The 'Respect for Marriage Act' doesn't respect marriage
Even though it's unlikely that Obergefell v. Hodges will ever be overturned, Senate Republicans should not vote to codify same-sex marriage.
The bill that passed 267 to 157 repealed the Defense of Marriage Act (defunct after the Supreme Court's ruling in 2015 in Obergefell v. Hodges) requires states to extend "full faith and credit" to marriages between two persons recognized in other states.
The whole reason for this is a collective freakout by the left over Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Center that aimed "substantive due process."
"Substantive due process" is finding rights not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution by way of the 14th Amendment. Loving v. Virginia was one such case that recognized a right to marriage for interracial couples. Griswold v. Connecticut, which granted a right to contraception, is another such case. Roe v. Wade (that Dobbs overturned) was yet another. And Obergefell was based on that framework as well.
"Substantive due process is the core inspiration for many of the Court's constitutionally unmoored policy judgments," Thomas wrote.
Quoting the late Justice Antonin Scalia, he added, '(I)n future cases, we should 'follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away.' Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity."
Progressives feared that rights to privacy, contraception, and marriage, including same-sex and interracial marriage (it's doubtful Thomas would rule against his marriage), could be at risk.
Hence we have the "Respect for Marriage Act."