EDITORIAL: Pass federal proposal that would protect gay marriage

The history of gay marriage in Nevada mirrors the evolution of public opinion on the issue over recent decades. Now Congress is moving in a similar fashion.

Nevada voters in 2000 and 2002 overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex unions. But in 2014, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals essentially legalized the practice in the Silver State when it struck down the ban as a violation of the federal Constitution’s equal protection clause. A year later, the U.S. Supreme Court followed, holding that state laws outlawing same-sex nuptials were unconstitutional. In 2020, 62 percent of Nevada voters supported a measure to remove the 2002 language from state law.

The sky hasn’t fallen. In fact, the Las Vegas marriage industry has reaped the benefits.

But in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision this year overturning Roe v. Wade, some observers worry that high court rulings paving the way for gay marriage could eventually face a similar reconsideration. In response, Congress is pondering the Respect for Marriage Act, which would provide increased federal protections for gay unions regardless of future judicial revisions.

It’s a worthwhile goal.

The House passed the proposal this summer with the support of every Democrat and 47 Republicans. But the matter was held up in the Senate as the midterms approached. On Monday, CBS News reported that enough Republicans in the upper chamber had signed on to the legislation to ensure a vote, perhaps as early as this week.

The bill respects federalism in that it does not require states to allow same-sex marriages to be performed within their boundaries if Supreme Court precedents were overturned. It does, however, bar states from refusing to recognize such unions performed elsewhere and requires the federal government to recognize any marriage that was entered into legally in any state.

There are exceptions for polygamy, and the bill provides protections to nonprofit religious and private organizations by explicitly stating they “shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.”

In overturning Roe, the majority justices insisted that nothing “in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” And it’s true that — unlike on abortion — there is currently no national debate involving the wisdom allowing same-sex unions. But if that changes in the years to come, the Respect for Marriage Act would ensure that our national elected representatives have spoken on the issue.