The United States passes a law to shield marriage between people of the same sex

All that remains is for Joe Biden to sign the law.

The United States Congress has finally passed a law to protect the rights of same-sex marriages throughout the country.

Following last week's Senate vote, the House of Representatives has approved by a large majority (258 to 169 votes) a rule that shields equal marriage from the risk that the conservative majority of the Supreme Court decides to reverse its doctrine, which so far it recognizes it as a constitutional right.

La ley ya fue aprobada en el Senado con 61 votos a favor y 36 en contra. El respaldo de numerosos congresistas del Partido Republicano en ambas cámaras refleja el amplio apoyo social al matrimonio homosexual y ha permitido una tramitación rápida de la norma antes de la renovación del Congreso, en enero, con los elegidos en las elecciones del 8 de noviembre. La mayoría de los republicanos, en todo caso, ha votado en contra de la ley.

The speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, has ostensibly celebrated the result of the vote.

Although there are still some initiatives to be processed in Congress before its dissolution, this is probably the last highly symbolic law of her mandate.

In the next legislature, the Republicans will have a majority in the House to choose a new president and Pelosi, 82, has already announced that she is leaving even the leadership of her group.

The new law does not establish gay marriage as a federal law applicable throughout the country, but it does prevent a marriage from being discriminated against because both members of the couple are of the same sex.

Thus, in the event that the Supreme Court were to revoke its doctrine, States could prevent homosexual couples from marrying in their territory, but they could not discriminate against those who legally marry in another State and would have to legally recognize these marriages.

It is not a complete shield, but it is the compromise solution reached, along with other concessions, to obtain the support of enough Republican senators.

Same-sex marriage has been legal throughout the United States since the Supreme Court, then with a progressive majority, handed down the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling in 2015 and declared that all states have the obligation to allow same-sex couples to have such a civil union.

Before that ruling, it was already legal in 37 states and the capital, Washington.

Before, the Supreme Court had declared the Law for the Defense of Marriage, approved in 1996, unconstitutional, which only recognized the union between a man and a woman and denied federal rights and benefits to same-sex marriages.

There are about 600,000 married gay couples in the United States.

The risk that the Supreme Court would change its criteria was revealed in a private vote in the ruling on abortion last June.

Judge Clarence Thomas, of the conservative majority, invited to review other precedents, including the one that legalized homosexual marriage throughout the country and the one that facilitated access to contraceptives.

As a result, the Democrats proposed in Congress to shield marriage between people of the same sex and between people of different races.

Several Republican congressmen have assured that it is not true that the doctrine is in danger.

explicit recognition

The problem is that if the Supreme Court decided to reverse its precedents, the restrictive Defense of Marriage law would be back in force, curtailing the rights of same-sex couples throughout the country.

The new Respect for Marriage Law repeals the 1996 norm and expressly recognizes federal rights for marriages between homosexuals and between people of different races.

The precautions that the law has introduced and that have allowed the support of the Republicans, and even the Mormon Church, consist of an express recognition of religious freedom that prevents churches from being able to force them to celebrate and recognize these marriages. homosexuals and that shields them from losing tax exemptions and benefits for not doing so.

It has also been made clear that the recognition does not extend to polygamous marriages.

Los demócratas presentaron proposiciones de ley en verano con poca confianza en que saliesen adelante y más como una forma de forzar a los republicanos a retratarse ante los votantes antes de las elecciones legislativas del pasado 8 de noviembre. Pero los senadores republicanos se mostraron abiertos a apoyar la ley si se dejaba para después de las elecciones. Así ha sido, tras el esfuerzo de políticos y donantes homosexuales republicanos para lograrlo.

El Supremo estudia ahora un caso en que deberá trazar hasta qué punto la libertad de expresión se puede utilizar como argumento para permitir la discriminación a parejas del mismo sexo. La semana pasada tuvo lugar la vista y los magistrados conservadores parecían inclinados a respaldar a una diseñadora de páginas webs que se niega a hacerlas para bodas entre homosexuales.

“This would be the first time in history that the [Supreme] Court would say that a commercial business open to the public, serving the public, can refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.” , warned the progressive judge Sonia Sotomayor.

[Breaking news.

There will be expansion soon]