Area LGBTQ community, allies express hope, reservations about Respect for Marriage Act

Dec. 6—Steve Clark and Scott Smith of Scottdale traveled to Massachusetts in 2008 to be married.

Hempfield spouses Patricia and Kimberly Elliott-­Rentler tied the knot in 2016, after same-sex marriages were permitted in Pennsylvania.

They and others in the area's LGBTQ community see the expected passage of the federal Respect for Marriage Act as a positive step in protecting the marriage rights of same-sex couples. But they noted vit's still far short of legislation that would be needed to provide a uniform right for such couples to marry anywhere in the United States.

"We were together for about six years prior to getting married and had to wait for the country to catch up," said Patricia Elliott-Rentler, a recently retired attorney. "We waited until both Pennsylvania and the United States legally recognized it."

She received many calls from gay and lesbian clients this past summer, after the Supreme Court overturned the federal right to abortion that had been established with Roe v. Wade. That decision stoked fears that a 2015 ruling supporting same-sex marriages in all 50 states also could be upset, with Justice Clarence Thomas indicating it should be revisited.

"It was astounding how many people reached out to me and wanted to update their wills," to ensure their assets would pass on to their surviving partner regardless of any reversal in marriage legalities, Elliott-Rentler said. "There definitely was a low-grade panic trickling through the (LGBTQ) community, thinking, 'Are we next?' "

The potential for the court's conservative majority to overturn the 2015 ruling has prompted Senate passage of the Respect for Marriage Act. That act, which is expected to be signed into law, would require a same-sex marriage legally entered into in any U.S. state to be honored in the remaining states.

The proposed act, which has bipartisan support, is "certainly a big step forward," Elliott-Rentler said. "I think it's putting a lot of people's minds at ease, at least for the foreseeable future.

"There's always the danger that the Supreme Court could kick this back to the states, so it's a crucial step in protecting our rights."

The Respect for Marriage Act would provide similar protection for marital ties between people of different races or foreign descents, Elliott-Rentler said, noting, "I have interracial friends and couples in my neighborhood who are grateful for that."

Validation

"We have some friends who are planning on getting married, and we want to make sure they're able to get married and stay married," Clark said.

He doesn't want to see those friends face the same extra challenges he and his partner encountered before they were able to marry.

"When we bought our house, before we were married, there were extra legal steps we had to go through to ensure that the surviving partner would maintain control of the house," he said.

The Respect for Marriage Act, Clark believes, "provides not only protection but validation of our marriage."

Jean Slusser, president of the Greensburg chapter of PFLAG, an organization dedicated to supporting, educating and advocating for LGBTQ people and their families, sees the Respect for Marriage Act as "a stopgap measure" in the event the 2015 ruling is overturned.

"I think everybody is kind of frightened that things are going backward," she said. "There's so much hateful legislation that has been passed in this country. It's a scary time.

"We still feel that everyone has the right to marry whoever they want to marry."

"There are a lot of reasons to be scared but also reasons to be hopeful," said Jim Galik, president of the Westmoreland LGBTQ Interfaith Network. He cited a 2021 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute indicating 51% of Republicans support same-sex marriage, while Slusser pointed to a May 2022 Gallup poll showing that 71% of all Americans feel likewise.

Supreme Court hears Colorado case

In a case that was argued Monday, the Supreme Court is weighing questions of LGBTQ rights vs. religious freedom.

A graphic artist and website designer in Colorado says her Christian faith prevents her from creating websites celebrating same-sex marriages. Colorado has a public accommodation law that says if she offers wedding websites to the public, she must provide them to all customers. The artist has argued that is a violation of her right to free speech.

Opponents say granting her appeal would open the door for various types of businesses to refuse to serve customers based on any number of discriminatory criteria.

C. Lee Hill Jr., a Black gay man and president of the Steel City Stonewall Democrats, said the artist's argument makes him think of the "whites only" public facility restrictions that discriminated against older generations of his family in the South.

"If you start down this road, where do you stop?" he said. "You're saying, 'Don't come into my business, but I want a right to be in this public marketplace.'

"You might have a devout Catholic stating, 'We don't want to service Muslims or Protestants here.' To me, that's not America."

Miller said he believes the Colorado artist "has every right to accept or decline any clients. As a professional, I would hope that she would make a reference to another web designer who would accept the job and provide excellent service."

He acknowledged the problem of a "slippery slope" because "denial of services based on protected class status could snowball into chaos."

Jeff Himler is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jeff by email at jhimler@triblive.com or via Twitter .