BETHLEHEM, Pa. - The Lehigh Valley's federal lawmakers were not on the same page when it came to the new law protecting gay and interracial marriages.
U.S. Rep. Susan Wild and Sen. Bob Casey, both Democrats, issued strong statements of support for the bill last month when it passed their chambers with bipartisan support.
- Rep. Susan Wild and Sen. Bob Casey voted in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act
- The law is a failsafe in case the Supreme Court reverses its 2015 ruling on gay marriage
- Sen. Pat Toomey missed the vote after an amendment he called for was added
Republican Sen. Pat Toomey initially voiced opposition to the bill, saying it would infringe on the religious rights of private organizations. When senators added an amendment offering exemptions to religious groups, Toomey missed the vote.
The new law is intended to serve as an added layer of protection should the Supreme Court reverse itself on court rulings involving the 14th Amendment. Past courts cited the 14th Amendment in cases involving a right to privacy, such as interracial marriage, gay marriage and the right to buy contraception.
Concerns rose after the Supreme Court threw out Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which relied on the 14th Amendment to allow abortions. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should consider cases relying on similar legal precedent.
Wild, of South Whitehall Township, specifically cited Thomas in a prepared statement after the House passed the Respect for Marriage Act. Americans should not have to go to bed wondering if their marriage still will be recognized when they awaken, she said.
“I am proud of my vote to protect the right to marriage equality—a right is not a right unless it is equally exercised by all,” Wild said.
Sen. Casey, of Lackawanna County, applauded his colleagues in the Senate for passing the act. He pledged to continue fighting to represent members of the LGBTQ community.
“The right to marriage is sacred and one that should be afforded to every American," he said in a statement.
Despite the soaring rhetoric, the Respect for Marriage Act does not offer ironclad protections. Rather than codify gay marriage, it repealed a 1996 law that specifically stated marriage is between a man and woman.
It also requires states to recognize all marriages from other states. That means states could still ban types of marriages within their boundaries, requiring residents to travel elsewhere to get married.
Toomey pointed to those shortcomings when he critiqued the bill in a Nov. 16 statement, weeks before the bill passed.
“The Respect for Marriage Act does not provide any meaningful benefit to same-sex marriages that does not already exist. It does significantly threaten religious liberty,” he said.
But when the bill passed the Senate on Nov. 30, it contained an amendment specifically providing exemptions to religious organizations. Toomey was not present for the vote, which passed with support from 49 Democrats and 12 Republicans.
A spokesman for Toomey said Wednesday evening that the senator stood by his Nov. 16 remarks despite the religious exemption amendment."
