So, I read the Respect for Marriage Act. It’s very short, just a few paragraphs. And I was a bit perplexed. It never stated that same-sex marriages shall be legal in the U.S. Instead, it says, in summary, that a legal same-sex marriage shall be recognized in all states. Or, more precisely, that “[n]o person acting under color of State law may deny … full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals [emphasis added].” This bill basically says what’s recognized in one state must be recognized in another, as traditional marriage is now. On its face, it makes sense and is consistent with the idea that marriage is (always has been) regulated at the state level.
Then I read this Slate article, which confirmed my suspicions in its closing paragraph, “In short, this bill goes as far as today’s Supreme Court could conceivably allow. If it passes and Obergefell falls, states can resume denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. They might even be able to nullify the same-sex marriage licenses it provided under Obergefell. But couples who face such discrimination can travel to another state, obtain a new license, and compel their home state to recognize it, along with the rights and privileges it provides. And their marriage will receive full protection under federal law. As far as backstops go, it doesn’t get much better than the RFMA.” Wow! Backstop? People have to “compel” a state to recognize them? Doesn’t get much better? This! From a liberal website. The author Mark Joseph Stern is an a**hole.
While good and necessary — to say the least — the bill still leaves a stigma of second-class citizenship and does not “enshrine” gay marriage as Democrats like to tout. Apparently, the gays can retain their rights through this “backstop” measure, and they cannot (should not) ask for more, as Sterns suggests. The more I ruminate on the article and the bill, the more irked I become because, as usual, the LGBTQ community has to settle for half-measures and the back door to get equal rights.
Let’s just be clear about something. When SCOTUS ends Obergefell — and they will — states can return to denying same-sex couples a marriage license, also known as discrimination — hardly equality! Ironically, RFMA almost guarantees discrimination in a way. The Obergefell decision currently grants more equality to the LGBTQ community than RFMA because Obergefell demands that all states must legalize same-sex marriage, but don’t worry. With RFMA in place when Obergefell falls, the gays can always travel across state lines to get married in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. When they return home, then that state must recognize all the rights and responsibilities of marriage even though said home state made such marriage illegal. So, really the only hassle is a couple must seek equality in another state first. Hmmm. Why does this sound familiar? Where have I heard this before? If I could just place this rationale being used in another context. Where, oh, where have I heard this before? Oh, yes, of course. It’s the same argument used with abortion rights as women have been relegated to second-class status. Nothing smacks of second-class more than having to go out of one’s way (literally and figuratively) to achieve the same rights as the neighbors. Just another half-victory for the LGBTQ community if the bill passes. Which would you prefer: A right enshrined in the Constitution or codified by law? Hint: It’s the Constitution, stupid! Two steps forward, one step back. Welcome to stupid America!