WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden on Tuesday signed legislation to enshrine same-sex marriage rights in law, punctuating a dramatic shift in U.S. public opinion over the past decade. But Northwest Republicans' votes on the bipartisan bill reflect a deep ambivalence within a party whose base is still split on the issue.
"Today is a good day," Biden said before signing the bill at the White House. "Today, America takes a vital step toward equality, toward liberty and justice, not just for some, but for everyone. Toward creating a nation where decency, dignity, and love are recognized, honored and protected."
The Respect for Marriage Act overturns a 1996 law that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman and requires states to recognize marriages performed in other states, although it doesn't mandate states to issue licenses for same-sex marriages. It guarantees a federal right to interracial marriage, which Congress had never codified after the Supreme Court declared race-based marriage laws unconstitutional in 1967.
When the House first passed a version of the bill in July, prompted by Justice Clarence Thomas suggesting the Supreme Court should reconsider the 2015 decision that gave same-sex couples the right to wed, 47 Republicans voted for it — including Reps. Dan Newhouse of Sunnyside, Mike Simpson of Idaho Falls and Cliff Bentz of Ontario, Oregon — along with all 220 Democrats.
The 157 GOP lawmakers who opposed the measure in July included Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Spokane, North Idaho's Russ Fulcher and Jaime Herrera Beutler, who represents southwest Washington.
After a bipartisan group of senators amended the bill to clarify that religious organizations aren't required to host or endorse same-sex weddings, it passed the upper chamber Nov. 29, with Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch of Idaho not among the dozen GOP senators who helped the bill avoid a filibuster. Yet when that version of the bill returned to the House for final passage, 10 Republicans changed their minds.
Bentz was one of eight GOP lawmakers who voted against the final bill, while Herrera Beutler was one of only two House Republicans who flipped to support the bill's passage.
In a statement, Bentz said he supported the original version of the bill because "it did no more than codify constitutional protections of interracial marriage and the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell," referring to the 2015 decision.
"The bill, as amended, rather than protecting strongly held religious views and beliefs, actually dramatically weakens protections for religious institutions and religious views in general," Bentz said. "Because of these damaging changes I could no longer support the amended bill."
Herrera Beutler's office didn't respond to questions about her decision to support the bill. When she voted against the bill in July, the outgoing congresswoman was notably trying to fend off a primary challenge from far-right candidate Joe Kent, who eliminated Herrera Beutler before losing to Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez in November's general election.
U.S. public opinion on same-sex marriage has swung from overwhelming disapproval to widespread support in barely a generation. When the polling firm Gallup first asked Americans about same-sex marriage in 1996, only 27% supported it. After the Supreme Court established a right to same-sex marriage in 2015, that number was at 48%. In May 2022, support hit an all-time high of 71%, including a narrow majority of Republicans.
The fact that just 18% of House Republicans and 24% of GOP senators voted for the bill speaks to the lasting influence of the party's base, particularly white Evangelical Christians, only 35% of whom support same-sex marriage, according to 2021 polling by the Public Religion Research Institute.
In an interview Dec. 8, McMorris Rodgers said she opposed the bill because "the amendments, unfortunately, did not strengthen the protections for people of faith sufficiently."
When asked what protections would have been sufficient for her to support the bill, the Spokane Republican said she felt the bill was unnecessary because of the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling.
Proponents of the marriage bill argued its was necessary because after the court's conservative majority overturned federal abortion rights in June, with Thomas penning a concurring opinion that suggested the justices could revisit other cases decided on similar grounds, including the 2015 marriage decision. But McMorris Rodgers said Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion "made it very clear" the court's decision was only about abortion.
At the Capitol on Tuesday, Newhouse said he believes most people in his deep-red central Washington district feel the same way he does, "That this is an individual liberties issue. It truly is."
"You can question whether or not we needed to do this," he said. "But in the end, the question is before us, so you have to make a decision."
Newhouse pointed out the bill guaranteed rights not only to same-sex couples but also interracial couples, adding, "I've got family on both parts of that, so absolutely it's a personal thing for me. I really don't think that I or the government should be in the position of telling someone who they can spend their lives with."
In a statement in July, Fulcher pointed to Alito's majority opinion in the abortion case, saying it was clearly limited to abortion, adding the bill " inserts the heavy hand of the federal government where it is not needed, creating a scenario where Idaho may be forced to recognize an evolving definition of marriage according to other states."
Simpson, in a lengthy Dec. 9 statement, sought to debunk misconceptions about the bill, saying he welcomed thoughtful dialog about the bill and "the larger issue of how we define marriage in this country."
"What I do not welcome, however, is how some people are using this issue to score political points and create fear among my constituents," Simpson said. "The people of Idaho know the difference between legitimate political debate and fearmonger tactics, and I believe it is important to set the record straight."
The Republican, who represents roughly the eastern half of the Gem State, said the Respect for Marriage Act doesn't violate states' rights, an argument made by Crapo and Risch.
"I have always strongly supported states' rights and the authority of states to make their own laws when it comes to issuing marriage licenses," Simpson said. "But I also take marriage seriously, and to me, suggesting that someone's marital status depends on where they happen to live at that moment denigrates the institution of marriage."
The law is largely symbolic, but would take effect if the Supreme Court overturns nationwide same-sex or interracial marriage rights.
