Plaintiff in landmark same-sex marriage case says Respect for Marriage Act doesn’t respect LGBT+ community
Mr Obergefell is the man whose court fight led to the legalisation of same-sex marriage in 2015
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Jim Obergefell, the Ohio man whose fight to appear on his husband’s death certificate led to the legalisation of same-sex marriage across the United States, says the bill senators voted 61-36 to approve on Tuesday that would codify some marriage rights into law isn’t truly a victory for the LGBT+ community because it would let states refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The Senate, bill which 61 senators – including 12 Republicans – approved after weeks of negotiations would repeal the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act and require states to give full recognition to same-sex couples with valid marriage licenses from any state, but unlike the current state of US law after the court legalised same-sex marriage, it would not require states to issue such licenses.
Currently, all states must issue and honour marriage licenses to all couples, but in a July opinion issued when the court overruled Roe v Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas called for the reversal of a series of decisions that have granted couples same-sex marriage rights and the right to use contraception. While such a course of action is unlikely at this time, concerns over that possibility led senators to act.
Mr Obergefell, who recently mounted an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the Ohio legislature, told CNN that he was not celebrating the upper chamber’s approval of the Respect for Marriage Act but conceded that the legislation would be helpful if the Supreme Court ever overrules the landmark 2015 case that bears his name, Obergefell v Hodges.
“I will say I'm happy that at least something has been done,” he said, adding that the legislation was “something that we will have to fall back on should the Supreme Court overturn Obergefell in the future”.
Continuing, he said he “find[s] it curious” that the bill has been given the title of the Respect for Marriage Act when it “does not respect the LGBTQ+ community, our marriages or relationships or our families”.
“The fact that this act would allow states to once again, deny marriage licenses to same sex couples, where's the respect in that?” he asked.
“How on earth does my marriage to John or does any same sex marriage harm any other person or or any other marriage in this country? It doesn't,” he continued. “So yes, I'm happy that there is at least something that will be codified, should Obergefell be overturned? I'm happy to have this as opposed to having everything be taken away. But this is not respect for marriage”.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments