WASHINGTON ( Associated Press) — The House is set to vote to protect same-sex and interracial marriage, a direct conflict with the Supreme Court, whose conservative majority voted in Roe v. Wade has reversed abortion access, raising concerns that other rights enjoyed by countless Americans may be over-enjoyed. be in danger
Tuesday’s vote in the House is part of a political strategy set up for an election year roll call that will force all lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats to go on record with their views on the high-profile social issue. It is also part of the legislative branch that asserts its authority, pushing back against an aggressive court that intends to revisit several established US laws.
“Since this Court may target other fundamental rights, we cannot sit idly by,” said Rep. Gerold Nadler, D.N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
While the Respect for Marriage Act is expected to be passed by the House, it is almost certain to stall in the Senate, where most Republicans will almost certainly block it. It is one of several bills, including those to add access to abortion, that Democrats are pushing to face the court’s conservative majority. Another bill guaranteeing access to contraceptive services is set for vote later this week.
The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal the one remaining law still on the books of the Clinton era that defined marriage as a heterosexual relationship between a man and a woman. It would provide legal protection for interracial marriage by preventing any state from denying out-of-state marriage licenses and benefits based on sex, race, ethnicity or national origin.
The 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act, was originally sidelined by Obama-era court decisions, including Obergfels v. Hodges, which opened a landmark case for gay rights, nationwide, to allow same-sex marriage. established the rights of couples.
But last month, Roe v. Wade constitutional right, the conservative court majority in place during the Trump era, leaving critics wondering that there may be more to come.
In writing to the majority that overturned Roe, Justice Samuel Alito argued for a more narrow interpretation of the rights guaranteed to Americans, saying that the right to abortion is not spelled out in the Constitution.
“Therefore we believe that the Constitution does not provide for the right to abortion,” Alito wrote.
In a consensus opinion, Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas further said, Roe’s other rulings, including those on same-sex marriage and couples’ right to use contraception, should be reconsidered.
While Alito, in the majority opinion, insisted that “this decision pertains to the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” others have taken notice.
Jim Oberzfeld, plaintiff in the landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage and now running as Democrat for the Ohio House, said after the court’s decision on abortion, “when we lose a right we relied on and is enjoyed, then other rights are at risk.”