibit states from denying the marriages of other states based on the sex, race, ethnicity or national origin of the spouses.
“In 2014, we celebrated the landmark marriage equality win for same-sex couples in our nation’s highest court, just as our previous generation had celebrated the same win for interracial couples nearly fifty years before. But unfortunately, our current radical Supreme Court has not only gutted reproductive rights, they’ve done so by explicitly opening the door to overturning other fundamental rights for millions of Americans,” said Congressman Carbajal. “I will not stand idly by while this far-right Court erodes the rights of Californians. That is why I backed this bipartisan bill to make it clear that these rights that have been acknowledged by previous courts cannot and should not be denied.”
Today’s vote in the House comes less than a month after a recent Supreme Court decision overturned the right to abortion while opening the door to undoing other fundamental rights—including targeting the Constitutional basis for same-sex and interracial marriage equality.
The Respect for Marriage Act would:
-
Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. The Supreme Court effectively rendered DOMA inert with its landmark decisions in United States v. Windsor and Obergefell. This unconstitutional and discriminatory law, however, still officially remains on the books. The bill would repeal this statute once and for all.
-
Enshrine Marriage Equality for Federal Law Purposes. The bill requires, for federal law purposes, that an individual be considered married if the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed. This gives same sex and interracial couples additional certainty that they will continue to enjoy equal treatment under federal law as all other married couples—as the Constitution requires.
-
Provide Additional Legal Protections. The bill prohibits any person acting under color of state law from denying full faith and credit to an out of state marriage based on the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the individuals in the marriage, provides the Attorney General with the authority to pursue enforcement actions, and creates a private right of action for any individual harmed by a violation of this provision.
-
The Respect for Marriage Act is strongly supported by leading national organizations including: ACLU, Center for American Progress, Equality Federation, Family Equality, Freedom for All Americans, GLAD, Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, National Black Justice Coalition, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Women’s Law Center, and PFLAG.
Rep. Salud Carbajal represents California’s 24th congressional district, encompassing Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and part of Ventura County. He sits on the House Armed Services Committee, Agriculture Committee, and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where he serves as the Chair of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Sad to say, but this cause will be lost once the Repubs seize legislative control over the next few years.
The Court has overtly signaled it’s intent to strike down this allowance and all it will take is for Cruz or some similar whack-job to file suit and and chase it up the ranks until it hits the Supreme Court where they will rule that since there were obviously no homosexuals in 1780, there should be no consideration given today to their existence.
I’m not even going to be surprised when we start forcing “undesirables” into re-education camps and possibly even burning people at the stake in our rush to revert this country to medieval times all in a desperate attempt to save “white people”.
Climate change and extinction cannot come soon enough.
I agree, Cruz sucks. Hey Marcel, take note.
Everyone agrees that Cruz sucks. That doesn’t change the fact that you’re a right winger.
Learn to read. You’re the one that inserted “racial Supreme Court”. LOL.
Alex, don’t insult him! I love when these guys make Freudian slips hahah
Didn’t we have a President yelling ‘radical left’ every other sentence? And that guy was President – What a disgrace.
This is all about diversion. The Court made it clear that the basis of their overturning Roe, does NOT apply to other landmark decisions. Carbajal’s time would be much better spent addressing the real issues that we are dealing with such as inflation, an open border, homelessness, crime rates and so on.
Let’s face it, for four years, conservatives had to watch liberals do everything they could to tear down the previous president and his administration. You got control of the White House, the House and Senate and according to nearly every poll, as well as common sense, the country is headed in the wrong direction.
Stop posturing Salud, get to work and do your job!
“The Court made it clear that the basis of their overturning Roe, does NOT apply to other landmark decisions. ”
Clarence Thomas, who is the most senior and influential Justice and has the power to assign who writes decisions (Roberts’ title is now no more than that), said in his concurrence that it does … and the legal “logic” of Alito’s ruling definitely does apply to them.
“Roe is law of the land” hmm…see how that worked out.
Boomer, there is an election coming up so they need to distract from what is actually occurring in our country if they want any chance. Expect lots more division and diversion in the coming months.
This is a big ‘so what? A few easy points or Salud, affirming what was already widely accepted. Yawn.
@9:47
You’re obviously not paying attention.
“Widely accepted” and “solidified by codified law” are 2 very different things. It’s a huge so-what to a massive chunk of our population. You are rude and dismissive.
How can this bill be presented as “marriage equity” when it’s scope is so limited and exclusionary? After all, what is a couple? There are many varying forms of relationships that people have, and this law is going to continue to fail to recognize that and deny countless Americans the right marry because they don’t fall within this antiquated and discriminatory concept of a couple.
CHIP – I must have some super glue drying nearby or something, but not sure what you’re getting at here. I’m not hung up on anything, just wondering what YOU are worried about.
This is just the latest style of spin from far right extremist podcast bros. They take an issue like LGBT marriage and instead of conceeding this is a basic equal right that should be available to all humans, they throw in non-sequitur whatabouts to try and throw rational thinking people off balance. Ignore him, he’s been doing this a lot lately to stir the pot.
SAIL – yeah, i must have eaten the wrong shrooms in my omelet. What are you even talking about? I am not for or against ANYTHING. I’m just wondering why Chip was so concerned about the liberals somehow changing the definition of the word, “couple,” and how on earth that would matter. Marry who ever you want, I really don’t care.
Again, as VOICE insists, you guys have “learned to live and let live,” so why all the fuss?
Huh?
My comment may not make sense to some today. However, the clip below showing what president biden had to say about gay marriage just a few years ago provides some context. Can you imagine this place as an acceptable mainstream viewpoint for a democrat not all that long ago?!?! Obviously, biden has evolved his position on this issue and regrets the callous and ignorant comments he made in the past. Similarly, our understanding of marriage and the exclusionary concept of a “couple” is going to evolve going forward.
https://youtu.be/eDbtftejHFo
CHIP – how would a “couple” be anything other than it already is – 2 people in love with each other. Gender, orientation, etc may be in flux, but a “couple” is 2 people.
Sac, if you changed the word “couple” to “man and woman” your comment would read just like Joe Biden’s comments in the video I linked to. The exclusionary concept of limiting marriages to traditional “couples” is going to evolve.
CHIP – again, how would “couple” be anything other than 2 people? Man, woman, whatever, it’s two individuals. What are you thinking they would change it to? More than 2 individuals?
Sac, a decade or two ago many still questioned how a marriage could be anything other than a man and a woman? Bill clinton signed the “defense of marriage act into law in 1996 which limited marriage to one man and one woman at the federal level. This discriminatory and ignorant legislation reinforced the traditional heteronormative view of marriage and the concept that only a “couple” could marry. We have come a long way since then. Just because the traditional vows say “man and wife” doesn’t mean marriage can’t be much more than that. This dusty old conception that only “couples” can marry is due for reform.
CHIP – again and again, what else could a “couple” be? “Quadruple?” I feel like this is another one of those far-right fear mongering rumors that us liberals are somehow going to try to allow plural marriage or something. You guys do tend to get all freaked out about possible future scenarios.
This isn’t about sex, gender, etc – a “couple” can and only will be TWO people, whether they’re men, women, trans, or wizards. No one is going to take away your notion of what a “couple” is.
Sac, that is certainly how the “defense of marriage” act defined it in 1996, 1 man and 1 woman and nothing else is allowed.
CHIP – I get it. So….. AGAIN, what are you concerned about?
SAIL – oh please, are you all worried now that polygamy will be constitutionally protected? Honestly, so what if it is. Why are you guys so hung up on what other people do with their lives? I thought conservatives had, as VOICE put it, “learned how to live and let live.”
Sac, I thought you were hung up on limiting marriages to “couples” based on your comments. I have said the concept of marriage has evolved considerably and will continue to do so. I thought you were resisting this change, but I am relieved to see that is not the case. Remember, it was only a few short years ago that marriage forms right here in the state of california still included the exclusionary and heteronormative terms “husband” and “wife”. It is remarkable that marriage was defined so narrowly so recently. Now we must ask why these forms are limited to “party a” and “party b”. We have come a long way, but we have a long way to go to make marriage a more equitable and inclusive institution in this country.
THANK YOU, Salud Carbajal. I cannot even believe we have to fight for this right, for women’s rights and any of this in 2022, yet here we are. SHAMEFUL that our country is going backwards and downward under minority rule of christofascists and republicans. VOTE BLUE TO SAVE AMERICA!!!!
Financial suicide is voting Republican. Republicans have a timeline of about six months. Democrats understand the concept of long term investment in the future.
When much of Florida and Texas sink under the rising ocean from the Climate Crisis, what will that do to the cost of food, housing and the rest of the economy?
Democrats want to invest in the sustainable energy and industry of the future. Republicans desperately want people to cling to dying industries and fossil fuels. Not because they believe that is good economics. Because their corporate sponsors profit from that.
Thanks to Salud Carbajal for doing the right thing for Marriage Equality. My own marriage would be illegal if many of these throwback Republicans had their way.
I think you framed it pretty well robert. The choice is financial destruction to save us from the prophecy of climate doom with the Ds, or lower prices and a higher standard of living with the Rs. So far every climate doomsday prediction with a date attaches to it has been proven false. However, the consequences of policies sold as saving us from climate doom are very real indeed. Food insecurity is rapidly increasing. Europe is n a compromised position as it attempts to stand up to Putin during the Ukraine crisis because it surrendered its energy independence in the name of fighting climate change. The us is suffering from record inflation, an increasingly unreliable power grid, and we are also losing our energy independence. I still can’t understand why the democrat party has adopted policies so destructive to its electoral prospects. It’s almost as if they want the republicans to crush it in the midterms.
Investing in green jobs of the future is a win-win CHIP. There is no down side.
Anchoring yourself to the sinking Republican ship is just being a useful idiot for greedy, desperate dying industries. By the way, there is no such thing as the “democrat party”. That that term ending in “rat” was an invention of the McCarthy era. You are showing your true colors.
2:34, Germany is way ahead of us when it comes to going green. Here is a recent article about how that is working out for them. Shall we continue to follow their lead?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/germans-will-have-to-burn-wood-to-stay-warm-this-winter-warns-deutsche-bank/ar-AAZvXl7
Drink that Kool-Aide!
VOICE – women didn’t lose their right to chose in Texas, Wisconsin, etc?
Vote blue to save America? That would be nice, but voters are faced with quite a conflict. As much as they might like to vote blue, they literally can’t afford to. Gas, food, utilities, and housing continue to skyrocket in price as a result of democrat party policies. Voting blue this November is financial suicide for working class voters, and that will be the deciding factor. Regardless of how anyone feels about other issues, the republicans offer relief to those suffering from soaring living expenses.