Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 8404) to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1510, I call up the bill (H.R. 8404) to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 8404.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act. I first introduced a version of this legislation in 2009, and I am very proud that after a long journey it will soon be headed to the President's desk and marriage equality will be enshrined in law.

The House took an important step in July when it passed the bill with the support of 47 Republican Members. Now that the Senate has passed an amended version, also with bipartisan support, it is up to us to finish the job.

I find it deeply poignant that as we prepare to bring the 117th Congress to a close, we are on the cusp of a great bipartisan moral victory in defense of a fundamental right of all Americans, a victory that will provide stability and reassurance to the millions of LGBTQ and interracial families that have come to rely on the constitutional right to marry.

The Respect for Marriage Act does three things: First, it repeals the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which blatantly discriminates against same-sex couples, and which still officially remains on the books.

Second, it enshrines marriage equality for Federal law purposes, requiring the Federal Government to consider a person to be married if the marriage is valid in the State where it was performed.

Finally, it prohibits anyone acting under color of State law from denying full legal effect to a valid out-of-state marriage based on the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the two individuals in the marriage.

The Senate amendment does not change any of these substantive provisions. Rather, it adds language that explicitly affirms that existing constitutional and other legal protections for religious liberty remain in effect. The Senate amendment does not create any new substantive legal rights, but rather, it clarifies that the bill does not affect the existing legal rights or benefits of religious persons or entities. It also explicitly clarifies that the bill does not require or authorize the Federal Government to recognize polygamous marriages.

It is because of this compromise--the result of the hard work of Senators Tammy Baldwin and Susan Collins--that the amended bill passed the Senate by a vote of 61-36 with 12 Republican Senators voting in support.

While marriage equality remains constitutionally protected today, we have learned in recent months that rights once thought to be fundamental and forever secure can, in fact, be taken away. Indeed, in the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization--a decision overturning nearly 50 years of precedent recognizing a constitutional right to abortion--Justice Clarence Thomas went out of his way to write a separate concurrence calling on the Court to reconsider all of its substantive due process decisions, including Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision recognizing a right to marriage equality.

In light of this concurrence, even if one accepts the Dobbs majority's assurances that the constitutional right to marriage equality is settled law, Congress must use this opportunity to provide additional reassurance to the many American families who have come to rely on this guarantee. After all, we were told that the right to abortion was settled law.

The Respect for Marriage Act cements respect for married couples, which all Americans--including those in this Congress--should support and value.

I thank the co-chairs of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, the chairs of the Congressional Tri-Caucus, and incoming House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries for joining me in introducing this legislation. I also thank my chief of staff, Amy Rutkin, who helped to do so much to guide this legislation through the House.

I urge all Members to support this Senate amendment to H.R. 8404, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Allred).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a member of the committee, and the soon-to-be Democratic leader.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have been listening to this debate on the Republican side and it is self-contradictory. On the one hand, don't worry about it. Obergefell is not threatened. It is the law of the land. The Supreme Court has decided it. There is no threat. You guys are exaggerating the threat to Obergefell.

On the other hand, this bill is catastrophic. My God, it will change things.

Well, how will it change things if Obergefell is going to keep going? This bill will threaten the institution of marriage somehow.

Really? I don't think it will threaten the institution of marriage, especially since it is irrelevant since Obergefell is going to continue. You can't argue out of both sides of your mouth.

I would also point out, as I will in my closing statement, that contrary to the fears expressed about religious liberty, almost every church group in the United States has endorsed this bill. I will read a list in my closing statement.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The Senate amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act represents a carefully negotiated compromise that

maintains all of the bill's substantive protections for marriage equality, while affirming that the religions liberty and conscience protections available under current law remain unaffected by the bill.

For these reasons, leading national organizations have endorsed the bill as amended by the Senate, including the ACLU, GLAD, PFLAG, Human Rights Campaign, and Lambda Legal.

In addition, a broad interfaith coalition that includes the Interfaith Alliance, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church USA Office of Public Witness, the Union for Reformed Judaism, the Anti- Defamation League, the Hindu American Foundation, Muslims for Progressive Values, and the Sikh Coalition, all endorse the Senate amendment to this bill.

This is a long-overdue bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it with a big vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1510 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1510, providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 8404 and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, tonight's rule provides for the consideration of the Respect for Marriage Act, and I am proud to support this rule to move that bill to the floor.

The Respect for Marriage Act will repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act once and for all and ensure that all across America, families in same-sex and interracial marriage are afforded the respect and legal rights and protections they deserve.

Passage of this bill is a critical step to protect the rights and freedoms of all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or race, following the Supreme Court's recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. That decision and recent statements by the Supreme Court's new rightwing majority have left families across the country and in my district worried about the future of marriage equality.

The Respect for Marriage Act will ensure long-term stability and important statutory protection for all marriages. The Respect for Marriage Act will safeguard the protections laid out in Obergefell v. Hodges, as well as prior case law, that protect important fundamental privacy and liberty rights, all of which were improperly called into question in the Dobbs decision and related dicta.

This is a matter of respecting the fundamental rights, freedoms, and liberties of our neighbors, family members, and fellow citizens. Everyone should have the right to marry the person they love and live free from discrimination, regardless of where in this great land they live or travel.

In addition to securing the respect for those marriages, this bill will also secure respect for families across America and in all of our communities and families.

The issues addressed by this bill have been thoroughly debated in this body, in the Senate, and by the American public. The Respect for Marriage Act will ensure long-term stability and important statutory protections for all.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation and to reaffirm the fundamental right to marriage equality.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, families in my community are justly skeptical of process arguments which have been regularly weaponized to roll back the rights, the freedoms, the liberties that they so richly deserve to exercise. So I think at this point, there has been plenty of process. There has been amendment process in both Chambers, and it is time to pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, we believe that the gentleman's amendment is both duplicative and unnecessary.

The Senate spent months crafting a bipartisan compromise to amend H.R. 8404 to address the religious liberty concerns that were raised by Republicans in the House and Senate. Sections 6 and 7 of this legislation ensure no impact on religious liberty.

Adopting this new and unnecessary amendment would unsettle the Senate's carefully crafted compromise and delay the enactment of this necessary, historic, and bipartisan legislation.

If the House passes this legislation, it will be sent straight to the President's desk to become law. This Congress is coming to a close, and we don't have the time to make changes to this legislation.

This bill has gone through both the House and Senate and through the American public, and I believe it needs to be signed into law as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in support of this legislation from the Interfaith Alliance, from U.S. Jewish organizations, and from eight leaders of faith-based organizations representing tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of religious institutions.

November 28, 2022.

Hon. Tammy Baldwin,

Hart Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Susan Collins,

Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Baldwin and Collins: The Respect for Marriage

Act is a simple way to provide legal stability for all

married couples and their families. Within our communities,

we approach matters of marriage, family, and identity

differently. This bill recognizes this diversity of belief

while ensuring that same-sex and interracial couples are

treated with equal respect by federal and state governments.

As faith-based organizations, we recognize that the First

Amendment right to religious freedom is a cornerstone of our

democracy. The bipartisan substitute amendment provides

important clarification around the interaction between the

Respect for Marriage Act and the robust religious freedom

protections guaranteed under federal law. Crafted in the

spirit of collaboration, the amendment protects the right to

believe as we choose while leaving intact the core mission of

the legislation to respect marriages.

The freedom to marry who one loves is a matter of human

dignity and supported by a majority of almost every major

religious tradition in the United States. We urge the Senate

to adopt the bipartisan amendment in full, without further

amendment needed to protect religious freedom.

Respectfully,

Interfaith Alliance, ADL (The Anti-Defamation League), Bend

the Arc: Jewish Action, Center for Faith, Justice, and

Reconciliation, The Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran

Church in America, Faithful America, Hindu American

Foundation, Hindus for Human Rights, Jewish Women

International, Keshet.

Muslims for Progressive Values, National Council of Jewish

Women, NETWORK Catholic Social Justice Lobby, Presbyterian

Church (USA) Office of Public Witness, Reconstructionist

Rabbinical Association, The Sikh Coalition, Sojourners, Union

for Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association,

United Church of Christ.

Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I would again inquire whether my colleague has any further testimony.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, tonight's vote should be an easy one. The Respect for Marriage Act passed the Senate with broad bipartisan support, and the bill is supported by over 70 percent of Americans. It provides critical safeguards for a right that many Americans have already exercised and rely upon for the protection and prosperity of their families.

The Respect for Marriage Act is historic legislation to protect the marriages of same-sex and interracial couples. I don't think history will look kindly on those who, when given the

ability to protect the rights and freedoms of their constituents, chose to say no.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the LGBTQ community, my cousins, my dearest friends and neighbors, religious communities across the country, and, of course, the city of brotherly love and sisterly affection, which I am so proud to represent, I stand in strong support of the Respect for Marriage Act, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats want Americans to believe that the Supreme Court at any moment--in fact, the chairman just referenced this--at any moment could step in and overturn its opinions in Obergefell and Loving. It is just not true. The Supreme Court is not poised to overturn its opinions in either of those decisions.

Just look at what the Court has said. The Dobbs opinion does not undermine other substantive due process rights in any way. Just in case anyone is not clear on the meaning of does not undermine them in any way, the Court later reiterated that the Dobbs decision should not be misunderstood or mischaracterized `` . . . to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.''

The Court condemned the alarmist idea that the Dobbs decision would lead to the overturning of other cases as ``perhaps . . . designed to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights . . . ''

It is that unfounded fear that brings us here today.

Democrats have conjured up this nonexistent threat based on one line in Justice Thomas' concurrence in Dobbs, and they are misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting what Justice Thomas wrote.

Justice Thomas made the same point that he has made for years: that the collection of rights secured by the doctrine of substantive due process is better understood as being a function of the Constitution's privileges and immunities clause. That is it.

From his statement that a body of law should flow from one place in the Constitution instead of another comes the hyperbolic arguments that we have heard about the necessity of this bill.

After the House last considered this bill in July, the Senate was forced to make significant changes to the bill. Unfortunately, those changes do not go far enough in protecting religious liberty.

For example, the Senate amendment does not protect a private entity that is determined to be a State actor as a result of the services they provide on behalf of a government. These entities could be adoption agencies, shelters, or other service providers operated by a religious organization under contract with a city or State.

Across the country, people of faith serve their neighbors and their communities through these charitable efforts, but this bill could force them to abandon their faith or abandon the service. That is an unacceptable outcome in the United States.

For years, the Democrats have been playing a dangerous game with the Court. They want Americans to believe that the Court lacks transparency and struggles with its ethics. That is simply not true.

This bill is simply the latest installment of the Democrat's campaign to intimidate the highest court in our land. They have engaged in a smear campaign against sitting Justices and nominees. Democrats have stood on the steps of the Court and threatened Justices by name for not ruling the way they want in high-profile cases. Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee, including the chairman, have introduced a bill to pack the Court; to add four Justices to our highest court--not one, not two, not three, but four, because they simply want to take it over.

Democrats have held hearings to showcase fringe legal and conspiracy theories about the Court and its rulings.

In fact, later today, the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to again suggest that the Court has somehow been compromised based on a totally unsubstantiated allegation that Justice Alito leaked information 8 years

ago about an opinion in the Hobby Lobby case.

There is just one problem: Justice Alito denies this allegation. The individual who allegedly was the conduit for the leak denies it ever happened. Even the media admits there are holes in the story.

Politico said this:

We spent several months attempting to corroborate the

allegation but was unable to locate anyone who heard about

the decision directly from Alito or his wife before the

release of the case.

The New York Times reported that there are ``gaps'' in the allegation. The New York Times is the one who broke the story. They reported there are gaps in this allegation about a leak from Justice Alito 8 years ago. Gaps in an allegation.

Do you know what that is? That is liberal-speak for that story doesn't add up. But the Democrats are determined to not let the truth get in the way of their story and their intimidation tactics on the Court.

This is not the way we are supposed to operate. I hope that we can vote this bill down. I hope it does not pass because I think it is dangerous and takes the country in the wrong direction.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Virginia (Mr. Good).

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, I would just first say, the previous speaker talked about being out of step with the American people.

Are you kidding me?

The Democrats are the party who think men can use women's restrooms; the Democrats are the party who think boys can participate in girls' sports; the Democrats are the party who think you can take the life of an unborn child

right up until their birthday; and the Democrats are the party who actually had a witness in committee who said that she thought men could get pregnant.

And we are the ones who are out of step?

You have got to be kidding me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Florida (Mr. Mast).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, what happened in Colorado, as the gentleman referenced, was wrong as wrong could be. We all understand that.

But you know what else is wrong?

The 100 churches and crisis pregnancy centers that were attacked in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision--actually, when the leak happened. Dozens and dozens of those attacks happened between the leak of the opinion and the opinion itself, all designed to intimidate the Supreme Court.

And what did this body do while that was happening and Supreme Court Justices' homes were being--protests, harassed, all kinds of things said about their family, an assassination attempt on one of those justices, Justice Kavanaugh--what did this body do?

They waited a month to pass legislation to give our highest court members the protection they needed. This body did that.

There is no place for violence. But let's be clear: Let's condemn all of it. Let's do what we can to protect against it, and let's not stay on this concerted effort to intimidate the Court.

By the way, Madam Speaker, we have yet to have a hearing on the leak of the Dobbs decision, but in 1 hour and 15 minutes we are going to have a hearing on the fake leak that was brought up about Justice Alito in the Hobby Lobby case.

Why can't we get to the bottom of what happened earlier this year with the Dobbs decision that resulted in all that violence--over 100 churches and crisis pregnancy centers attacked?

I would like to have a hearing on that. I hope at some point the chairman will--we will look into doing that next year when we convene the new Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Reclaiming my time, the fact is, the Senate passed the bill and you guys waited a month before we passed it on the House floor, and you know that is accurate.

Justices' families; I will correct that. But you guys waited a month to do that when they were being threatened. That is my point.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``no'' vote based on arguments we have made on the floor today. I think this is--I just urge a ``no'' vote. I think this is the wrong way to go.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I am going to miss this 1 minute, let me tell you that.

This bill was passed with a very bipartisan vote in this House this past July. I rise in strong support of the Respect for Marriage Act, which this bill has been slightly amended and sent to us.

Like many Americans across the country, I was sickened and deeply sorry by the violent attack on an

LGBTQ+ nightclub in Colorado Springs just a few weeks ago. It was a manifestation of hate, a manifestation of prejudice, a manifestation of bigotry, a manifestation of thinking one is better than the other, that somehow we are not all equal in the eyes of our Constitution and in the eyes of God.

It was a somber reminder of how safe spaces still are not safe for so many. One of the Club Q survivors, a young man named Anthony, said that as he lay wounded on the floor his first thought--not surprisingly, which he believed may be his last thought--was of his husband of 14 years, Jeremy.

What the Justices said some years ago and what we have said in our legislation is that who you love is your choice. One of the first votes I cast in the Maryland State Senate in 1967 was the repeal of the miscegenation statute. The Supreme Court, that same year, had ruled that unconstitutional. That because a Black male wanted to marry a White woman or a White woman wanted to marry a Black male or an Asian or of some other ethnicity or race, that somehow we would interpose our own judgment denying that all people are created equal, endowed by their creator--not by us, not by the Constitution--by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly, the pursuit of happiness means that you can love whom you chose.

The love that Anthony felt for his husband in that moment reflected a basic emotional instinct that makes us all human.

Madam Speaker, I rise today for the millions of people like Anthony and Jeremy who deserve to continue living proudly and happily and safely in same-sex and interracial marriages.

In doing so, I stand for all Americans who cherish the liberty, equality, and justice promised to them under our Constitution.

Last summer, the Supreme Court, largely the Republican faction of the Supreme Court--they will resent that phrase, I am sure--violated that sacred promise with their radical ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, breaking nearly 50 years of precedent, contrary to what some of those Justices said to the United States Senate their premise would be. They deprived women of their constitutional right to reproductive healthcare, to control their own bodies, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In the process, they also opened the door for future challenges to Obergefell v. Hodges, United States v. Windsor, and Loving v. Virginia, which dealt with you couldn't marry a person of another color.

The Obergefell and Windsor precedents protecting same-sex marriage have stood for 7 and 9 years respectively, not the half a century that the others had, but the same proposition. It is not your business. I am shocked that conservatives who have a libertarian bent believe that somehow we ought to get involved in this.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this.

I remember the most conservative member of the State Senate, in which I served for 12 years, got up in talking about a woman's right to choose, and said: It is not my business. It is not government's business. It is not the legislators' business. It is my business. It is her business.

The Loving precedent protecting interracial marriage has stood for 55 years. Justice Thomas perhaps would opine that it is not a right that is found in the Constitution.

After the Supreme Court disregarded decades of precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade, we have no reason to expect it won't do the same to marriage equality. We believe that all men are created equal and all women, and men and women together.

Americans have grown accustomed to knowing that they have a constitutional right to equal marriage. Those living in same-sex and interracial marriages should not have to live with the fear that their government could rescind legal recognition of their families at any moment. That is not America. That is not content of character, as Martin Luther King urged us to pursue--character.

They must be able to live confidently, knowing that their marriages will be recognized wherever they go in America--no matter the city, county, or State.

Our Democratic House majority knows that no State ought to be able to deny full faith and credit to legal marriage between consenting American adults, and a lot of Republicans agree with us.

This is not a partisan issue. I hope it is not a partisan issue in this vote. It certainly was not a partisan issue when we passed it to the Senate. It was not a partisan vote in the United States Senate.

We know the best way to protect that most basic right to marriage equality is to enshrine it in Federal statute. That is why we took swift action last summer to pass the Respect for Marriage Act through the House and why I am proud to bring it to the floor again today.

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler and the staff of the committee. I thank Representative Cicilline and all the co-chairs of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus. This is not a caucus issue; this is a country issue. This is a constitutional issue. This is a fairness issue. This is justice for all.

I thank Chairman Ruiz and the Democratic Caucus chairman, Mr. Jeffries, who has been very involved in this bill, and Chairwoman Beatty, they all have worked hard on this bill.

Similarly, I appreciate the House Republicans who joined us in supporting this bill--a significant number of House Republicans. I would hope that all Republicans would do it on the theory that this is not our business, that people are free to make their own decisions, not the government making these decisions.

I also thank the 62 Senators, including 12 Republicans that came together to advance this critical legislation.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, all 435 of us, to stand up and say this is a free country. It is a country that believes in equality for all. This is a country that the representatives of our Constitution, our Declaration, and of our laws would stand up united in saying: You are free to love who you choose. It is not our choice.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I just want to make clear, the gentleman indicated that we did nothing. The Justices of the Supreme Court had full protection. The issue was the families and the families of Members, but it ought to be on the public record that

the Supreme Court Members were protected.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, you represented that the Justices were unprotected. That is not accurate, sir.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for the Respect for Marriage Act, an historic step forward in Democrats' fight to defend the dignity and equality of every American.

Let us salute those who have legislated and advocated relentlessly to make this bill the law of the land. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, Equality Caucus Chair David Cicilline, and all of the members of the Equality Caucus, and the grassroots activists out there, without whose mobilization so many pieces of legislation to expand freedom in our country would not be possible.

I say that because when I came to this floor 35 years ago, my first speech on the floor, after I was sworn in, was to talk about--say that I came here to fight HIV and AIDS. What I learned after that is we had to fight against discrimination against people with HIV and AIDS.

Two people who were so significant in that are Phyllis and Del, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, champions in our country. Well, I will talk about them in a moment.

First, I want to salute the Senate for its strong bipartisan legislation, the leadership of Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Tammy Baldwin, and the bipartisan, strong support that this House gave the legislation to send it over to the Senate.

Marriage equality has been law across our country since 2015 and, proudly, even longer in the State of California. Indeed, my thoughts today are with Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, two dear friends and iconic trailblazers. I have brought their picture to the floor time and time again to talk about freedom and dignity and respect so many times.

Nearly two decades ago, their enduring love made history as they joyfully, joyfully said their vows in San Francisco City Hall, the first. In the years since, the same euphoria has blessed couples and bonded families in every corner of America.

Yet, since the Supreme Court's monstrous decision overturning Roe v. Wade, rightwing forces have set their sights on this basic personal freedom.

In his concurrent opinion, Clarence Thomas explicitly called on the Court to reconsider its ruling in Obergefell. While his legal reasoning is twisted and unsound, we must take Justice Thomas at his word and the hateful movement behind him at their word.

We must act now, on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, to combat bigoted extremism and uphold the inviolability of same-sex and interracial marriages.

Once signed into law, the Respect for Marriage Act will help prevent rightwing extremists from: Upending the lives of loving couples, traumatizing kids across the country, and turning back the clock on hard-won progress.

This legislation takes several steps to uphold marriage equality under Federal law.

First, it tears the bigoted, unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act off the books for good. When that bill was passed, our colleagues understood that it was not constitutional. Why else would they have tried to strip the judicial review of the Defense of Marriage Act if they thought it could take the test of judicial review?

Today's vote will codify a legal reality already handed down by the Supreme Court and ensure DOMA can never again be used to justify hateful discrimination.

Second, the Respect for Marriage Act will enshrine married couples' right to equal protection under Federal law, from tax filings to Social Security, to bereavement and veterans' benefits.

Third, this legislation will require that every State recognize all valid out-of-state marriages, regardless of any heinous restrictions imposed by particular State law.

This legislation is the latest step in House Democrats' fight to win full equality for LGBTQ Americans and forge a more perfect union that our children and their children, all of our children deserve.

Fighting alongside tireless advocates, we transformed the fight against HIV/AIDS, here at home and around the world; and I thank President Bush for his leadership in that regard as well, all of our Presidents--well, up until a certain point.

We tossed Don't Ask, Don't Tell into the dustbin of history. We enacted fully inclusive Federal hate crimes legislation, protecting Americans from the scourge of bigoted violence, with the Matthew Shepard Act; our friend, Barney Frank, our former colleague, was so instrumental in passing that legislation.

Today, we will include marriage equality into Federal law now and for generations to come.

I am just going to speak personally for a moment because, as I mentioned earlier, my first words on the floor of this House were about fighting against HIV and AIDS and discrimination that goes with that.

My final bill as Speaker the first time, one of the final bills that I signed was the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Now, one of the final bills that I will sign in the enrollment will be this beautiful legislation, the Respect for Marriage Act that we are passing today.

Today, we stand up for the values the vast majority of Americans hold dear, a belief in the dignity, beauty, and divinity, divinity, spark of divinity in every person, an abiding respect for love so powerful that it binds two people together.

San Francisco's--when we talk about freedom, I think of Harvey Milk. He once told his supporters: ``I have tasted freedom. I will not give up that which I have tasted.''

Thus, today, this Chamber proudly stands with the forces of freedom, not going back, and justice.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a resounding bipartisan ``aye'' vote in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act in loving memory of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, my dear friends, and iconic pioneers, and I urge a strong bipartisan vote.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore