- Griswold v. Connecticut: (1965): SCOTUS ruled that the constitution protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction.
- Lawrence v. Texas: SCOTUS ruled that criminal sanctions against those who commit “sodomy” are unconstitutional, reaffirming the “right to privacy” as used in Roe v. Wade, along with American traditions of non-interference with private sexual decisions between consenting adults
- Obergefell v. Hodges: SCOTUS ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The House passed the “Respect for Marriage” Act on Tuesday and just passed the “Right to Contraception” Act.
- UPDATE: PASSED HOUSE, 267-157, with only 47 GOP joining in! H.R.8404 – Respect for Marriage Act, which would require that someone be considered married in any state as long as the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed. The bill would also repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman and allowed states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. That law has remained on the books despite being declared unconstitutional by the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. The bill also protects interracial marriages. (Brownley and Carbajal are both cosponsors)
- UPDATE: PASSED HOUSE with only 8 GOP votes: H.R.8373 – Right to Contraception Act, which would “protect a person’s ability to access contraceptives and to engage in contraception, and to protect a health care provider’s ability to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception.” (Carbajal is a cosponsor, Brownley isn’t yet.)
- Upon passage, Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., said the bill violates “religious rights” and called it a bill by Democrats who invoke “states that they cannot name banning contraceptives.”‘
- UPDATE: “Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)…said she feels “pretty strongly about making sure women have contraception.” But she was noncommittal about voting for federal protections for contraception, saying it perhaps should be up to the states. “I don’t think states will go that far,” she added.” Hahahahaha!
Action: Make ALL your legislators go on record in support of the freedom to marry and to control one’s own reproductive life.
The big fight will occur in the Senate, so make sure your relatives in RED states flood their legislators’ offices with calls too.
Minimal script for senators: I’m calling from [zip code] and I want Sen. [___] to go on record protecting the freedom of Americans to a private life free of government and religious intrusion by voting “YES” to both H.R.8404 – Respect for Marriage Act and H.R.8373 – Right to Contraception Act. We want both these bills passed before the Senate breaks for recess.
- Rep. Julia Brownley (CA-26): email, DC (202) 225-5811, Oxnard (805) 379-1779, T.O. (805) 379-1779
- or Rep. Salud Carbajal (CA-24): email. DC (202) 225-3601, SB (805) 730-1710 SLO (805) 546-8348
- Senator Feinstein: email, DC (202) 224-3841, LA (310) 914-7300, SF (415) 393-0707, SD (619) 231-9712, Fresno (559) 485-7430
- and Senator Padilla: email, DC (202) 224-3553, LA (310) 231-4494, SAC (916) 448-2787, Fresno (559) 497-5109, SF (415) 981-9369, SD (619) 239-3884
- Who is my representative/senator?: https://whoismyrepresentative.com
(theHill) The Respect for Marriage Act, introduced Monday by top House and Senate Democrats, would repeal DOMA, the 1996 law that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court in 2013 ruled that a section of the law preventing the government from recognizing same-sex marriages for the purposes of determining federal benefits was unconstitutional, but the remainder of the law is still technically in place, albeit unenforceable.
The new legislation would also address a national patchwork of marriage laws by requiring states to legally recognize same-sex and interracial marriages if those marriages are valid in the states in which they were performed.
In more than 30 states, statutes or constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage remain on the books, threatening marriage equality in over 60 percent of the country should Obergefell be overturned.
The bill is slated for a floor vote this week, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said Monday.
“LGBTQ Americans and those in interracial marriages deserve to have certainty that they will continue to have their right to equal marriage recognized, no matter where they live, should the Court act on Justice Thomas’ draconian suggestion,” Hoyer said.
“If Justice Thomas’s concurrence teaches anything it’s that we cannot let your guard down or the rights and freedoms that we have come to cherish will vanish into a cloud of radical ideology and dubious legal reasoning,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), one of the bill’s sponsors, said Monday in a statement. “As this Court may take aim at other fundamental rights, we cannot sit idly by as the hard-earned gains of the Equality movement are systematically eroded.”
The Respect for Marriage Act has been introduced in several previous Congresses, beginning with a 2009 bill that was also backed by Nadler.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the measure’s GOP sponsor in the Senate, said the proposed legislation builds on previous victories like the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and is “another step to promote equality, prevent discrimination, and protect the rights of all Americans.”