# Respect for Marriage Act *Federal statute (H.R. 8404, 117th Congress, enacted 2022) that repealed the Defense of Marriage Act and set federal and interstate recognition rules for marriages, including same-sex and interracial marriages.* The **Respect for Marriage Act** (H.R. 8404) is a 2022 federal law. Its long title describes it as a bill "to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes".[^1] The 117th Congress passed it, and President Joe Biden signed it.[^2] It does three things. It repeals the section that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) had added to title 28 of the United States Code. It enacts a new 28 U.S.C. § 1738C, which bars anyone acting under color of State law from refusing recognition to another State's marriage on the basis of the two individuals' sex, race, ethnicity or national origin. It also rewrites the federal marriage definition at 1 U.S.C. § 7.[^3] The House first passed the bill on July 19, 2022, by 267 to 157, with 7 not voting (Roll No. 373).[^4] The Senate then passed an amended version 61–36. On the House floor, Judiciary chair Jerrold Nadler said that 12 Republican senators voted for it and that 47 House Republicans had supported the July bill.[^5] Wikipedia dates the Senate vote to November 29, 2022. It reports that the House agreed to the Senate amendment on December 8, 2022, by 258 to 169. The *Congressional Record* pages cited here carry the December 8 motion and debate, but not that tally.[^6] From [[Minnesota]], the July 19 roll call lists [[Tom Emmer]] and Representative Craig among the yeas, and [[Michelle Fischbach]] and [[Pete Stauber]] among the nays.[^7] A 2023 release from Emmer's office identifies Emmer, Fischbach and Stauber as Minnesota Republicans representing the 6th, 7th and 8th districts.[^8] Craig was recognized as the member from Minnesota when she spoke for the bill in the December 8 debate.[^9] ## Who On December 8, 2022, Nadler told the House that he first introduced a version of the bill in 2009. He thanked the co-chairs of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, the chairs of the Congressional Tri-Caucus, and incoming House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries for joining him in introducing it.[^10] According to Wikipedia, the 2009 bill was introduced on September 15, 2009, and gathered 120 cosponsors. Two backers of DOMA supported that first version: former Republican representative Bob Barr, DOMA's original sponsor, and former president Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA in 1996.[^11] Nadler credited the Senate compromise to Senators Tammy Baldwin and Susan Collins.[^5] The December 8 motion to concur was debated for one hour. Time was divided between Nadler and Representative Jordan of Ohio, the chair and ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee.[^12] Members who spoke against the bill included Jordan, Hartzler of Missouri, Good of Virginia, Walberg of Michigan and Mast of Florida. Members who spoke for it included Cicilline of Rhode Island, Allred of Texas, Pocan of Wisconsin, Takano of California, Jackson Lee of Texas and Craig of Minnesota.[^13] ## What Section 2 of the enacted text sets out Congress's findings. It begins, "No union is more profound than marriage." It states that diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are "held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises". It adds that "Couples joining in marriage deserve to have the dignity" and the stability that marriage affords.[^14] The operative sections that follow those findings create two enforcement routes and two carve-outs: - **Section 3** repeals 28 U.S.C. § 1738C as added by section 2 of DOMA.[^3] - **Section 4** enacts a new § 1738C. No person acting under color of State law may deny full faith and credit to another State's public act, record or judicial proceeding pertaining to a marriage between two individuals on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity or national origin. Nor may such a person deny a right or claim arising from such a marriage on that basis. The Attorney General may sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in federal district court, and so may any person harmed by a violation.[^3] - **Section 6** states that the act does not diminish religious-liberty or conscience protections under the Constitution or federal law. It provides that nonprofit religious organizations and their employees "shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges" for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage, and that such a refusal "shall not create any civil claim or cause of action".[^15] - **Section 7** states that the act does not deny or alter benefits, status or rights that do not arise from a marriage. Its list includes tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational funding, grants, contracts, licenses and accreditation. The section also states that the act does not require or authorize federal recognition of marriages between more than two individuals. **Section 8** is a severability clause.[^15] Speakers in the floor debate disagreed about what the Senate changes did: - Nadler said the Senate amendment left the substantive provisions unchanged. He said it "does not create any new substantive legal rights" and clarifies that the bill does not affect the existing rights of religious persons or entities.[^16] - Jordan said the amendment "does not protect a private entity that is determined to be a State actor". He named adoption agencies, shelters and other providers operated by religious organizations under government contract.[^16] - Hartzler said the Senate had rejected three amendments that would have removed the private right of action.[^16] ### Marriage validity The rewritten 1 U.S.C. § 7 applies to any federal law, rule or regulation in which marital status is a factor. Under it, an individual is married if the marriage is between two individuals and is valid in the State where it was entered into. A marriage entered into outside any State counts if it is between two individuals, is valid where entered into, and could have been entered into in a State. "State" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and any other territory or possession. Validity is judged only by the law in force when the marriage was entered into.[^17] Wikipedia records disagreement among legal scholars over this choice-of-law approach. Lynn Wardle called the language "a violation of federalism", while William Baude endorsed it.[^18] ## Where The new § 1738C adopts the § 7 definition of "State". Its recognition rule therefore reaches the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the territories as well as the fifty states.[^3] According to Wikipedia, the act does not bind federally recognized Native American nations, which set their own marriage policies. It also extended same-sex marriage recognition to American Samoa, which before enactment was the one U.S. territory that neither performed nor recognized such marriages.[^19] ## When According to Wikipedia, versions of the proposal were filed in the 111th through 114th Congresses and again in the 117th. The 2011 history runs as follows: - March 16, 2011: Nadler reintroduced the bill in the House, and Dianne Feinstein filed a Senate version the same day. - July 19, 2011: President Barack Obama endorsed the bill. - September 2011: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen became the first Republican member of Congress to cosponsor it.[^20] Three Supreme Court decisions frame the bill: - 2013: in *United States v. Windsor*, the Court struck down DOMA's bar on federal recognition of same-sex marriages. - June 26, 2015: the Court decided *Obergefell v. Hodges*. - June 2022: the Court decided *Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization*.[^21] The 117th Congress sequence: - July 19, 2022: the House passed H.R. 8404, 267–157.[^4] - November 14, 2022: Baldwin announced a bipartisan deal. A cloture motion passed 62–37 on November 16.[^6] - November 29, 2022: the Senate passed the amended bill, 61–36.[^6][^5] - December 8, 2022: Nadler called up the bill with the Senate amendment under House Resolution 1510 and moved that the House concur.[^12] According to Wikipedia, the House agreed 258–169.[^6] ## Why Before *Loving v. Virginia* (1967), 16 states still had laws prohibiting interracial marriage, according to Wikipedia. In *Dobbs*, [[Samuel Alito]]'s majority opinion called fears that its reasoning reached marriage "unfounded".[^21] In the December 8 debate, Jackson Lee quoted [[Clarence Thomas]]'s *Dobbs* concurrence: "we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process" precedents, including *Griswold*, *Lawrence* and *Obergefell*.[^22] Nadler argued that even if the *Dobbs* majority's assurances were accepted, "Congress must use this opportunity to provide additional reassurance to the many American families who have come to rely on this guarantee."[^10] Jordan argued that the Court was not poised to overturn *Obergefell* or *Loving*. He quoted the Court's statement that *Dobbs* should not be read "to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion".[^23] ## How On July 19, 2022, passage was taken up as unfinished business under clause 8 of rule XX. It was decided by electronic device in a five-minute vote. Some members were recorded under House Resolution 8, the House's proxy-voting order.[^24][^7] On December 8 the bill came up under House Resolution 1510. The motion to concur was debatable for one hour, equally divided.[^12] ## How many | Vote or figure | Count | Source | |---|---|---| | House passage, July 19, 2022 | 267 yeas, 157 nays, 7 not voting | *Congressional Record*[^4] | | Republican yeas, July House vote | 47 (per Nadler) | *Congressional Record*[^5] | | Senate passage | 61–36, including 12 Republican senators (per Nadler) | *Congressional Record*[^5] | | Senate cloture | 62–37 | Wikipedia[^6] | | House concurrence, December 8, 2022 | 258–169 | Wikipedia only[^6] | | Federal rights and benefits denied to same-sex couples under DOMA (per Feinstein, 2011 committee debate) | more than 1,100 | Wikipedia[^20] | Wikipedia also reports public-opinion figures.[^25] Gallup measured support for same-sex marriage at 50% in May 2011, 60% in May 2015 and 70% in May 2021. Gallup measured support for interracial marriage at about 4% in 1958 and 94% in 2021. A September 2022 Grinnell College poll found 74% of Americans regarded same-sex marriage as a right that should be guaranteed. ## In the Minnesota record ### Who A May 26, 2023 release from Emmer's office identifies Majority Whip Tom Emmer (MN-06), Michelle Fischbach (MN-07) and Pete Stauber (MN-08) as Minnesota Republicans.[^8] The December 8, 2022 *Congressional Record* identifies Representative Craig as a member from Minnesota.[^9] ### When On July 19, 2022, Emmer and Craig voted yea on House passage, and Fischbach and Stauber voted nay. Fischbach was also recorded as casting the vote of Representative Walorski under House Resolution 8.[^7] On December 8, 2022, Craig urged a yes vote. She said the bill "takes the longstanding and overdue step of repealing DOMA". She also said the Supreme Court and the members opposing the bill were "out of step with the American people".[^9] The record cited here does not include the December 8 roll call. It therefore does not establish how Minnesota members voted on concurrence.[^6] ## Notes [^1]: U.S. House of Representatives, *Congressional Record*, vol. 168, pp. H8827–H8828 (December 8, 2022) — long title of H.R. 8404 and Sec. 1 short title of the Senate amendment. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/crec/168/h/8837 [^2]: Wikipedia, *Respect for Marriage Act* (revision 1380995651, retrieved October 27, 2026) — passage by the 117th Congress and signature by President Biden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act [^3]: U.S. House of Representatives, *Congressional Record*, vol. 168, p. H8827 (December 8, 2022) — Secs. 3–5 of the Senate amendment: repeal of 28 U.S.C. § 1738C, text of new § 1738C including Attorney General and private enforcement and its definition of "State", and amendment of 1 U.S.C. § 7. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/crec/168/h/8837 [^4]: U.S. House of Representatives, *Congressional Record*, vol. 168, p. H6859 (July 19, 2022) — House passage of H.R. 8404: yeas 267, nays 157, not voting 7, Roll No. 373. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/crec/168/h/6859 [^5]: U.S. House of Representatives, *Congressional Record*, vol. 168, p. H8828 (December 8, 2022) — Rep. Nadler's statement: 47 Republican members supported the July bill; Senate passage 61–36 with 12 Republican senators; compromise credited to Senators Baldwin and Collins. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/crec/168/h/8837 [^6]: Wikipedia, *Respect for Marriage Act* (revision 1380995651, retrieved October 27, 2026) — Baldwin's November 14 announcement, cloture 62–37 on November 16, Senate passage 61–36 on November 29, House concurrence 258–169 on December 8, 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act [^7]: U.S. House of Representatives, *Congressional Record*, vol. 168, p. H6859 (July 19, 2022) — yea and nay lists of Roll No. 373 (Emmer and Craig yea; Fischbach and Stauber nay) and members recorded pursuant to House Resolution 8 (Walorski, by Fischbach). https://www.govinfo.gov/link/crec/168/h/6859 [^8]: Office of Rep. Tom Emmer, *Emmer, Minnesota Republicans Call for Investigation into Taxpayer-Funded University Internship Program* (May 26, 2023) — identifies Majority Whip Tom Emmer (MN-06), Michelle Fischbach (MN-07) and Pete Stauber (MN-08) as Minnesota Republicans. https://emmer.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/emmer-minnesota-republicans-call-for-investigation-into-taxpayer-funded-university-internship-program [^9]: U.S. House of Representatives, *Congressional Record*, vol. 168, p. H8830 (December 8, 2022) — Rep. Craig of Minnesota's remarks urging a yes vote on the Senate amendment to H.R. 8404. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/crec/168/h/8837 [^10]: U.S. House of Representatives, *Congressional Record*, vol. 168, p. H8828 (December 8, 2022) — Rep. Nadler's statement: first introduction in 2009, co-introducers, and rationale. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/crec/168/h/8837 [^11]: Wikipedia, *Respect for Marriage Act* (revision 1380995651, retrieved October 27, 2026) — 2009 introduction on September 15, 2009, 120 cosponsors; support from Bob Barr and Bill Clinton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act [^12]: U.S. House of Representatives, *Congressional Record*, vol. 168, pp. H8827–H8828 (December 8, 2022) — bill called up under House Resolution 1510; Nadler's motion to concur; one hour of debate controlled by the Judiciary chair and ranking minority member (Nadler and Jordan). https://www.govinfo.gov/link/crec/168/h/8837 [^13]: U.S. House of Representatives, *Congressional Record*, vol. 168, pp. H8828–H8831 (December 8, 2022) — speakers for and against the motion to concur. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/crec/168/h/8837 [^14]: U.S. House of Representatives, *Congressional Record*, vol. 168, p. H8827 (December 8, 2022) — Sec. 2 (findings) of the Senate amendment. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/crec/168/h/8837 [^15]: U.S. House of Representatives, *Congressional Record*, vol. 168, p. H8827 (December 8, 2022) — Secs. 6–8 of the Senate amendment: religious liberty and conscience, statutory prohibition, severability. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/crec/168/h/8837 [^16]: U.S. House of Representatives, *Congressional Record*, vol. 168, pp. H8828–H8829 (December 8, 2022) — Nadler, Jordan and Hartzler on the effect of the Senate amendment. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/crec/168/h/8837 [^17]: U.S. House of Representatives, *Congressional Record*, vol. 168, p. H8827 (December 8, 2022) — Sec. 5 text of amended 1 U.S.C. § 7(a)–(c). https://www.govinfo.gov/link/crec/168/h/8837 [^18]: Wikipedia, *Respect for Marriage Act* (revision 1380995651, retrieved October 27, 2026) — scholarly views of Lynn Wardle and William Baude on the marriage-validity language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act [^19]: Wikipedia, *Respect for Marriage Act* (revision 1380995651, retrieved October 27, 2026) — exclusion of federally recognized tribes; extension of recognition to American Samoa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act [^20]: Wikipedia, *Respect for Marriage Act* (revision 1380995651, retrieved October 27, 2026) — Congresses in which versions were filed; 2011 reintroduction, Feinstein Senate version, Obama endorsement, Ros-Lehtinen cosponsorship; Feinstein's 1,100-rights figure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act [^21]: Wikipedia, *Respect for Marriage Act* (revision 1380995651, retrieved October 27, 2026) — background on *Loving*, *Windsor*, *Obergefell* and *Dobbs*, including Alito's majority statement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act [^22]: U.S. House of Representatives, *Congressional Record*, vol. 168, p. H8831 (December 8, 2022) — Rep. Jackson Lee quoting Justice Thomas's *Dobbs* concurrence. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/crec/168/h/8837 [^23]: U.S. House of Representatives, *Congressional Record*, vol. 168, p. H8828 (December 8, 2022) — Rep. Jordan quoting the Supreme Court on the reach of *Dobbs*. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/crec/168/h/8837 [^24]: U.S. House of Representatives, *Congressional Record*, vol. 168, p. H6859 (July 19, 2022) — procedure for the passage vote: clause 8 of rule XX, five-minute electronic vote. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/crec/168/h/6859 [^25]: Wikipedia, *Respect for Marriage Act* (revision 1380995651, retrieved October 27, 2026) — Gallup and Grinnell polling on same-sex and interracial marriage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act