Republicans, nervously eyeing the polls in swing districts, are considering their options for an upcoming vote on a bill that would codify the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage.
The bill is the brainchild of Democrats who believe they can “trap” Republicans into showing how “anti-gay” they are by voting against a gay marriage bill. But some Republicans are exploring the possibility of adding a slew of amendments, including religious liberty exemptions and anti-polygamy riders that might make the bill palatable for enough Republicans to get it passed.
It’s still a long shot, but it shows the extent to which Republicans have been spooked by cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage in recent months.
“We are listening carefully to the concerns that have been raised by some of our colleagues,” [Sen. Susan] Collins told Politico this week. “And we’re looking at an amendment that would strengthen the language in the bill to make crystal clear that it does not in any way infringe upon religious liberty. And it also would correct a drafting error.”
[Collins and Sen. Tammy Baldwin] made a similar point in a joint op-ed for the Washington Post this week, writing, “We recognize that some might need more clarity on this point, and that is why we have worked together with our Senate colleagues to develop clarifying language to the legislation that makes it clear what the Respect for Marriage Act would not do — it will not take away or alter any religious liberty or conscience protections.”
More than 70 percent of Americans believe same-sex marriage should enjoy the same legal protections as traditional marriage. Nevertheless, more clarification is needed so that no one is forced to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies in any capacity against their will.
Baldwin wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Post:
Moreover, religious liberty is a founding tenet of our republic, and the Respect for Marriage Act honors that principle. Our bipartisan legislation leaves intact religious liberties and protections afforded to individuals and organizations under federal law. We recognize that some might need more clarity on this point, and that is why we have worked together with our Senate colleagues to develop clarifying language to the legislation that makes it clear what the Respect for Marriage Act would not do — it will not take away or alter any religious liberty or conscience protections.
But some Republicans are arguing that there’s no serious effort to strip same-sex marriage protections from the law and that the Respect for Marriage Act is unnecessary. Others think the religious liberty protections don’t go far enough. Republicans have correctly identified the Democrats’ election-year gambit to boost turnout with this bill but worry that voting against it to satisfy their own base might cost them.
Democrats are using the concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in the Dobbs decision, where Thomas appeared to invite challenges to Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage and contraception. To date, no serious challenges have been made, but Democrats have been raising the specter of a ban on birth control to scare women into voting for them.
It remains to be seen how successful that attack line might be.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member