Bill Overview
Title: Respect for Marriage Act
Description: This act provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages. Specifically, the act replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage between two individuals that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.) The act also replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The act allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations. The act does not (1) affect religious liberties or conscience protections that are available under the Constitution or federal law, (2) require religious organizations to provide goods or services to formally recognize or celebrate a marriage, (3) affect any benefits or rights that do not arise from a marriage, or (4) recognize under federal law any marriage between more than two individuals.
Sponsors: Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-10]
Target Audience
Population: People in same-sex or interracial marriages
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The bill directly impacts individuals in same-sex marriages by providing them statutory recognition and protection.
- Individuals in interracial marriages are similarly impacted as the bill ensures their marriages are recognized across state lines.
- The bill could indirectly affect all couples since it sets precedents for federal and cross-state recognition of marriages.
- It may affect individuals considering moving to a different state with differing marriage laws, as it ensures consistent recognition.
- The general LGBTQIA+ community, even those not married, will be affected by the implicit support and legalization framework for same-sex marriages.
- Racial minorities involved in interracial relationships are affected by the formal recognition and protection of their marriages.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects individuals in same-sex and interracial marriages by ensuring their marriages are federally recognized. This has a direct impact on legal protections and benefits for these couples, potentially improving their well-being.
- While the policy directly affects millions of people in same-sex or interracial marriages, its broader implications extend to societal attitudes related to marriage equality, potentially affecting social acceptance and community well-being.
- Given budgetary constraints and the target population, the policy is primarily designed to provide legal assurance and consistency in marriage recognition across states, influencing well-being by reducing anxiety about legal marriage status.
- The policy does not directly allocate financial resources to affected populations but provides a structural legal framework. As such, the impacts on well-being are likely socio-psychological rather than economic.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Respect for Marriage Act provides a sense of security regarding my marriage's legal standing.
- I believe this policy reinforces the progress made in LGBTQIA+ rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Teacher (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad that the law supports and recognizes our marriage.
- I worry less about potential moves to other states and the legalities that might arise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Lawyer (New York, NY)
Age: 51 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act offers vital federal protection for marriages like mine.
- It's reassuring both personally and professionally to see this legal support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Restaurant Manager (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes the potential future marriage process much simpler and fair.
- Having federal support for our marriage encourages us to proceed with our plans.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
College Student (Boise, ID)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill gives me hope for future relationships that may be same-sex.
- It's important to know my rights will be protected when I decide to marry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It feels reassuring to see our marriage legally recognized everywhere.
- The federal protection reduces anxiety about state-specific legislation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
HR Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides peace of mind and stability for our family.
- It's critical for ensuring that our marriage is recognized no matter where we live.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Freelance Artist (Portland, OR)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy broadly supports fairness and equality, reassuring for future relationships.
- Knowing marriages like mine would be recognized is comforting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Banker (Dallas, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Happy to see the federal law align with Supreme Court decisions to uphold our rights.
- This policy reassures us about enduring legal protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Graphic Designer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law helps clarify the legal status of our potential future marriage regardless of where we live.
- It reduces the uncertainty surrounding state-to-state legal differences.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Key Considerations
- This bill aligns existing statutory definitions with the outcomes of Supreme Court decisions, specifically enhancing statutory language to already existing constitutional precedents.
- The CBO assumes compliance with existing rulings by parties involved (states and federal agencies), limiting additional compliance or enforcement costs.
- Minimal administrative updates or awareness programs may accompany the statutory changes which contribute to low-cost estimates.