The most notable and potentially controversial purpose of the Respect for Marriage Act is to enshrine into law same-sex marriage, which was legalized throughout the country through the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case. While that ruling seemed to settle the controversy over same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court has grown more conservative in recent years. With its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade earlier this year, many LGBTQ rights advocates fear that reversals of their rights – and potentially other long-held rights as well – could soon follow.

While the Respect for Marriage Act would not maintain a national right to same-sex marriage if the courts eventually overturn Obergefell, the new legislation would require any state that banned same-sex marriages to recognize still the marital status of spouses who were married in states where such unions were legal. The new act also repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which nationally defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

While bans on interracial marriage may seem like relics of the distant past, the right for couples to marry across racial lines was not made national until 1967, when the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia struck down interracial marriage bans in that state and several others. Though there has not been much explicit debate about interracial marriages, some legal experts have argued that the same logic used to overturn Roe could be used to challenge Loving as well. Should that ever happen, the Respect for Marriage Act would still require any state banning interracial marriage to recognize those unions performed in other states.

The Respect for Marriage Act passed the Senate with the support of Democrats as well as twelve Republicans, thus avoiding a GOP filibuster that could have killed the bill. Republican Senators who crossed the aisle to support the bill included Mitt Romney of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. In order to gain Republican support, the bill was amended to include a religious freedom provision that protects religious organizations and officials from charges of discrimination if they refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony.

This will not be the last word on the debates over marriage and other rights. Progressive advocates argue that this is only a first step and will continue to seek greater legal protections, while conservatives who did not support this measure may seek to roll back same-sex marriage significantly if the Supreme Court changes its previous stance on the issue. Nevertheless, the passage of this bill will be a major accomplishment in a highly-divided Washington, DC.