2022: Schweikert Voted Against Replacing The Federal Definition Of Marriage With A Definition That Recognized All Valid Marriages In Every U.S. State. In December 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against concurring with the Senate amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act, which would "also replace the current federal definition of marriage, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, to define a marriage as valid if it is between two individuals and valid in the place where the marriage was entered into and would be considered valid in a U.S. state." The vote was on a motion to concur. The House concurred with the Senate by a vote of 258-169, thus the bill was sent to President Biden and it ultimately became law. [House Vote 513, 12/8/22; Congressional Quarterly, 12/8/22; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 6487; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8404]
The Bill Would Repeal The Defense Of Marriage Act Of 1996, Which Defined Marriage Between One Man And One Woman And Was Previously Struck Down But Remained In Federal Code. According to The New York Times, "The legislation passed on Tuesday would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which defined a marriage as the union between a man and a woman, a law that was struck down by the court but has remained on the books." [New York Times, 7/19/22]
The Bill Would Recognize Marriages If They Were Valid In The State The Ceremony Was Performed, Which Would Recognize Marriages In States That Would Prohibit Sex-Marriages If Obergefell Were To Be Overturned. According to The New York Times, "The legislation would mandate that the federal government recognize a marriage if it was valid in the state where it was performed, which would address the patchwork of differing state laws. That would protect same-sex marriages in the roughly 30 states that currently prohibit them, should the court overturn Obergefell." [New York Times, 7/19/22]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Replacing The Federal Definition Of Marriage With A Definition That Recognized All Valid Marriages In Every U.S. State. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the Respect for Marriage Act, which would "also replace the current federal definition of marriage, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, to define a marriage as valid if it is valid in the place where the marriage was entered into and would be considered valid in a U.S. state." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 267-157, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate passed the bill, sent the bill to President Biden, and it ultimately became law. [House Vote 373, 7/19/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/19/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8404]
The Bill Would Repeal The Defense Of Marriage Act Of 1996, Which Defined Marriage Between One Man And One Woman And Was Previously Struck Down But Remained In Federal Code. According to The New York Times, "The legislation passed on Tuesday would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which defined a marriage as the union between a man and a woman, a law that was struck down by the court but has remained on the books." [New York Times, 7/19/22]
The Bill Would Recognize Marriages If They Were Valid In The State The Ceremony Was Performed, Which Would Recognize Marriages In States That Would Prohibit Sex-Marriages If Obergefell Were To Be Overturned. According to The New York Times, "The legislation would mandate that the federal government recognize a marriage if it was valid in the state where it was performed, which would address the patchwork of differing state laws. That would protect same-sex marriages in the roughly 30 states that currently prohibit them, should the court overturn Obergefell." [New York Times, 7/19/22]
2022: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Respect For Marriage Act. In December 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "motion to table the Perlmutter, D-Colo., motion to reconsider the vote by which the House agreed, 258-169, to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill." The vote was on a moton to table a motion to reconsider the previous vote. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 224-164, thus the previous passage vote of H.R. 8404 was not reconsidered and the bill remained as passed. [House Vote 514, 12/8/22; Congressional Quarterly, 12/8/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8404]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Codifying The Right To Marry, Regardless Of Sexual Orientation Or Race And Against Prohibiting Individuals Acting Under State Law From Refusing To Recognize A Same-Sex Or Interracial Marriage. In December 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against concurring with the Senate amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act, which would "codify the right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation or race. Specifically, it would prohibit any person acting under color of state law from denying full faith and credit to, or any rights based on, a marriage between two individuals on the basis of the individuals' sex, race, ethnicity or national origin. It would allow the U.S. attorney general or a harmed individual to bring a civil action in U.S. district court for declaratory and injunctive relief against an individual who violates these provisions. The bill would also replace the current federal definition of marriage, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, to define a marriage as valid if it is between two individuals and valid in the place where the marriage was entered into and would be considered valid in a U.S. state. It would specify that no provisions in the bill may be construed to diminish or abrogate religious liberty and that religious organizations and their employees would not be required to provide services for the celebration of a marriage, consistent with First Amendment protections. It would also specify that the bill would not authorize federal recognition of polygamous marriage and that it would not impact any benefits, status or rights that do not arise from marriage." The vote was on a motion to concur. The House concurred with the Senate by a vote of 258-169, thus the bill was sent to President Biden and it ultimately became law. [House Vote 513, 12/8/22; Congressional Quarterly, 12/8/22; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 6487; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8404]
The Bill Did Not Recognize Polygamous Marriages And Did Not Impact The Benefits, Status Or Rights That Do Not Derive From Marriage. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It would also specify that the bill would not authorize federal recognition of polygamous marriage and that it would not impact any benefits, status or rights that do not arise from marriage." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/8/22]
The Bill Would Not Require State To Legalize Same-Sex Marriage, But Instead Required States To Recognize Out-Of-State Legal Marriages. According to CNN, "While the bill would not set a national requirement that all states must legalize same-sex marriage, it would require individual states to recognize another state's legal marriage." [CNN, 11/30/22]
If Obergefell V. Hodges Were To Be Overturned, And If A State Were To Outlaw Same-Sex Marriage, The Respect For Marriage Act Would Mandate Such State To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages That Were Conducted In Other States. According to CNN, "So, in the event the Supreme Court might overturn its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage, a state could still pass a law to ban same-sex marriage, but that state would be required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state." [CNN, 11/30/22]
Specifically, The Bill Was In Response To Justice Clarence Thomas' Row V. Wade Concurring Opinion, In Which He Called For Obergefell To Be Reconsidered. According to The New York Times, "It is a direct answer to Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion in last month's ruling that overturned federal abortion rights, in which he wrote that Obergefell and similar cases should be reconsidered." [New York Times, 7/19/22]
While The Bill Did Not Fully Guarantee The Right To Marry, It Required States To Recognize Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriages And Codified The Rights For Same-Sex Couples To Receive The Same Federal Benefits Like Heterosexual Couples. According to NPR, "This bill does not guarantee the right to marry. It makes it so that other states have to recognize same-sex marriages across state lines and that same-sex couples are entitled to the same federal benefits of any other married couple, like Social Security survivor benefits." [NPR, 12/13/22]
The Bill Would Not Prevent States From Banning Same-Sex Marriage If The Supreme Court Overturns Obergefell. According to NPR, "That's because, though the bill attempts to buttress key Supreme Court decisions, it does nothing to prevent same-sex marriages from becoming illegal again in states that might oppose them if the Supreme Court decides to overturn Obergefell." [NPR, 12/13/22]
2022: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Respect For Marriage Act. In December 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "adoption of the rule (H Res 1510) that would provide for floor consideration of the Respect for Marriage Act (HR 8404). The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to HR 8404." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 217-204. [House Vote 512, 12/7/22; Congressional Quarterly, 12/7/22; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1510; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8404]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Codifying The Right To Marry, Regardless Of Sexual Orientation, Race, Ethnicity Or National Origin. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the Respect for Marriage Act, which would "codify the right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation or race. Specifically, it would prohibit any person acting under color of state law from denying full faith and credit to, or any rights based on, a marriage between two individuals on the basis of the individuals' sex, race, ethnicity or national origin." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 267-157, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate passed the bill, sent the bill to President Biden, and it ultimately became law. [House Vote 373, 7/19/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/19/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8404]
The Bill Would Allow The U.S. Attorney General Or A Harmed Person To Sue In Federal Court For "Declaratory And Injustice Relief" Against Anyone That Denies The Right To Marry. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It would allow the U.S. attorney general or a harmed individual to bring a civil action in U.S. district court for declaratory and injunctive relief against an individual who violates these provisions." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/19/22]
The Bill Was In Response To Concerns That A Right-Wing U.S. Supreme Court Could Overturn Marriage Equality. According to The New York Times, "The House on Tuesday passed a bill that would recognize same-sex marriages at the federal level, with a bipartisan coalition supporting a measure that addresses growing concerns that a conservative Supreme Court could nullify marriage equality." [New York Times, 7/19/22]
The Bill Would Codify The 2015 Supreme Court Landmark Case Obergefell V. Hodges, Which Protected Gay Marriage As A 14th Amendment Right. According to The New York Times, "Forty-seven Republicans joined Democrats in backing the bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, which would codify the federal protections for same-sex couples that were put in place in 2015, when the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges established same-sex marriage as a right under the 14th Amendment." [New York Times, 7/19/22]
Specifically, The Bill Was In Response To Justice Clarence Thomas' Row V. Wade Concurring Opinion, In Which He Called For Obergefell To Be Reconsidered. According to The New York Times, "It is a direct answer to Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion in last month's ruling that overturned federal abortion rights, in which he wrote that Obergefell and similar cases should be reconsidered." [New York Times, 7/19/22]
House Republican Leadership Split On The Bill, With The Top Two Leaders Opposing The Bill And The Remaining Leaders Supporting It. According to The New York Times, "The party's leaders split on the bill. The top two Republicans, Representatives Kevin McCarthy of California and Steve Scalise of Louisiana, voted no. But the No. 3 Republican, Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, and Representative Tom Emmer of Minnesota, the G.O.P. campaign committee chairman, were in favor. Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming also voted for the bill." [New York Times, 7/19/22]
The Bill Would Provide The U.S. Attorney General The Authority To Enforce The Bill. According to The New York Times, "The bill also would provide additional legal protections to same-sex couples, such as giving the attorney general the authority to pursue enforcement actions and ensuring that all states recognize public acts, records and judicial proceedings for out-of-state marriages." [New York Times, 7/19/22]
2022: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Codifying Marriage Equality. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "adoption of the rule (H Res 1232) that would provide for one hour of general debate on each bill." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote 219-200. [House Vote 366, 7/19/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/19/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8404; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1232]
2022: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Codifying Marriage Equality. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 1232) that would provide for one hour of general debate on each bill." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote 219-199. [House Vote 365, 7/19/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/19/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8404; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1232]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Allowing The U.S. Attorney General Or Harmed Individuals To Sue In Federal Court For Declaratory And Injunctive Relief Against People Who Violate The Right To Marry Or Refuse To Recognize Same-Sex Or Interracial Marriage. In December 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against concurring with the Senate amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act, which would "allow the U.S. attorney general or a harmed individual to bring a civil action in U.S. district court for declaratory and injunctive relief against an individual who violates these provisions." The vote was on a motion to concur. The House concurred with the Senate by a vote of 258-169, thus the bill was sent to President Biden and it ultimately became law. [House Vote 513, 12/8/22; Congressional Quarterly, 12/8/22; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 6487; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8404]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Protecting Religious Liberty In Relation To Marriage Equality And Against Prohibiting Mandates For Religious Organizations To Provide Celebratory Marriage Services. In December 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against concurring with the Senate amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act, which would "specify that no provisions in the bill may be construed to diminish or abrogate religious liberty and that religious organizations and their employees would not be required to provide services for the celebration of a marriage, consistent with First Amendment protections." The vote was on a motion to concur. The House concurred with the Senate by a vote of 258-169, thus the bill was sent to President Biden and it ultimately became law. [House Vote 513, 12/8/22; Congressional Quarterly, 12/8/22; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 6487; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8404]
In Order To Gain Republican Support In The Senate, Senator Baldwin (D) Led A Compromise Substitute Amendment That Included Narrower Provisions On Same-Sex Marriage And Protections For The Nonprofit Status Of Religious Organizations. According to Congressional Quarterly, "But Republicans in the narrowly divided Senate called the House bill a nonstarter, and negotiations led by Baldwin hammered out a compromise. The substitute bill included narrower provisions on same-sex marriage and included language to protect religious organizations' nonprofit status." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/29/22]
The Amended Bill Preserved Existing Religious Liberty Protections And Preserved The Tax-Exempt Status Of Religious Institutions, Regardless On Their Beliefs Regarding Same-Sex Marriage. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The compromise religious liberty language would leave intact existing religious freedom protections in federal law and guarantee religious institutions tax-exempt treatment regardless of their stance on same-sex marriage." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/16/22]