Rep. Nadler and supporters of repealing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, introduce the Respect for Marriage Act in 2009 on Capitol Hill. || Flickr
Opinion: The senator’s remarks about the Respect for Marriage Act were a sorry/not sorry, passive aggressive defense of her self-proclaimed bipartisanship.
By EJ Montini || The Arizona Republic
On Wednesday the U.S. Senate advanced the Respect for Marriage Act, which would afford members of the LGBTQ community the kind of protection they deserve, and thought they had, until Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas floated the notion of revisiting protections for same-sex married couples.
The House passed a version of the bill a while back and the Senate version — much tougher to approve since it requires 60 votes to get past a filibuster — was worked out through a bipartisan group of lawmakers that included Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema.
It’s good work. Important work.
Under the bill, the federal government would recognize any same-sex marriage performed in a state where it is valid.
No state would be required to issue marriage licenses to such couples, however.
And there are allowances for religious organizations and nonprofits, saying they’d not be required to provide services or goods for marriage ceremonies.
It’s all part of the compromise that makes the bill palatable.
