WASHINGTON — The House on Thursday gave final congressional approval to the Respect for Marriage Act, voting 258-169 to send President Joe Biden legislation that would place federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages into statute and require states to recognize marriages validly performed elsewhere. The House roll call drew support from 39 Republicans along with nearly all Democrats, following a 61-36 Senate vote on Nov. 29.

The bill is narrower than a national requirement that every state issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Instead, the enrolled legislation repeals the remaining federal provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and creates statutory rules for federal and interstate recognition. A marriage that is valid where it was entered into must be recognized by the federal government, and states generally may not deny recognition to an out-of-state marriage on the basis of the spouses’ sex, race, ethnicity or national origin.

Congress moves after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision

The legislation accelerated after the Supreme Court’s June decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade. In a separate concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas said the Court should reconsider substantive-due-process precedents including Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The Court’s majority opinion said the abortion ruling concerned abortion, but the concurrence prompted lawmakers to ask what legal protections would remain if marriage precedent were revisited.

The House initially passed an earlier version of H.R. 8404 in July. That House-passed text focused on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act provisions and requiring recognition. The Senate then negotiated additional language intended to address concerns from religious organizations and Republican senators whose votes were necessary to overcome a filibuster. The resulting Senate-amended bill returned to the House this week for the final vote.

The Senate coalition was built around a bipartisan group led by Sens. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Susan Collins of Maine. Collins described the compromise in a statement after passage as both a marriage-recognition measure and a package containing explicit safeguards for religious liberty. Those additions were central to securing more than the 60 votes needed for Senate passage.

What the law would require — and what it would not

For federal purposes, the bill says an individual is considered married if the marriage was valid in the state, territory or possession where it was entered into. That would prevent federal agencies from reverting to a definition of marriage limited to one man and one woman. The statute would also repeal Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which had purported to let states refuse recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

The interstate provision is important because it addresses a scenario in which constitutional doctrine changes but state marriage laws diverge. If a couple legally marries in one state, another state could not refuse to recognize that marriage simply because the spouses are of the same sex or a different race. An analysis of the Senate measure emphasizes the distinction: the bill protects recognition of valid marriages, but it does not itself require a state to issue a same-sex marriage license if Obergefell were no longer controlling constitutional law.

That distinction explains why supporters view the legislation as a statutory backstop rather than a replacement for the Supreme Court’s current marriage precedents. Obergefell remains the law of the land, so same-sex couples are presently entitled to marry in every state. The Respect for Marriage Act would add a second layer of protection focused on federal status and interstate recognition.

Religious-liberty provisions shaped the final compromise

The Senate amendment includes language stating that nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, religious schools and certain faith-based social-service organizations, cannot be required under the act to provide services, facilities or goods for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. It also states that the measure does not diminish existing protections for religious liberty and conscience under the Constitution or federal law.

The Senate’s Nov. 29 floor record shows a series of amendment votes addressing religious and institutional concerns before final passage. Lawmakers rejected some proposals as going beyond the negotiated agreement and adopted the bipartisan substitute that ultimately reached the House.

Critics of the bill argue that the religious protections remain insufficient and that Congress should not legislate in an area currently governed by the Supreme Court. Supporters counter that the measure is deliberately limited, protects existing religious institutions and responds to uncertainty created by the Court’s changing approach to substantive due process.

A bipartisan statutory floor under marriage recognition

The political context has changed considerably since Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Same-sex marriage is now legal nationwide, and public acceptance has risen substantially. The House vote reflects that shift: while most Republicans opposed the bill, dozens joined Democrats in supporting final passage.

Biden has said he will sign the measure. As of Saturday, the enrolled bill has cleared both chambers and is headed to the White House. Once enacted, it would not freeze every aspect of marriage law or settle every dispute involving religious organizations, benefits or state licensing. It would, however, make one principle explicit in federal statute: marriages legally entered into cannot be stripped of federal or interstate recognition merely because the spouses are of the same sex, race, ethnicity or national origin.

That makes the legislation consequential even while Obergefell remains intact. Congress is acting not to recreate the constitutional right announced by the Court, but to establish a statutory minimum that would survive even if the judicial landscape changes. The result is a rare bipartisan federal intervention in marriage law, built around recognition rather than a new national licensing rule.