Missouri’s Roy Blunt, ahead of retirement, supports bill to protect same-sex marriage

Retiring Republican Sen. Roy Blunt on Wednesday supported a bill to protect federal protections for same-sex and interracial marriages, as the Senate attempts to pass legislation that would codify landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving marriage.

Blunt, a Missouri Republican who is retiring at the end of the year, had refused to say how he would vote until the bill was up for a procedural vote. Blunt was among 12 Republicans who joined Democrats to support the bill 62 to 37, setting up a final Senate vote this week.

He said his decision was based on added provisions that guaranteed religious freedom protections in the bill.

“This bill is now designed to accomplish two things,” Blunt wrote in a statement. “People who are legally married in one state have the same protections and responsibilities in any other state that are offered to and required of marriages. And, this legislation enhances the religious freedom for all Americans by protecting religious organizations from retaliation by federal agencies due to their views on marriage. I believe it’s better for Congress to clarify these issues than for federal judges to make these decisions.”

Blunt’s vote was seen as critical as the bill’s sponsors have attempted to cobble together the 60 votes necessary for the bill to make it through a procedural vote on Wednesday. It is the latest in which Blunt has been a key vote since announcing his retirement. He joined Democrats in passing bills intended to fund infrastructure projects and to curb gun violence, picking up criticism from Missouri Republican elected officials for the latter.

Former Independence Mayor Eileen Weir had urged Blunt to support the legislation in a column for The Star last week, arguing that a vote to pass the bill “would mark the capstone of his career and cement a legacy of setting aside politics for the greater good.”

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion in June, LGBTQ advocates worried the court might revisit landmark same-sex marriage cases, like 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage, and 2013 U.S. v. Windsor decision which ruled that the federal government could not discriminate against same-sex couples.

Their fears were stoked in part from a concurring opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas that said the Supreme Court should revisit its decision about same-sex marriage.

“No one in a same-sex marriage should have to worry about whether or not their marriage will be invalidated in the future,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat. “They deserve piece of mind knowing their rights will always be protected under the law.”

The bill seeks to codify those protections by repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013, and by requiring states to recognize valid out-of-state marriages. It also extends protections for interracial marriages, effectively codifying the 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling that legalized interracial marriage.

Same-sex marriage is banned in both the Missouri and Kansas constitutions. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn the right to same-sex marriage, both states would be able to refuse to issue marriage licenses, but would have to recognize legal, out-of-state marriages.

President Joe Biden has pledged to sign the legislation.

“Love is love, and Americans should have the right to marry the person they love. Today’s bipartisan vote brings the United States one step closer to protecting that right in law,” Biden said in a statement following the Senate vote.

The 12 GOP votes in favor of the legislation highlight a shift in support for same-sex marriage and LGBTQ rights that has occurred over the past 20 years, when Republicans were pushing to use constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage at the state level.

In order to build more Republican support, senators added provisions saying the bill would not force religious organizations to provide services, facilities or goods for same-sex marriages, including religious nonprofits. It also has language saying it does not require the federal government to recognize polygamous marriages.

But those provisions were still not enough to earn the support of many Republicans.

Blunt’s Missouri colleague, Sen. Josh Hawley, said he didn’t believe the religious freedom protections went far enough.

“There’s some religious liberty language in there now, which there was not before, but you can drive a truck through it,” said Hawley, a Republican. “I say this as a lawyer that you could litigate right through that, which of course you can because the Democrats don’t want there to be religious liberty exceptions.”

Hawley said he opposed the bill on principle because he did not believe the U.S. Supreme Court correctly decided the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage and he did not believe Congress should write a law protecting it.

“I disagree with that ruling, but that ruling is the law and it’s not going to get overturned,” Hawley said. “I don’t think. I mean, I can’t imagine. There’s no appetite for that. I’m not advocating that.”

Sens. Roger Marshall and Jerry Moran, Republicans from Kansas, both avoided questions about the bill before voting to prevent it from coming up for a vote later this week.

Moran avoided a question leading into the vote, saying he was planning on checking one more thing before he voted.

After the vote, his office sent out a statement saying Moran did not believe there were enough protections for religious freedom in the bill.

“Americans should be treated equally and with dignity and respect,” Moran wrote. “Knowing there are protections under multiple Supreme Court rulings for same-sex marriage, there needs to be greater protections for religious freedoms before I will support the legislation.”

There is already a law protecting religious freedom, called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, alongside protection from the first amendment in the constitution.

Marshall said “no comment.” His office later issued a statement saying Marshall believed the bill “attacked” religious freedom.

“While gay marriage is already the law of the land, this bill goes far beyond making it federal statute by attacking our religious freedoms and threatening to take away religious institutions’ tax exempt status,” Marshall said.

The bill has a provision that says the legislation cannot be construed to “deny or alter any benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible entity or person, including tax-exempt status.”

A recent poll by Pew Research found that 61 percent of Americans said same-sex marriage was good for society. That included 66 percent of Catholics, even as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops came out in opposition to the bill.

After the bill passes the Senate, it will have to go back to a vote in the House so representatives can agree with the changes. Rep. Sharice Davids, a Kansas Democrat who is one of the 11 openly LGBTQ members of Congress, praised the Senate’s vote.

“I’m glad the Senate was able to find a bipartisan path forward for the Respect for Marriage Act,” Davids said. “It’s about time our federal policy on marriage equality aligned with the views of the vast majority of Americans and I look forward to delivering a sense of security to thousands of Kansas families in a time of rising discrimination.”