In 1996, under the Clinton administration, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. Here is a summary of H.R. 3396 passed by the 104th Congress (1995-1996):
Defense of Marriage Act – Amends the Federal judicial code to provide that no State, territory, or possession of the United States or Indian tribe shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other such jurisdiction or to any right or claim arising from such relationship.
Establishes a Federal definition of: (1) “marriage” as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife; and (2) “spouse” as only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.
The United States Senate just voted yesterday (11/29/2022) to pass the Respect for Marriage Act, which repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, erasing the Federal definition of marriage being between one man and one woman. In the text of the new bill, H.R. 8404, Section 5.7.a reads thus:
For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State. (Emphasis by the author of this article)
Summary of H.R. 8404 passed by the 117th Congress (2021-2022):
Respect for Marriage Act
This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.
Specifically, the bill repeals and 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 that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)
The bill also repeals and 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 bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.
The Respect for Marriage Act is now waiting for the President’s signature.
In the face of this historic decision, we should consider the following.
First, no human government has a right to define marriage. Period. Full stop. The Creator of humanity and the Author of marriage itself has defined it for us. Our government is authorized by God to be his servant to execute justice on earth. God did not authorize the government to define institutions such as marriage and the family. They are supposed to recognize and protect those God-ordained institutions. Through this bill, our government is committing gross acts of belligerent rebellion against their Creator.
Second, the conflation of same-sex marriages and interracial marriages is gross, unbecoming, and deceitful. As a society, we embraced interracial marriage years ago. No interracial couple has trouble obtaining a marriage license today, largely because interracial marriage does not change God’s definition of marriage as being between a male and a female, man and woman, husband and wife. Same-sex marriage on the other hand fundamentally changes the definition of marriage. These are disparate categories—not even in the same ballpark—and conflating the two obscures the insidious nature of what’s going on.
Third, people can use the term “same-sex marriage” all they want, but it doesn’t make it a real thing. No such entity exists as “same-sex marriage” because marriage is not between two people of the same sex. You say, “But the government is about to say it does exist.” Consider that the Defense of Marriage Act has been the law of our land since 1996, which defines marriage very specifically as being between a man and a woman. If you want to use the argument from law, should you not say that up until today there is no such thing as same-sex marriage because the government said so? And with Congress’ and the Senate’s approval and a wave of Joe Biden’s pen, magically marriage becomes something else entirely? That’s not how reality works.
Fourth, this decision puts homosexual marriage into the hands of the State. This allows radical, ungodly state administrations to redefine marriage. It also forces states which do not allow homosexual marriage within their borders to formally recognize homosexual couples who were “married” in the radical states. In other words, dissenting states have no choice under this law but to recognize married homosexual couples as really being married. On the one hand, we can now have this conversation at the state level, but on the other hand, states are being forced to recognize an ungodly fiction. This is a strong-arm overreach by our Federal Government.
What can we do? We can continue boldly proclaiming and submitting to God’s word as the ultimate authority. Jesus Christ is King over all governments of men—his word trumps everything else. We cannot obey laws which directly contradict our Lord’s word. It’s not enough that this new law “protects” religious organizations from being sued over our stance on marriage. We need to make it clear that God’s wrath falls upon nations who rebel against his authority.
Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
Psalm 2.10–12
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.