Tangle - The Respect for Marriage Act.

Episode Date: December 15, 2022

The Respect for Marriage Act. Yesterday, President Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law, a bill that codifies into law national protections for same-sex and interracial couples. The House passed the bill by a 258-169 vote last week, with every Democrat and 39 Republicans voting in favor. Today, we're going to hear some commentary on the bill from the right and left, then my take.You can read today's podcast here, today’s “Under the Radar” story here, and today’s “Have a nice day” story here.Today’s clickables: Quick hits (2:00), Today’s story (3:36), Left’s take (6:55), Right’s take (11:26), Isaac’s take (15:54), Your Questions Answered (19:31), Under the Radar (21:41), Numbers (22:40), Have a nice day (23:20).You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Today’s episode was edited by Zosha Warpeha.Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum. Some independent thinking without all that hysterical nonsense you find everywhere else. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about the Respect for Marriage Act, which was just signed by President Biden and is now becoming law. Before you jump in, though, a quick promo. Tomorrow, we are going to be sitting down with Simon Rosenberg, and we're going to have a newsletter transcript of our conversation and a podcast also going out at some point.

In our final election day preview on the day of the 2022 midterms, I gave a little space to Rosenberg in a sea of predictions about the red wave and the bad day that was coming for Democrats. Rosenberg, who is a Democratic strategist, was predicting the opposite, that Democrats were going to fare better than people thought and have a historically good midterm. I wrote in that final preview that if he ended up being right, he'd be on an island. I would be sure to call him out as someone who got it right, and I would also try and talk to him. Well, he did end up being right. And so on Monday, I sat down with the man who got it right for an hour-long conversation

about why he saw something so few other people did and what he thinks is coming in 2024. So tomorrow in our Subscribers Only Friday edition, we'll be publishing a transcript of our conversation with him. If you want that transcript in your inbox, go to readtangle.com slash membership. We will also try and get a podcast version of the convo up at some point as well. With that out of the way, we'll jump in with our quick hits for the day. First up, the Federal Reserve once again hiked interest rates by 0.5%, bringing the benchmark rate to 4.25% to 4.5%, a 15-year high. Number two, the family of Grant Wall, the prominent soccer journalist who died suddenly in Qatar, said an autopsy revealed that he died of a ruptured aorta. Number three, Peru's new

government has declared a state of emergency amid nationwide protests in support of ousted President Pedro Castillo. The government is imposing a police state that allows searches of homes and suspends the rights of movement and assembly. Number four, China announced it would stop reporting asymptomatic COVID-19 cases among the country's largest outbreak of the virus yet. Number five, the U.S. Senate passed a bill banning the use of TikTok on government devices. The House is voting today on the Respect for Marriage Act. The act enshrines into federal law marriage equality for same-sex and interracial couples. The U.S. House has passed legislation designed to protect same-sex and interracial marriage. The Respect for Marriage Act passed Thursday on a vote of 258 to 169.

Today, I sign the Respect for Marriage Act into law. Deciding whether to marry, who to marry, is one of the most profound decisions a person can make. Yesterday, President Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law, a bill that codifies into law national protections for same-sex and interracial couples. The House passed the bill by a 258 to 169 vote last week, with every Democrat and 39 Republicans voting in favor. It passed the Senate by a 61 to 36 vote, with 49 Democrats and 12 Republicans voting for it. Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock was absent for the vote, as were two Republicans. Democrats pushed to pass the bill out of a concern that the Supreme Court may

overrule past decisions and undercut its current support for legal recognition of such marriages. The bill was unique in LGBTQ legislation that it won over support from gay rights groups as well as many religious organizations, despite the fact that many religious conservatives and congressional Republicans still oppose gay marriage. The bill is narrowly crafted to act as a backstop for the 2015 Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage, known as Obergefell v. Hodges. It also repeals a 1996 U.S. law called the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples. It bars states from rejecting the validity of out-of-state marriages

on the basis of sex, race, or ethnicity, according to Reuters. That means for the roughly 700,000 same-sex married couples living in the United States, if the Supreme Court were to overturn Obergefell, the federal government in all states would still be obligated to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages that were either legally performed in the past or are to be performed in the future in states where they are legal. However, the legislation did not go as far as some LGBTQ groups wanted it to. In the event the Supreme Court does overrule that precedent, it does not bar individual states from blocking same-sex or interracial marriages in the future. It also includes card-outs to ensure that religious entities cannot be forced to provide

goods and services for any marriage and protects them from losing their tax-exempt status if they decline to recognize same-sex marriages. Currently, there is no legal challenge to same-sex or interracial marriage before the Supreme Court or one headed its way. Meanwhile, the public's opinion on same-sex marriage has changed dramatically in 25 years. Just 27% of the public supported same-sex marriage in 1996, years. Just 27% of the public supported same-sex marriage in 1996, while 71% do now, according to Gallup. Today, we're going to take a look at some reactions to this bill from the left and the right, and then my take. First up, we'll start with what the left is saying. The left is divided on the legislation, with some saying it is a proposal worth celebrating and others saying it didn't go far enough. Some celebrate it as a major step forward to provide a backstop against any future Supreme

Court decisions. Others say there were better alternatives and the bill's protections are too limited. The Washington Post editorial board called it a modest proposal worth celebrating. The bill is essentially an insurance policy to, as Senator Tammy Baldwin, the Democrat from Wisconsin, put it, assuage the anxieties and fears of same-sex and interracial couples after the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Justice Clarence Thomas cultivated these concerns in a concurrence, indicating his desire for the Supreme Court to re-examine previous rights-enshrining rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which today requires all states to issue same-sex marriage licenses, the board wrote. The RMA doesn't include that same requirement. This means that if the justice gets his wish, the 35 states that have

same-sex marriage bans still on the books can begin to deny licenses again. The good news, however, is plentiful. The chances that the Supreme Court would overturn Obergefell seem low, considering the lack of interest shown by other conservatives on the court. And the RMA does ensure that the federal government will recognize same-sex marriages no matter what the judiciary decides, the board added. More than that, it mandates that even states with bans recognize marriages made in states without. This is understandably unsatisfying to many couples, who rightfully believe they should be allowed to say their vows wherever they choose, rather than have to travel across borders for the official proceeding. But it is far preferable to depriving

the couples of those benefits altogether, as happened under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which had remained on the books despite being made unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and which would be formally repealed by the RMA. Also in the Washington Post, Jonathan Capehart took a much more cynical tone, saying, gee, thanks for this tiny step to protect my same-sex marriage. 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.

But let's say Thomas gets his wish and Obergefell is overturned, Capehart wrote. What the act does not do is require states to issue marriage licenses in contravention of state law. This is, for now, the province of Obergefell. So, same-sex couples living in states where they couldn't legally marry post-Obergefell would have to go to another state where it is legal if they wanted to marry. What in the second-class citizenship? And don't get me started on the financial burden this would place on couples. The upside guaranteed by this new legislation is that once they return home, their home state would have to recognize their marriage just as it does that of a heterosexual married couple. Gee, thanks, Capehart said. Look at the

religious freedom exemptions enumerated in the RMA. That someone could use their personal beliefs to deny services to me and other LGBTQ Americans and be shielded from legal action is an insult to our dignity. The only sliver of a saving grace is that the act doesn't make new law, but simply reiterates what's already on the books, such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In Open Democracy, Chrissy Stroop said the bill doesn't go far enough. The press's rush to sing the praises of this quote-unquote landmark legislation obscures the fact that the new law is a minimal and defensive measure. The Equality Act, which would offer far more robust non-discrimination measures to LGBTQ Americans nationwide, has, sadly, been languishing in Congress for years.

The Democratic leadership's reasons for passing the Respect for Marriage Act are undoubtedly correct, Stroop wrote. Given the likelihood that the Supreme Court will overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 precedent that established same-sex marriage rights in all American states, it was crucial to act preemptively to mitigate the damage. But it would be nice to see Democrats and elite pundits stating frankly that the law does not go far enough. When we look at the bigger picture, we are still left with the distinct possibility of state-level discrimination against same-sex couples depending on the Supreme Court's actions in the coming picture, we are still left with the distinct possibility of state-level discrimination against same-sex couples, depending on the Supreme Court's actions in the coming years, Stroop said. We are going to need robust, sustained grassroots organizing to put pressure,

not just on politicians to fight harder for human rights of marginalized groups, but also on politicians and the press to call right-wing Christians what they are, an unfairly privileged demographic opposed to democracy and human rights that should no longer be coddled by American society. Alright, that is it for the leftist saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right is also divided, with some saying the bill degrades the meaning of marriage and others arguing it could advance religious liberty. Some argue redefining marriage to include same-sex couples undermines the traditional definition of the institution. Others say this could advance freedom for both sides. Before its passage, National Review's editors called on Republicans to vote no.

Marriage is no longer a means of harnessing the brute facts of biology into the service of children. It is purely a means to the end of married parties' happiness. It means whatever they want it to mean, the editor said. Permanent if you wish, exclusive if you like, between people of the opposite sex if you prefer. The older view of marriage was wiser. The original definition was based on the biological reality of sexual complementarity, one man and one woman that works to advance a societal ideal, that husbands and wives gratefully receive the children their unions beget, and that all family members take seriously their obligations to one another. When this works well, societies flourish. When it doesn't, they suffer. Our marriage culture is ailing, with children routinely born out of

wedlock, high levels of household instability, and falling rates of marriage and childbirth. Same-sex marriage, which was not long ago advertised as a cure for the weaknesses of modern marriage, remember the conservative case for same-sex marriage, has, at minimum, failed to arrest these trends, they wrote. At worst, it has further clouded our culture's understanding of what marriage is. To prefer the old definition is not to disregard same-sex partners whose love, loyalty, and friendship are deep and enduring, but their interests could have been accommodated without redefining marriage, and in principle still could be. award-winning book. Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character

trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. In Deseret, Hal Boyd said the bill could be used as a vehicle for protecting religious freedom. This act does not curtail the religious freedoms already provided under the Constitution and federal law.

This may seem like a yawn, but in fact it's important for reaffirming the religious freedom protections applicable under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, namely that government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. If a church or religious school refuses to hold a same-sex wedding or related celebration, there's no cause of action, meaning no one can sue, Boyd said. Churches or religious schools would not be required to perform or house or cater same-sex weddings. End of story. Some have asked whether this language could cover someone like Jack Phillips, the cake baker from Colorado, who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, Boyd said. It doesn't apply to non-state actors such as Phillips, and the reality is that Phillips

won his own Supreme Court case. One of the most important passages reads as follows, 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. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect. Codifying these words into federal law matters for a simple reason. They reject the notion that believers in traditional marriages and their religious practices are based on bad, dishonorable motives. In Newsweek, Brad Palumbo, the founder of Base Politics, wrote supportively of the bill. Passage of the Respect for Marriage

Act should be a relatively uncontroversial development. After all, even a majority of Republicans now support gay marriage. Yet, in some corners of the political right, critics are still digging their heels in and viciously opposing the bill, pushing alarmist arguments about how it supposedly endangers religious liberty. These arguments are utterly unfounded in reality, he wrote. GOP Senators Tom Tillis and Rob Portman drafted amendments that explicitly ensure that the bill does not do anything to diminish or repeal any of the current for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage, and that the eligibility of non-profits for tax-exempt status would not be affected by this legislation, he said. So there's really no substance behind

the claim that this legislation somehow targets or demonizes religious Americans. In fact, it explicitly includes language recognizing the good faith differences in views and values that Americans have on these issues, and is very explicit not to undermine any federal religious protections. Alright, that is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. All right, that is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. Earlier this week, I was recording one of our Tangle reader interviews that we are going to publish in January, an experiment for me to sit down and talk to randomly chosen readers of this newsletter about their lives and beliefs. At the end of the podcast, I asked my guests if they had any questions for me. And roughly speaking, they asked how I think about my worldview. What grounding principles do I apply to my politics and to Tangle? It's a very big

question, and I kind of gave a long, meandering answer about the intersection of empathy and limited government and the nearly perfect ideals of the United States and the contrast of their incredibly flawed execution. If I could go back and answer again, though, I think I'd say that a very core principle for me is that living in a pluralistic society is inherently messy, difficult, and will ultimately be displeasing to most of the parties involved on some level. We all need to enter every political debate in our country with that understanding. At the same time, though, striving to make that pluralistic society functional, to coexist with respect and empathy and an abundance of opportunity all in a way that

allows basic freedoms to thrive, that is a beautiful and high-minded ideal worth fighting for. It would be easier, of course, to live in a country where everyone was a devout Christian or everyone was unmoored from faith. It would also be a lot more boring and a lot less special. The impossible reality of our position is that we live in a country where millions are dedicated to sincerely held religious views that frame marriage in one way, while millions of other people are asking to live their lives honestly, freely, and openly equal in ways that buck such a view. And we're living under a legal system that promises to protect all the parties involved. Framed this way, it's hard to imagine a piece of legislation that does a better job of walking the line than the Respect for Marriage Act.

Do my personal biases make me think the bill could have gone further to protect same-sex marriages at the state level without infringing on certain guarantees of religious liberty? Yes. Did I expect that to be the case in a country passionately devoted to incrementalism and deeply divided in its legislative bodies? No. The vast majority of Americans recognize that same-sex couples deserve the same respect and protection under the law and should be able to pursue marriage when they opt to. Thanks to this widely held public opinion, the Supreme Court's rulings, and our Constitution, that is the current state of affairs. I do not believe Obergefell is truly

in jeopardy. There is no actual movement at the state level to overturn it, and there is a single justice of nine who seems remotely interested in relitigating it. This is good, and I hope it stays this way. For now, the Respect for Marriage Act offers an important piece of security to same-sex couples across the country while also restating several important truths. Religious objectors to same-sex marriage can't and shouldn't be forced into endorsing or participating in same-sex marriages. These objectors are capable of having faith-based, non-bigoted objections to a more inclusive definition of marriage. There is a difference between the necessity of government recognition of same-sex marriage, which we should have, and the necessity of private individuals to recognize same-sex marriages, which we cannot coerce. This is why there is one single

bill that is getting the endorsement of the Church of Jesus of Latter-day Saints, was being pushed by prominent gay Republicans, and is also being embraced by many LGBTQ rights groups across the country. This is what a functioning pluralistic society looks like. This is what bipartisanship looks like. This is the kind of legislation that simultaneously enhances the rights of two competing groups while accepting and addressing both of their needs. It's a uniquely American bill and a uniquely functional one. We should celebrate it. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one is from Mike in Meredith, New Hampshire. Mike said, what are your thoughts about the

Congress recently passing a law that basically says people in the military do not necessarily have to get the COVID-19 shot? There also seems to be a provision in the works about reinstating the 8,000 plus members who were released for noncompliance of the lawful order and a suggestion that they should get their full back pay. I'm wondering if that sets a precedent for noncompliance with lawful orders and whether or not that would be considered dangerous in a military situation. Okay, so first of all, I'm probably not the best person to ask since I always pretty much opposed vaccine mandates from the government.

I think private companies have the right to institute such mandates, and certainly had cause to in the beginning of the pandemic. I do not think such mandates should come from the federal government. That makes this case particularly interesting, since it's the government making a decision about its own employees, members of the military. Given vaccine rates and the number of people who have had COVID already, and the immunity we know having the virus provides, I really don't think a military mandate is necessary anymore, if it ever was. There is an argument, of course, that if military members are testing positive for COVID it impacts their preparedness, which is true.

But it's also true that being vaccinated doesn't prevent you from getting the virus, it mostly improves your health outcomes and reduces severity of symptoms. It's also important to contextualize the stakes here. This bill wasn't a narrow vaccine mandate legislation. It included the entire military budget, new rules about reporting sexual assault cases, and funding for defense of Taiwan and Ukraine. Democrats had a decision to make about whether to allow the mandate to be rescinded or to watch the entire bill get tanked. I think they chose correctly. As for precedent, I'm not sure it really changes much.

Military members who objected to the mandate and refused to get vaccinated are not coming out ahead here. They suffered by losing their jobs and pay for the last year or two. If the government remedies that, it will of course be some consolation for them, but I don't think the lesson coming out of this ordeal is that rejecting lawful orders is somehow more permissible. Alright, that is it for your questions answered, which brings us to our under-the-radar section. Officials with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California have declared a regional

drought emergency for the entire southern portion of the state, asking water agencies to immediately reduce their use of imported supplies. The announcement comes eight months after officials declared a similar emergency for 7 million people dependent on supplies from the State Water Project, which sends water from Northern California. This emergency is tied to the lack of water in the Colorado River, which brings in much of the out-of-state supply. Conditions on the Colorado River are growing increasingly dire, MWD Chairwoman Gloria Gray said in a statement. We simply cannot continue turning to that source to make up the difference in our limited state supplies. In addition, three years of California

drought are drawing down our local storage. The Los Angeles Times has the story and there's a link to it in today's episode description. All right, that is it for our Under the Radar story, which brings us to our numbers section. The percentage of Americans who approve of interracial marriage is now 94%. The percentage of Americans who approved when Gallup first asked that question in 1958 was 4%. The percentage of Americans who approve of same-sex marriage is now 71%. The percentage of Americans who approved of same-sex marriage in 2012 was 48%. The percentage of Americans who say they are weekly churchgoers and also say they approve of same-sex marriage is 40%. The percentage of Americans who seldom or never go to church and say they approve of same-sex marriage is 82%. All right, and last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. Two years ago, the ninth largest

meteor to ever hit Earth was discovered by Westerners in Somalia, but locals who use it to sharpen knives say it is much older. They call the stone nightfall and have documented it in poems, songs, and dances that go back five generations. Now, the magical story of nightfall is being taken to the next level. Canadian scientists examining a 70-gram sample they took from the 15-ton meteorite say it contains two new, never-before-observed minerals. They've named them elalite and elkenton meteorite, say it contains two new, never-before-observed minerals. They've named them

elolite and elken stantonite. A third, yet-to-be-identified mineral is still being analyzed by the researchers. BBC News has the fascinating story, and there's a link to it in today's episode description. All right, everybody,

that is it for today's podcast. Like I said at the top, if you want to hear from us tomorrow and get our subscribers-only newsletter with an interview with Simon Rosenberg, the man who got the 2022 midterm elections correct, you need to subscribe. Go to retangle.com slash membership and become a yearly or monthly member. Either way, we'll be right back here on your ears pretty soon. Have a good one.

Peace. back here on your ears pretty soon. Have a good one. Peace. media manager Magdalena Bokova, who designed our logo. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. For more from Tangle, subscribe to our newsletter or check out our website at www.readtangle.com. Thanks for watching! character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot.

Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCellVax.ca.