What is Jim Jordan up to?

Perhaps U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan was distracted. If he was, that could explain the Urbana Republican's dismissal of the Respect for Marriage Act, which passed the House Monday, as "unnecessary." Anyone with even a passing familiarity with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion in the decision striking down Roe v. Wade knows about the conservative justice's ominous suggestions. Thomas wrote that the court should overturn decisions that protect same-sex marriage, same-sex sexual relations and access to contraceptives. All are rooted in the due process clause of the Constitution and the right to privacy that undergirded Roe. Jordan insisted there wasn't anything to worry about. After all, he argued, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Jr. had assured the public in his majority decision reversing a half century of abortion law that the ruling was limited to abortion. As we've noted before, that was hardly reassuring, especially with Thomas cheering on radical GOP lawmakers across the country. Already some Republicans, including in Ohio, have openly talked about intruding even more in the private lives of Americans The Respect for Marriage Act would help prevent such intrusions, including by repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages, even those performed in other states. While DOMA may have reflected public opinion when it passed in 1996, it is now rightly viewed by many as a despicable act of discrimination. Thankfully, the Supreme Court struck it down, although it technically remains on the books and could go back into effect if Thomas gets his way. Moreover, a Gallup poll conducted this year showed that 71 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage compared to 27 percent in 1996. The Respect for Marriage Act would offer federal protections to same-sex and interracial marriages. Although not mentioned by Thomas, a Supreme Court decision legalizing interracial marriages sprang from the same legal theory as those he wants to reverse. (Thomas, who is Black, is married to a white woman.) Clearly other members of Congress were concerned because the act passed by a vote of 267-157, with 47 Republicans among the supporters. Jordan and U.S. Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Lakeville, who, like Jordan, represents parts of Lorain County, were not among them. It now heads to the Senate, where it will need the support of at least 10 Republicans to get through a likely GOP filibuster. As of this writing, two Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Rob Portman of Cincinnati, have said they will cosponsor the Senate version. While House GOP leaders decided not to try to "whip" their members on the bill, essentially allowing them to vote their consciences on it, Jordan tried to rally them against it in a memo he sent out prior to the vote. He also railed against the bill on the House floor, including claiming that it was "the latest installment of the Democrats' campaign to delegitimize and attempt to intimidate the United States Supreme Court." So legislating is intimidation now? That's a stretch even for Jordan. He also accused Democrats of trying to distract voters from other issues such as inflation, illegal immigration and crime. "We're here because the Democrats have no answers and desperately hope that a manufactured crisis will help them in November," Jordan said. It is curious, though, that Jordan would invest so much energy in opposing a bill that was "unnecessary" and aimed at addressing "a manufactured crisis." If both those things are true, what's the harm? Suspicious minds might wonder if Jordan, certainly no friend of the LGBTQ community, wanted the act to fail because he hoped that Thomas might be able to round up four other conservative justices to strike down same-sex marriage. Those harboring such suspicions might also consider whether Jordan was trying to work the GOP base, many of whom oppose same-sex marriage, into a lather a few months before Election Day. On top of all of that is the question of whether Jordan himself was trying to distract voters from something else. Whatever could it be? In other news, the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of former President Donald Trump's supporters has scheduled a hearing for 8 tonight. Check it out.