U.S. House of Representatives votes in favor of same-sex marriage bill

U.S. House of Representatives votes in favor of same-sex marriage bill

On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would legalise interracial marriages and federally recognise same-sex marriage.

The plan would prevent states from “denying out-of-state marriage licenses and benefits on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity or national origin,” according to the AP.

74 Republicans joined the Democrats in supporting the Respect for Marriage Act at the vote on July 19.

The vote follows the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June, which overturned Roe v. Wade, and comes ahead of the November midterm elections.

The Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton, allowed states to refuse to recognise same-sex marriages that occurred in other states and defined marriage legally as the union of a man and a woman.

The Supreme Court’s rulings in United States v. Windsor from 2013 and Obergefell v. Hodges from 2015 effectively void DOMA.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has not guaranteed a vote on the bill.

Democrats have raised the prospect that other recent rulings, such Obergefell v. Hodges, may be overturned, even though the majority opinion in Dobbs stated that “this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right.”

In his concurring opinion on Dobbs, Justice Clarence Thomas did write that “Because the Court properly applies our substantive due process precedents to reject the fabrication of a constitutional right to abortion, and because this case does not present the opportunity to reject substantive due process entirely, I join the Court’s opinion. But, in future cases, we should ‘follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away.’ Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.”