Ron Johnson won’t back same-sex marriage bill in current form

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) in new comments said he will not support the Senate’s marriage equality bill in its current form — a reversal from July, when he said he had “no reason to oppose” the measure.

“I always support civil unions. Never felt this bill is necessary,” Johnson told reporters on Wednesday in Washington. “This is just Democrats opening up a wound that doesn’t need to be opened up. And now that I’ve talked to people there are some very serious concerns on religious liberty.”

The remarks at the Capitol followed up on comments Johnson made at a meeting last week that first surfaced publicly on Wednesday.

“I would not support it in its current state,” Johnson said at a Common Sense Citizens of Washington County meeting last week, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which obtained a recording of the remarks.

The Wisconsin Republican aired concerns about religious liberties before calling the issue of same-sex marriage “a wound that was healed.”

“But at the same time, I don’t want to see millions of lives disrupted either. To me, that was a wound that was healed. Let it go, okay. Move on, okay,” he said, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Last week, Johnson said he released that statement to get the media “off my backs.”

​​”So you just get hounded on this crap, right?” Johnson said, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “So just to get them off my backs, I wrote a press release, and I said I always supported civil unions. Never felt that we needed to do anything other than that.”

The newspaper first reported Johnson’s remarks on Wednesday.

The comments from Johnson represent a change from his stance in July, when the senator, who is embroiled in a tough reelection race, signaled that he would support the marriage equality bill.

“The Respect for Marriage Act is another example of Democrats creating a state of fear over an issue in order to further divide Americans for their political benefit. Even though I feel the Respect for Marriage Act is unnecessary, should it come before the Senate, I see no reason to oppose it,” Johnson said in a statement to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

News of Johnson’s new stance comes as the Senate is looking to take up the marriage equality bill, titled the Respect for Marriage Act, which would protect same-sex marriage on the federal level by requiring that individuals be considered married if they were wed in a state where it is legal.

The legislation would also prohibit state officials from denying full faith and credit to an out-of-state marriage based on sex, race or ethnicity, and it would allow individuals to pursue legal action if they are hurt by a violation of the proposed law.

The House approved the legislation in July in a 267-157 vote, with 47 Republicans joining all Democrats in support. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) last month vowed that the Senate would vote on the measure in September.

The bipartisan nature of the House vote fueled Democratic hopes that 10 Republicans could cross the aisle and support the measure, which would bypass a filibuster and send the bill to President Biden’s desk for signature.

But Johnson’s announcement that he will not back it deprives supporters of what had previously seemed like a potential “yes” vote.

With Johnson against the bill, there are three Republican who are seen as “yes” votes: Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Rob Portman (Ohio), both sponsors of the measure, and Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.), who previously told reporters that he “probably will” back the measure.

Around nine other Republicans are potential backers.

Axios reported last month that Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), a sponsor of the measure, was working with Collins to grow GOP support for the bill. One area under consideration was providing “more clarity that the legislation would not take away any religious liberty or conscience protections,” Baldwin’s office told the outlet.

In an op-ed published by The Washington Post on Tuesday, the pair said the bill “leaves intact religious liberties and protections afforded to individuals and organizations under federal law.”

Johnson at last week’s meeting also commented on the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which made same-sex marriage a constitution right.

In June’s Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas called on the bench to reconsider all substantive due process precedents established by the court, including Obergefell.

Johnson said Thomas was “probably right.”

“Now, completely different than Roe v. Wade,” Johnson said, referring to Obergefell. “Roe v. Wade needed to be overturned to protect people in the future. Stare decisis is really powerful when, if the Supreme Court were to overrule a previous decision, even if it’s wrongly decided — that’s kind of how this all came up.”

“Because Justice Thomas is probably right that it was wrongly decided,” he added, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “But that’s a different issue as to whether or not the Supreme Court would overturn it. They never will. I do not see any scenario.”

Aris Folley contributed.

This story was updated at 3:51 p.m.