Respect for Marriage Act
The Respect for Marriage Act, abbreviated as RFMA, was a proposed bill in the United States Congress that would have repealed the Defense of Marriage Act and required the U.S. federal government to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages. It was supported by former U.S. Representative Bob Barr, original sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act, and former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA in 1996. The administration of President Barack Obama also supported RFMA.
Having been introduced in several previous Congresses, the last version of the proposal was put forth in the 114th Congress in both the House and the Senate in January 2015. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California remarked that this Congress must "ensure that married, same-sex couples are treated equally under federal law".
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the 14th Amendment requires all U.S. states to recognize same-sex marriages. This decision rendered the last remaining provision of DOMA unenforceable and essentially made the Respect for Marriage act de facto federal law. The Respect for Marriage Act would now only remove the unenforceable provisions from the statutes.
Background
Until 1996, the federal government of the United States customarily recognized marriages conducted legally in any state for the purpose of federal legislation. Following an unsuccessful lawsuit aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage in Hawaii, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, one section of which forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.Text of the bill
H.R.2523, the Respect for Marriage Act, as introduced in the House on June 26, 2013, read:Choice of law problem
In addition to repealing DOMA, the legislation would have established a method for the federal government to determine whether a marriage is valid for federal purposes, a legal dilemma known as choice of laws. Anticipating that federal courts and administrators would need to determine the validity for federal purposes of a marriage that is recognized in one state and not another, or in a foreign country and not by every U.S. state, it created two tests. If celebrated in a state of the U.S., a marriage is valid for federal purposes if valid in that state. If celebrated elsewhere, a marriage is valid for federal purposes if it is valid in at least one U.S. state.Legal scholars disputed whether the language of the Respect for Marriage Act was an appropriate solution to the problem. Lynn Wardle wrote that it "is substantively biased to circumvent state policies that do not allow or recognize same-sex marriage" and "a violation of federalism". William Baude endorsed the language of the Respect for Marriage Act. He argued that the options are to give priority to the place a marriage is celebrated or to the domicile of the married couple, that one's domicile is more easily manipulated, and that basing the choice of law on the place of celebration "promotes predictability and stability".
Legislative progress
111th Congress
The 2009 bill was introduced by U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York on September 15, 2009, and garnered 120 cosponsors.112th Congress
The 2011 bill was introduced by U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York on March 16, 2011, and a U.S. Senate version was introduced by Dianne Feinstein of California on the same day. President Obama announced his support for the bill on July 19, 2011.House
In September 2011, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida became the 125th cosponsor of the bill in the U.S. House of Representatives and the first Republican member of the U.S. Congress to announce support for the bill. In December 2012, Richard Hanna and Charles Bass became the next Republicans to cosponsor the bill.Senate
On July 20, 2011, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont chaired the first-ever congressional hearing on a proposal to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. On October 25, 2011, Sen. Leahy announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee would begin debate on November 3, 2011, with a committee vote likely to happen the following week. On November 3, 2011, the bill was debated in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where its passage was a foregone conclusion due to sufficient votes to pass being found in the 10 Democratic members of the committee, who are cosponsors of the bill; however, Republicans on the Committee requested the vote be delayed one week. During the debate Sen. Feinstein noted that DOMA denies same-sex couples more than 1,100 federal rights and benefits that are provided to all other members of that class, legally married couples, including rights to Social Security spousal benefits, protection from estate taxes when a spouse passes away, and the ability to file taxes jointly and claim certain deductions. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8 in favor of advancing the bill to the Senate floor.113th Congress
The bill's sponsors decided not to reintroduce the Respect for Marriage Act in 2013 until the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in United States v. Windsor. They reintroduced it on June 26, the same day the Court ruled in that case that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.114th Congress
The aforementioned lawmakers Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California reintroduced the legislation on the first day of the 114th Congress. Nadler remarked, "We must finish the job begun by the Supreme Court". In terms of co-sponsors, the proposal soon accrued 77 co-sponsors in the House and 41 in the Senate. The news received a warm welcome from LGBT rights groups such as the American Military Partner Association, which stated that Congressional action had to take place in order to assist same-sex military couples seeking veterans benefits.Section 2 of DOMA, the last substantive provision of that act remaining viable after Windsor, was declared unconstitutional in Obergefell in June 2015.