As an out gay man in an interracial, same-sex marriage, I’m pleased the Senate passed the Respect for Marriage Act, which will protect my five-year-old union and ensure that bigots can’t invalidate my swirl of a marriage. I’m happy it will sail to passage once more in the House and that President Biden will sign it into law. And yet …
Look, as an institutionalist who recognizes the power of incrementalism in the slow but steady march to equality, I’m used to seeing the forest for the trees. In that regard, the legislation’s repeal of the remaining section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act — which defined marriage as one man, one woman — is an advancement. But the more I focus on the trees that make up this act, the more my joy diminishes.
Remember, the Respect for Marriage Act is meant to safeguard against the view expressed by Justice Clarence Thomas that the Supreme Court “should reconsider” Obergefell, its 2015 ruling that guaranteed a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Writing in the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade’s constitutional right to an abortion, Thomas went on to say that the precedent’s foundation of due process “is ‘demonstrably erroneous’ ” and that “we have a duty to ‘correct the error.’ ”
Related Coverage
AllSides Picks
News
News Media Misses Declining LGB Youth Rates, Discrimination Cases, and More
Malayna J. Bizier
October 13th, 2026
News
Media Bias Alert: Missing Miscarriage Data, a Custody Dispute, and a Two-Year-Old’s Euthanasia
Malayna J. Bizier
September 28th, 2026
Red Blue Translator
Cisgender
Red Blue Translator
Gender Identity
More News about LGBTQ Issues
News from the Left
News from the Center
News from the Right
Just The News