Source: United States Senator for Ohio Rob Portman
November 29, 2022 | Press Releases
WASHINGTON, DC – This afternoon, U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) delivered remarks on the Senate floor urging passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation to codify and protect the recognition of same-sex marriages in the United States. Senator Portman stated the importance of marriage as a foundational unit of society and discussed proposed amendments to the bill. Senator Portman noted his strong belief that our laws should reflect the overwhelming American consensus that same-sex marriages should be recognized.
He also addressed the critiques of the bill, and outlined the significant religious liberty protections in a bipartisan amendment developed collaboratively with numerous faith-based organizations. This legislation — including a robust religious liberty amendment — has been praised by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, the Center for Public Justice, The AND Campaign, the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, and the 1st Amendment Partnership.
Earlier this month, a cloture vote on this legislation passed by a vote of 62-37, with 12 Republicans voting in favor, including Senator Portman. This legislation will now go to the Senate floor for a final vote and is now one step closer to becoming law.
A transcript of his remarks can be found below and a video can be found here.
“Madam President, I come to the floor today in support of the Respect for Marriage Act. I want to summarize my remarks though and I ask Unanimous Consent though and ask my full remarks be printed in today’s record. The Supreme Court declared that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right way back in 2015 and the overwhelming majority of Americans support that view. According to Gallup, over 70 percent of Americans believe that same sex marriage should be recognized as valid under law, including a majority of Republicans. Despite this strong support, the United States Code does not reflect that consensus in America. Current legislation allows states and the federal government to refuse to recognize valid same-sex marriages.
“While it is true that the Supreme Court has held this law is not enforceable, it still represents Congress’ last word on the subject. The American people rightly expect their elected representatives to bring our laws in line with their beliefs. That’s part of what this legislation does. It’s time for the Senate to settle the issue. The Respect for Marriage Act which passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support, including the support by the way of 46 Republicans on the House side, simply allows interracial or same-sex couples who were validly married under the laws of one state to know that their marriage will be recognized by the federal government and by other states if they move. This is all in accordance with well-established Supreme Court precedent. And by the way, settling this issue well within the constitutional authority of us in here in Congress.
“After all the full faith and credit clause is a part of our Constitution. Since the bipartisan passage of this bill by the House of Representatives earlier this year in response to concerns over religious liberty, this already narrow bill has been significantly is amended in the Senate to include robust religious liberty protections. By working collaboratively on a bipartisan basis with religious liberty scholars, faith organizations, Senate colleagues, including some I see on the floor today, other stakeholders, we have developed a substitute amendment that contains important protections for people of faith.
“It has five key changes to the underlying bill. Remember, this is the bill that already passed the House with 46 Republican supporters. But these are religious liberty provisions that we have added to it. First, it has an express acknowledgement that decent and honorable people hold diverse views about the role of gender in marriage and that such people in their beliefs are due respect. This is an important statement that that is implications that protect religious liberty. Second, it explicitly protects all existing religious liberty and conscience protections under the First Amendment and federal laws including the powerful protections provided by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
“Third, it guarantees that this bill cannot be used to target or deny benefits, including tax-exempt status, grants, contracts, educational funding, licenses, accreditation, certification and many others because a person or organization holds a traditional belief about marriage. This protects everything from the tax status of religious nonprofits to the contracts between faith-based adoption providers and the government for being attacked using this bill. Fourth, it ensures that nonprofit religious organizations including churches, mosques, synagogues, religious schools and others cannot be required to provide facilities, goods or services for marriage ceremonies or celebrations against their will.
“Fifth, it has an explicit prohibition on the recognition of polygamist marriages. These religious liberty provisions are significant and they are meaningful and they have earned the endorsement of important faith groups. In a joint letter to the Senate, eight different faith-based organizations including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church, The Seventh Day Adventist Church, The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, The Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, The Center for Public Justice, The AND Campaign, The Institution of Freedom Alliance, and The First Amendment Partnership, all of them concluded that our religious liberty protections protect the core religious freedom concerns raised by the bill including tax-exempt status, educational funding, governments grants and contracts, and eligibility for licenses, certification and accreditation. And that they said, if passed, it would continue to build on the Congressional wisdom represented by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. That’s these religious groups.
“That’s what they say about it. They helped write the language. A group of leading religious liberty scholars and advocates for religious liberty have analyzed the bill. And they have reached the same conclusion. These scholars include, by the way, Professor Doug Laycock who argued on behalf of faith groups and won two foundational religious liberty cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. On balance, a group of these distinguished professors determined that this bill is, ‘an advance for religious liberty.’ Because, as they say, ‘the protections are important.’ Notwithstanding these important protections, in the opinion of leading experts in the field, the critics of this bill continue to level accusations about what this bill does that are simply not accurate. First, some critics claim that this bill provides grounds for the IRS or other government bodies to revoke the tax-exempt status or other benefits from religious organizations that adhere to traditional views of marriage.
“This couldn’t be further from the truth. Section 7-a of our amendment actually expressly forbids the outcome that that these critics are warning of. It prohibits the use of the bill to target tax-exempt status, certification, accreditation, grant funding, loan, licensing, or any other nonmaterial status right or benefit of religious organizations. To quote Professor Laycock’s analysis, ‘those who claim that the bill would be used as a ground for denying tax-exempt status to organizations adhering to male-female marriage by analogy to Bob Jones are disregarding the statutory text.’
“In addition to the statutory prohibition, this amendment contains a clear statement from Congress, again that diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage including the belief that marriage is between one man and woman come from decent and honorable premises and are due respect. This congressional statement distinguishes the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman from the belief that interracial marriage is wrong. This distinction is important and rather than portraying those who believe in traditional marriage as bigots reflects a national policy that respects diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage while also protecting the rights of same-sex marriage couples.
“That’s the key. Second, some critics argue that this bill will lead to more litigation against institutions and individuals trying to live according to their sincerely held beliefs. This is also false. The bill only can govern the conduct of state actors and contains no litigation tools that would be used against private religious entities acting in a private capacity. Even ones that receive a majority of their funding from the state. To quote from Professor Laycock’s analysis, The Respect for Marriage Act and our bipartisan substitute amendment, ‘poses little or no new risk to religious liberty beyond those that already exist.’
“Third, some critics continue to make the bewildering argument at that this bill could lead to legalized and recognized polygamy. Again, no grounding in reality. No state allows bigamy or polygamy and this bill does not change this. Moreover, our amendment explicitly says, ‘now nothing in this act or any amendment made by this act shall be construed to require or authorize federal recognition of marriages between two individuals.’
“Finally, some critics argue that this bill is insufficient because it does not contain rights for private businesses about or entities applied beyond the scope of this bill. This is not a fair criticism. This bill as leaders, scholars, and many faith groups agree poses no new risks to religious organizations while containing significant benefits and protections for people of faith. Of course the bill does not cover every lawsuit or dispute that may arise between LGBTQ and religious interest. But it does address the disputes that could arise because of this bill. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to look carefully at the new religious liberty provisions. Take a look at them. I think hope you’ll be able to support The Respect for Marriage Act.
“The substitute is a carefully negotiated well-crafted piece of legislation that protects people of faith as well as same-sex married couples. A statement from the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities accurately states that our amendment, “sends a strong bipartisan message to Congress, the administration, and the public that LGBTQ rights can coexist with religious freedom protections and the rights of both groups can be advanced in a way that is prudent and practical.” I think that’s the major point here. They can coexist. That’s what our legislation proves.
“That’s why it deserves the support, in my view, of our colleagues. I urge my them to join me in taking this path forward, to pass this bill with the same overwhelming bipartisan support we saw in the House of Representatives. The American people want us settle this issue and millions of American couples who are married, including many in Ohio, are counting on us to recognize and protect their marriage and give them the peace of mind that they deserve. I yield back my time.”
###