UNBIASED - LAW: Recent Legislation: Same-Sex Marriage, Interracial Marriage, and Contraceptives

Episode Date: July 29, 2022

On this episode of the "jordan is my lawyer" podcast, Jordan focuses on some controversial legislation that recently passed in the House, which includes the "Respect for Marriage Act" and the "Right to Contraception Act". While the odds of these bills passing the Senate are unknown, Jordan is here to break down what we DO know. She briefly discusses how a bill even becomes a law, and then explains why "the filibuster" may prevent these bills from passing the Senate, why the House is suddenly springing into action, and what these two bills would mean if codified into law. Oh, and you'll even get to hear about the time Senator Ted Cruz read Green Eggs and Ham on the Senate floor.... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario Helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is My Law podcast. This is your host Jordan and I give

you the legal analysis you've been waiting for. Here's the deal. I don't care about your political views, but I do ask that you listen to the facts, have an open mind and think for yourselves. Deal? Oh, and one last thing. I'm not actually a lawyer. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. I have my cold brew in hand. It's actually a sweet cream vanilla cold brew. What's that called? With like extra cold foam on top. It is absolutely amazing, but it's my last two raw because I'm starting tomorrow. No sugar. So that's going to be fun. So yeah, I'm starting tomorrow no sugar so that's gonna be fun um so yeah I'm living it up until then I just got back from vacation I am ready to get back to you guys so I outlined this episode while I was on the plane home and at the same time I was listening

to the Hamilton soundtrack like the Broadway Hamilton soundtrack. Soundtrack? Why do I keep saying that? It's a soundtrack. Okay, anyway, by the way, if you haven't seen Hamilton, it's a must. I don't even know if it's still on Broadway, but I do know you can watch it on Disney Plus at any time. This is not a plug, I swear. It's just so good, and obviously watching it on TV is not the same as seeing it in person, but it gets the job done. Okay, so anyway, listening to the soundtrack it wasn't even intentional which was the best part like sometimes i just listen to the soundtrack because it's that good and it just so happens that i was listening to it while i was writing out this episode that has everything to do with our government so there i am sitting on the plane feeling extra patriotic and I hear this lyric in one of the songs and I feel like it spoke to like the exact purpose of my show. Okay,

I'm gonna play the lyric for you guys and hopefully you'll understand why I say that. Hold on. While we're talking, let me offer you some free advice. Talk less smile more don't let them know what you're against or what you're for you can't be serious you wanna get ahead yes fools who run their mouths off wind up dead okay so that I I heard that and I was like okay okay, so if you didn't follow along, it's Aaron Burr giving Alexander Hamilton advice and Aaron Burr says, talk less, smile more, don't let them know what you're against or what you're for. You want to get ahead, fools who run their mouth often wind up dead. And as you guys know, I'm not here, like my show is not here to let you guys know what I believe in or don't believe in or what I feel about certain situations. I'm literally

just here to give you the facts so you can educate yourselves about certain things and form your own opinions. So yeah, according to Aaron Burr, I'm basically doing everything right. But wait, because the whole situation gets even more ironic. Because Aaron Burr, who's former vice president, he plays a big role in Alexander Hamilton, like the Broadway show. Aaron Burr was actually the driving force behind what we know today as the filibuster, which is what I'm going to spend a pretty good chunk of time talking about in this episode. So like I'm listening to Aaron Burr telling me in my what I'm going to spend a pretty good chunk of time talking about in this episode. So like I'm listening to Aaron Burr telling me in my ear I'm doing everything right. Meanwhile, I'm writing about Aaron Burr in a way as I'm outlining my episode. It was just a very, I don't know, it was a very coincidental night as I was outlining this episode. So

this episode is going to focus on the legislation that we've been hearing about in the House of Representatives lately, and if you haven't heard about it, I'm here to fill you in on it, specifically two bills, the Respect for Marriage Act and the Right to Contraception Act. First, though, it's important to recap how a bill eventually becomes a law, if it ever becomes a law, because let's face face it a lot of bills don't even make it that far so we're also going to talk about the filibuster which is the main reason why bills don't become laws and then we'll go over those two pieces of legislation that i just

mentioned which just passed in the house and are going to be going through the Senate soon-ish and why all of a sudden the House is passing all of these bills. And I'll give you a hint, Justice Thomas. So the first half of this episode is going to be more educational. We're going to talk about how a bill becomes a law, refresh our memories a little bit, and then really discuss the filibuster. Because understanding the filibuster is incredibly important for determining if these pieces of legislation we're going to talk about are even going to make it to becoming a law.

But as always, I'm going to do my best to break it down into the simplest of terms. The last thing I want is you guys feeling overwhelmed with a ton of information because that is not how we learn. We absorb the most information by it being broken down slowly. So although there is a lot to kind of go over and learn about, I'm going to do it seamlessly so that you walk away feeling extremely empowered. Let's jump right into how a bill becomes a law because a lot of you may be familiar with the major three steps, those being passing the House, passing the Senate, and then being signed by the President. But there are actually a few little steps within those three major steps that make it even harder for a bill to make it to the point of being a law. The first step is either a senator or a representative introduces the bill.

So this happens either in the House or the Senate. From there, the bill is referred to a committee. Both the House and the Senate have committees. The committee's role is basically to study the bill, gather more information about the issue if more information is needed, and determine if it's worthy to send to the floor of either the House or Senate for debate. If the bill was created in the Senate, the bill first goes to the Senate floor for debate and then to the House if it passes the Senate and vice versa. If the bill was created in the House, the bill first goes to the House if it passes the Senate, and vice versa. If the bill was created in the House, the bill first goes to the House floor for debate, and then goes to the Senate if it passes the

House. So let's assume for sake of this example that the bill was created by the House, since that's the case with both bills that we're going to discuss later in this episode. Okay, so first, the bill is introduced in the House. It's then assigned to a House committee. If the House committee releases the bill, once the bill is studied and approved, the bill then goes to a House rules committee. So this is specific to the House. The House has a House rules committee because the House's rules are more formal than the Senate. The Senate doesn't have a Senate rules committee. So first it goes to a committee in the House, then it goes to the House rules committee,

and then it goes to the House floor for debate. Once the debate is over, it goes to a vote. When it's time for a vote, the bill must have 218 or more votes for the bill to pass the House, which is the simple majority, right? Because the House has 435 representatives, so 218 is just one more than half of 435. If the bill passes the House, it moves on to the Senate. In the Senate, it goes through the same process. First, it's assigned to a Senate committee. The Senate committee determines whether or not it's released to the Senate floor for debate. If the committee releases the bill to the Senate floor, the bill is debated and then sent to a vote, if it even gets that far. And we'll talk about why it may

never even get to a vote in the Senate in a minute. So let's assume the bill passes the Senate. It then goes to a third committee, which is made up of both House and Senate members for final revisions. Then it's given to the House and the Senate once more for final approval. And then finally, it's printed and put on the president's desk for signature. The president has 10 days to sign or veto the bill. If the bill is vetoed, the only way for Congress to override the veto is to get a two-thirds supermajority vote from both the House and the Senate. If either the Senate or the House is unable to get that two-thirds vote,

the bill is dead and that entire process we just went over was for nothing. But if the president signs the bill, that is when the bill finally becomes a law. Okay, that's that. So when you hear someone say that a bill must pass the House and Senate and then be signed by the president, that's true, but there are so many little steps within those three major steps that it's incredibly easy for a bill to actually never become a law. In fact, most bills never become laws. Now remember how I said a bill may never even get to a vote in the Senate? That's because there's a caveat in the Senate, which arguably makes it harder for a bill to pass the Senate than the House. This caveat is what we call the filibuster. The filibuster happens in the Senate, and in the simplest of terms, it's an attempt to delay or block a vote

on a piece of legislation. Before we get into the history of the filibuster and how it came about and the different types of filibusters, I'm going to give you the simplest illustration of what the filibuster would look like in real life. So let's use the hypothetical of a right to abortion bill. Okay, so this is just a hypothetical. It's not actually in front of the Senate. It's not in front of the House. Let's just say that it passed the House and now it's up for debate on the Senate floor. So right now, our Senate is evenly split. So we have 50 Republican senators, 48 Democratic senators, and two independent senators. Given the fact that an abortion bill would be a Democratic bill, more than a Republican bill, obviously. Let's say you know that all 48 Democratic senators will jump on board, as well as the two independent senators. So you have 50 votes, but you need a simple majority to get the bill passed. And you know

that maybe one or two Republican senators will jump on board. Okay, easy. You have your simple majority vote. The bill can be passed. But the Senate has a rule that 60 votes are needed to end a debate and even send it to vote. So that simple majority rule doesn't matter until the 60 senators vote to end the debate. So now what that means is you need 10 Republican senators instead of the one or two to jump on board to end the debate and send it to a vote. So what are the senators going to do that don't want this bill to be passed? They're going to prolong the debate. They're not going to end the debate because they know if they end the debate and they send it to a vote, it's likely

going to pass because all you need is a simple majority. So instead, they're going to delay the vote and just debate, debate, debate, debate until the end of time and not let this bill get to a vote. That delay tactic is what we know as the filibuster. So traditionally, the use of the filibuster was used only for the most controversial of issues. Nowadays, though, with increased polarization and division, the filibuster has been used much more frequently. There's arguments for and against the filibuster, which again, I will cite to a source where you can, you know, read through the arguments for and against, but it's still here. It's still very much here, and the increased use of the filibuster has essentially slowed business in the Senate

to almost a halt at times. And critics argue that the filibuster has diminished substantive debate and ultimately lawmaking. And this all makes sense as we go through it. Originally, meaning prior to 1806, and this is where our man Aaron Burr comes into play. So prior to 1806, Senate rules required a motion be passed by simple majority to cut off a debate, which meant that if an issue was being debated, it just took the simple majority, meaning one more than half, to cut off debate and send it to a vote. But in 1806, Vice President Aaron Burr wanted to clean up the Senate rulebook a little bit. He said the Senate had too many rules, and he also felt that the Senate should be able to debate as much as necessary, considering the Senate is handling, obviously, all of the issues

of our country, pretty much, and all of the legislation. So, in turn, the Senate got rid of some of its rules. One of those rules being the rule that required a simple majority to send a bill to vote. A byproduct of getting rid of this rule was that senators now had the opportunity to debate for an unlimited amount of time. And that is what we now know as a filibuster. Now, you might hear this and you might think, well, that's a really stupid concept. Like, why aren't we just sticking with the simple majority rule? Well, for one, if the rule was a simple majority, the bills that were passed during any given term would always

cater to whichever party controlled the Senate at the time, right? The filibuster is a way to encourage bipartisanship and cooperation from both sides. Without it, there would be no cooperation between the parties because it would only take the controlling party to pass any given bill. But, on the flip side, sometimes the filibuster doesn't serve its intended purpose and it results in a deadlocked Senate. For this reason, the Senate made exceptions. Because as with anything in the law, we have exceptions for everything. For example, confirming presidential appointments and Supreme Court nominees only requires a simple majority. So that 60 vote rule doesn't even come into play. That's the exception. The Senate has also exempted certain types of legislation. So as you can see over the years,

there's been certain things that Congress has said or Senate the Senate has said these issues can't be filibustered and they just require the simple majority exceptions like these definitely don't happen often but they're worth mentioning nonetheless now let's quickly go over the different types of filibusters so there's the talking filibuster and the silent filibuster. The talking filibuster is insane and a wild concept. It's essentially what it sounds like. A talking filibuster is when a senator delays a vote by literally standing on the floor and talking for as long as he or she possibly can. The longest talking filibuster ever recorded lasted more than 24 hours. Can you imagine talking for 24 hours? But the craziest part is that the senators don't even have to talk about the bill. One time, okay, guys, get this.

One time, Senator Ted Cruz stood on the floor and read. I am not joking you. I wish I was kidding. I am not. He stood on the floor and read Green Eggs and Ham, the Dr. Seuss book, okay? He spoke for 21 hours. I mean, the pure idea of a senator standing on the Senate floor reading Green Eggs and Ham to delay time is like, it honestly sounds like a joke. What?

I don't know. I can't even, I can't even get deep into that because that is crazy. But here's a fun fact for you. So although a senator can talk for however long they want, there's a few rules for a senator wanting to activate the filibuster. So they have to stay standing on the floor for the entire duration of the filibuster. They can only drink water or milk, which I have to look into the origin of that. Why milk? I feel like that's so random.

They cannot eat anything for the entire duration. They cannot go to the bathroom. Okay. But again, as with most things, are exceptions so get this the only way to bypass those requirements that i just mentioned to you is to have a supporting senator ask a very long-winded question a three to five minute question so that you can go do your thing go to the bathroom when you get back answer the question and that's considered okay that is how you bypass the requirements it's wild it's wild that our government has this thing okay by the way i that is not me saying that i agree with

the filibuster or i don't agree with the filibuster. I just think that when you're listening to the technicalities of this concept, it is wild that America has these rules in place. You know what I mean? Like you think of a government as this super official body and then you have senators reading green eggs and ham on the floor. I don't know. So then senators obviously realized there was a better alternative than standing on the floor talking for hours on end. And they started using a silent filibuster. A silent filibuster occurs any time a group of 41 or more senators simply threatens a filibuster.

So they don't even have to activate the filibuster. They don't even have to get up on the floor and start talking for 24 hours. They just have to threaten that a filibuster could happen. When that happens, when that threat happens, the Senate majority leader can refuse to call a vote. It's important to note that both parties, meaning Republicans and Democrats, have thrown around the idea of getting rid of the filibuster. President Donald Trump spoke about it, President Barack Obama spoke about it, both sides of the aisle have talked about getting rid of it. In order to get rid of the filibuster, the Senate would have to employ the quote-unquote nuclear option, which sounds intense, but essentially it's just a voting procedure to override the Senate

rules and close debate with a simple majority of 51 senators. It just disregards the 60-vote requirement to end a debate, and that's what we talked about prior about the presidential nominees and the Supreme Court justices and certain pieces of legislation. So that's what that is. It's not employed often. It's used very rarely, but the nuclear option is a thing. So last episode, I started asking you guys some critical thinking questions when it comes to particular issues just to get you guys thinking more about that specific issue and kind of encourage you to form your own opinions, so to speak. So I'm going to pose a few questions in regards to the filibuster that will get you thinking a little bit. Question one is this. If we were to do away with the filibuster and the party that won an election could always block the losers from doing anything because all that would be required is a simple majority vote, what would that mean for our representative democracy?

Would that diminish our representative democracy now here's question two if we were to do away with the filibuster would you be okay with the minority party being stripped of a voice in other words if democrats controlled the senate would you be okay with republic Republicans not having much of a voice because Democrats would have enough votes alone to pass bills and vice versa? If Republicans controlled the Senate, would you be okay with Democrats not having much of a say? If your answer was no, do you prefer to have the filibuster in play, even it comes to controversial issues. Because although only a simple majority vote is required to pass a bill, that 60 vote requirement really puts a

damper on things. And we'll put that into perspective when we talk about these two bills that just passed the House, and I'll kind of like illustrate why the filibuster could get in the way. But first, let's talk about why we're hearing so much talk about the House even passing bills. So if you listened to episode, I believe it was two and three, definitely episode two, but I think two and three, I talked about Justice Thomas's concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Dobbs is the case where the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence where he discussed his qualms with the concept of substantive due process. So a couple things to know here. A concurrence is written when a justice agrees with the holding of the case, but writes separately from the majority opinion to address another

issue. So in Dobbs, while Justice Thomas agreed with the court's decision to overturn Roe and remove the constitutional right to abortion, he wrote separately to address substantive due process and why he doesn't believe in that. Substantive due process is a concept created by the court and stems from the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The due process clause of the 14th amendment states that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. Substantive due process, on the other hand, is a concept that doesn't exist in the Constitution, but rather, like I said, the court over time decided that there are certain liberties that are so fundamental that although they don't exist in the Constitution,

they exist anyway. You know, an example of this would be the right to travel. The right to travel actually doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution, but rather it was granted to us because the courts decided that although it's not listed in the Constitution, it's not an enumerated right. It's so fundamental that we ought to have it anyway. Justice Thomas is an originalist and strongly believes that the Constitution is the foundation of our country and that the court's role is to interpret the Constitution and that's it. It cannot create its own ideas and concepts. In saying this, Justice Thomas does not agree with the concept of substantive due process. And he said that rights based on the concept of substantive due process,

such as the right to same-sex marriage and the right to obtain contraceptives, must be re-evaluated under principles and clauses that actually exist in the Constitution, such as the Equal Protection Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause. But, he says, there's no basis for them in a concept created by the court. We have to stick with what the constitution says. Now obviously like I said this is a very originalist perspective. You may not agree with this but people who hold this value and really hold the constitution in a high regard that like this is what we ought to stick to they see it in a different light it's worth noting and people have brought attention to this

that coincidentally justice thomas left out the right to interracial marriage when he was citing all of these rights that need to be evaluated. The right to interracial marriage is also based on substantive due process. The reason that it's a coincidence is because Justice Thomas is in an interracial marriage himself. Now, one could assume, because I always play devil's advocate, I always give the other side, right? one could assume it was implied through his idea that all rights based on substantivity process should be re-evaluated but nonetheless he didn't make mention of loving v virginia which is the case that gave us the right to interracial marriage but he did make mention of obert scheld which is the right that granted same-sex marriage and I am blanking right now

on the case that gave us the right to obtain contraceptives, Griswold. He did make mention of those cases, but ironically did not mention Loving v. Virginia. So, it's safe to say that Justice Thomas' concurrence sparked some fear in some people, which is why the House is now acting. They figure that if we can codify these rights on a federal level, it'll offer the protection needed just in case one day these rights are overturned. It's also important to note that none of these rights are under immediate threat. And I reiterated this in my previous episodes where I talk about Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

The majority opinion in Dobbs specifically said that their opinion in Dobbs should have no bearing on any other right besides the right to abortion. So I just want to make it clear that these rights are not under immediate threat. In order for these rights, like same-sex marriage and the right to obtain contraceptives, to be overturned, there would have to be a case brought in a state challenging some sort of state law, and then the case would have to make its way up to the Supreme Court, and then the Supreme Court would have to render a decision either upholding the right or overturning the right. So as an example, in Dobbs, Mississippi enacted a law called the Gestational Age Act that prohibited abortions after 15 weeks, but that went against

prior Supreme Court precedent in Roe v. Casey, and therefore the law was challenged. So the law was challenged on a state level, it made its way up to the Supreme Court, and that's when the Supreme Court ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade. So in order for the right to same-sex marriage or the right to obtain contraceptives, in order for those to be overturned, what would have to happen is that, let's say, a state, let's just use Missouri as an example, since they seem to be the strictest on abortion laws. Let's say they made a law that essentially said women cannot obtain contraceptives. That law would have to be challenged, and then it would have to be brought in front of the Supreme Court, and that is when ultimately the Supreme Court would either uphold the right to obtain contraceptives

or overturn the right. All right, so now that we've discussed why the House is springing into action, let's talk about what bills they've actually passed. So, on July 21st, the House passed H.R. 8373, which is the Right to Contraception Act. If it's passed by the Senate and signed into law by the president, this bill would establish a federal right for people to obtain and use contraceptives and also federally protect healthcare workers who provide contraceptives. Now again, I'm going to link the bill to my YouTube channel on the episode 4 podcast video in the description section. I'll have all the links to the sources so you guys can read these things for yourselves, but the one thing that I did want to read to you is how the Act defines contraceptives. So, the Act defines contraceptives as, quote,

any drug, device, or biological product intended for use in the prevention of pregnancy that is legally marketed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, such as oral contraceptives, long-acting reversible contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, internal and external condoms, injectables, vaginal barrier methods, transdermal patches, and vaginal rings or other contraceptives. So given that definition, let's talk about plan B because I've heard a lot of talk about plan B lately and what's going to happen to it now with all of these abortion rights. Like is it considered an abortion if you take a plan B after conception? So although Plan B isn't specifically stated in the definition of contraceptives, if you notice that definition doesn't name any medications or contraceptives

specifically, my thought is that it would fall under emergency contraceptives. However, keep in mind that process we talked about earlier in a bill becoming a law and that the Senate can make their own changes, revisions, amendments, and then it goes to that third committee where the committee sorts out the differences between the House and Senate. So yes, the Senate could change certain terms when it gets there. So none of this language is set in stone. None of this language is guaranteed to make it into the final version if it does become a law. Whether the Senate does away with the term emergency contraceptives, we will see. It's always a possibility. But as of now, I do believe that Plan B is considered an emergency contraceptive under this act. So the Right to Contraceptives Act

passed the House 228 to 195. Given the fact that there are currently 220 Democratic representatives in the House and all 220 Democratic representatives voted to pass the act, this means that eight Republican representatives joined all Democratic representatives to ultimately pass the bill. Now, is this bill likely to pass the Senate? So here's the thing. To pass the Senate, it needs to get past the filibuster, right? And that's why we spent so much time talking about the filibuster because it's critical. To pass the filibuster, 10 Republican senators would need to support sending the bill to a vote, assuming that the 48 Democratic

senators and two independent senators were in favor of sending the bill to a vote as well. Given the fact that eight Republican representatives voted to pass the bill in the House, it's not crazy to think that the bill could gain the support of 10 Republican senators to get past the filibuster. Now, obviously, you have to take into account that the House is much bigger than the Senate, right? The House has 435 representatives, whereas the senate has a hundred so proportionally you have to take proportions into account you know eight representatives in the house doesn't necessarily equate to eight senators so obviously there's no definite answer no one can predict what's going to happen in the senate but that is the information that we do know so we will see what happens

however i do think that this next bill we're going to discuss has a better likelihood of passing the Senate than the Right to Contraceptives Act, so let's talk about the next one. H.R. 8404, otherwise known as the Respect for Marriage Act. The Respect for Marriage Act federally protects same-sex marriage and interracial marriage. It passed the House with a 267 to 157 vote, so more than the Right to Contraceptives Act, making it, fun fact, the most pro-LGBTQ vote in congressional history. 47 Republican representatives joined all 220 Democratic representatives in passing the bill. For context, the Equality Act, which would add LGBTQ people to the Civil Rights Act, passed the House one year ago with a vote of 224 to 206, with only three

Republican representatives voting in support. So some say that this Respect for Marriage Act passing the House is, I don't know, maybe speaks to the House progressing. I don't know. We'll see. So like I said, the Respect to Marriage Act doesn't only protect same-sex marriage, but also interracial marriages as well. Let's first talk about same-sex marriage, though. The case that established the fundamental talk about same-sex marriage, though. The case that established the fundamental right to same-sex marriage is called Obergefell v. Hodges. So if you hear people referring to Obergefell, that's what they're talking about. If the Supreme Court were to overturn Obergefell, the Respect for Marriage Act would create federal protection for same-sex marriages. I mean, I don't mean to confuse you. The Respect for Marriage Act

creates a federal protection for same-sex marriages. I mean, I don't mean to confuse you. The Respect for Marriage Act creates a federal protection for same-sex marriages regardless of whether or not that right is overturned. But I'm just saying if the Supreme Court were to overturn Obridgeville and the Respect for Marriage Act passes the Senate and becomes a law, then same-sex marriage would be federally protected still, regardless of it being overturned by the Supreme Court. So what does this mean? It means that if the Respect for Marriage Act passes the Senate and eventually does become a law with the president's signature, states could still restrict same-sex marriages, assuming, this is all assuming, by the way, Obergefell is overturned one day. As of now, with overage fell in place, states cannot restrict same-sex marriage. But let's say that one day overage fell is overturned. If the Respect

for Marriage Act is a law at that time, states can still restrict same-sex marriage, but states that do restrict same-sex marriage must still recognize same-sex marriages if those marriages occurred in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. Let's say just as an example, Obergfell is overturned, Respect for Marriage Act is a law, and Texas one day refuses to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. If that same-sex couple got married in New York, who still had the right to same-sex marriage, Texas would have to recognize that marriage legally. So now let's talk about interracial marriage. The case that gave us the right to interracial marriage we briefly discussed earlier, it's called Loving v. Virginia. As I mentioned earlier, it's the case that Justice Thomas

coincidentally left out of his concurrence. However, even though Justice Thomas didn't mention it in his concurrence, the legislature was like, nah, we are not taking the chance here, okay? So it included interracial marriages in the Respect for Marriage Act. So similar to same-sex marriage, if this act becomes a law, it doesn't forbid a state from refusing to issue licenses for interracial marriages, but instead it requires a state to legally recognize an interracial marriage if the marriage occurred in a state where interracial marriage is legal. So same example I gave you with Texas and New York and the same-sex marriage, same exact thing, but within a racial marriage. Now look, let me be clear. I do not see a world

in which the right to interracial marriage is overturned. I also don't see a world in which a state would forbid interracial marriage. Call me an optimist. I know some people would say otherwise, but I just don't see that happening. And I'd rather be an optimist any day than a pessimist. So what is the likelihood of the Respect for Marriage Act passing the Senate? So again, 10 Republican senators are needed to even end the debate and get this bill to a vote. If the bill is able to break the filibuster or bypass the filibuster, I don't doubt the bill will pass. In my eyes, the biggest hurdle in passing this bill would be to get it past the filibuster because five Republican senators have

already stated that they would support passing the Respect for Marriage Act. So that's your simple majority right there, assuming that all 48 Democratic senators were in favor of the bill and the two independent senators were in favor of the bill. But five more would be needed to get past the filibuster right because you need 60 votes total eight republican senators have already said they will definitely oppose the bill so that leaves 37 senators that are either undecided or they haven't taken a stance publicly now given the fact that the respect for marriage act passed by larger margins in the House than the Right to Contraceptives Act, it leads me to believe the Respect for Marriages Act will have a much easier time passing the Senate. But like I said before, there's no way to know for sure. We can just guess

based on the information that we have, and that's what we have. Just like the Right to Contraceptives Act, I also linked the Respect for Marriage Act in the episode description of episode four on my YouTube so you can find the act there and actually read it for yourself. I've really been trying my best to get you guys this information for your own eyes so like you can actually see these credible sources yourselves and start to learn how to better research based on credible sources because one of the things that makes me so angry and I've talked about this before is that credible information is not accessible to the general public. It's like we're all forced to read the articles written by mainstream media outlets because that's what's easy to obtain but it's not always the best source of information. Actually, it's rarely the best source of information. If you enjoyed

this episode, please consider leaving me a review. It really helps support my show. My next goal is actually to be featured on Apple Podcasts new and noteworthy section. Maybe Spotify has something similar. I'm not not sure so maybe we can all work together and make that happen my hope is that you not only feel educated after listening to my show and you feel like maybe you got a little bit smarter but that you always walk away with an urge to share your knowledge with other people always remember facts over opinions because you can't argue facts the more we educate other, the more our society will become a place of understanding rather than division.

I'll talk to you guys soon.