What the Respect for Marriage Act Means for Churches

The Respect for Marriage Act (RMA), passed into law in 2022, preserves important religious-liberty rights while requiring federal and state recognition of certain legally valid marriages. 

Questions still occasionally circulate about protections churches receive under the Act. Here is what church leaders need to know.

Key takeaways:

The short answer for church leaders is that the RMA recognizes same-sex and interracial marriages under federal law while preserving specified protections for churches and other nonprofit religious organizations.

Bottom line: The Act addresses government recognition of marriages. It also contains express religious-liberty protections for churches and other qualifying religious organizations.

President Joe Biden signed the RMA into law on December 13, 2022.

The law repealed the remaining provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It also established federal rules for recognizing marriages.

For purposes of federal law, a marriage between two individuals is recognized when it was valid where it was entered into.

States must also recognize legally valid marriages from other states, regardless of the spouses’ sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.

However, the law does more than establish marriage-recognition requirements. Congress also added specific protections addressing religious organizations and people with religious objections to same-sex marriage.

Bottom line: The RMA expressly states that existing federal religious-liberty and conscience protections remain intact. It also creates specific protections for nonprofit religious organizations concerning marriage ceremonies and celebrations.

Section 6 of the Act is particularly important for churches.

First, Section 6(a) says the Act cannot be interpreted to diminish or eliminate religious-liberty or conscience protections already available under the First Amendment or other federal law.

In other words, Congress did not replace existing constitutional religious-liberty protections. Instead, the statute expressly says those protections remain available.

Moreover, Section 6(b) specifically identifies religious organizations protected by the law. These include:

The protection also extends to employees of these organizations in the circumstances addressed by Section 6(b).

Bottom line: Section 6(b) says qualifying nonprofit religious organizations cannot be required to provide specified goods, facilities, or services for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

This is one of the RMA’s most important protections for local churches.

Section 6(b) says covered religious organizations cannot be required to provide:

for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

Therefore, the Act itself does not require a covered church to make its sanctuary or other facilities available for a wedding that conflicts with the church’s religious beliefs.

Likewise, the statute says a covered refusal does not create a civil claim or cause of action under this provision.

That distinction matters. The protection is not merely a statement of congressional intent. Congress placed specific language protecting covered religious organizations directly into the law.

Bottom line: The RMA itself cannot be used as the statutory basis for stripping an otherwise eligible religious organization of its tax-exempt status because of its position regarding marriage.

The law says nothing in the RMA may be interpreted to deny or alter a benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible organization or person when it does not arise from a marriage.

Congress specifically listed:

Therefore, the RMA itself cannot be used to strip an otherwise eligible church of its federal tax-exempt status simply because of the Act’s marriage-recognition provisions.

However, church leaders should understand the limits of that statement. Section 7 restricts what can be done under the RMA. It does not mean every possible dispute involving marriage has been resolved, whether involving religious liberty concerns, tax, employment, or public accommodations.

Bottom line: Congress expressly acknowledged that sincere disagreements about marriage exist and said those beliefs are entitled to respect.

The RMA contains a congressional finding that is particularly relevant to religious organizations.

In Section 2, Congress recognized that people hold different beliefs about gender and marriage based on sincere religious or philosophical premises. Congress further stated that these people and beliefs are due proper respect.

This language echoes an important point from Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).

In Obergefell, the US Supreme Court held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. At the same time, the majority opinion recognized that many people oppose same-sex marriage based on religious teachings and principles.

The RMA subsequently placed a congressional recognition of sincere differing beliefs about marriage into federal statutory law.

Bottom line: Church leaders should not interpret the RMA as a blanket exemption from every law involving sexual orientation, marriage, employment, facilities, or public accommodations.

The scope of the statute matters.

For example, Section 6(b) specifically addresses goods, services, accommodations, facilities, and similar resources connected with the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

That does not necessarily answer unrelated legal questions involving a church’s activities.

A church could still encounter legal questions involving:

Those questions may involve the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, the ministerial exception, federal employment laws, state religious-freedom laws, and other legal doctrines.

Therefore, churches should not assume the Act resolves every legal question involving their beliefs about marriage.

Bottom line: Written policies matter. Churches should clearly document their religious beliefs and consistently connect their practices to those beliefs.

The Act gives churches meaningful statutory protection. However, churches should still maintain clear governing documents.

Church leaders should consider reviewing their:

Most importantly, these documents should be consistent with one another.

For example, a church that restricts weddings based on its theological definition of marriage should clearly state that doctrine in its governing documents. Its wedding and facility-use policies should then reflect the same belief.

The church also must evaluate whether its policy includes collecting revenue from private parties in exchange for using its building for weddings. If so, local and state public accommodations laws should be closely evaluated to determine if the church’s policies regarding marriage, coupled with revenue-generating activities, will create potential legal liability.

Church leaders should also work with qualified legal counsel before a dispute arises. State and local laws vary significantly. Therefore, a policy appropriate for one church may not address another church’s legal environment.

No. Section 6(b) expressly protects covered nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, from being required under the Act to provide specified services, facilities, accommodations, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

The RMA expressly protects covered nonprofit religious organizations from being required under the Act to provide facilities for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. However, churches should also review applicable state and local laws with qualified counsel.

The RMA says the Act cannot be interpreted to deny or alter an otherwise eligible organization’s tax-exempt status when that status does not arise from a marriage. However, that protection does not resolve every possible tax-law issue outside the RFMA.

No. Section 6(a) expressly states that the Act cannot be interpreted to diminish or abrogate religious-liberty or conscience protections otherwise available under the US Constitution or federal law.

For church leaders, the practical lesson is straightforward: the RMA recognizes qualifying marriages while also providing meaningful statutory protections for religious organizations. Churches should understand those protections without overstating them. Clear doctrine, consistent governing documents, thoughtful facility and wedding policies, and advice from qualified local counsel remain important parts of managing legal risk.

A combination of human editors, attorneys, and AI was used to create this article.