These Young Republican Leaders Broke Ranks to Vote For Gay Marriage

They're going to catch some heat, but this vote will age well.

Are gay marriage and interracial marriage really issues in 2022? Probably not, but the House did nonetheless just vote on a bill to enshrine legal recognition of both into federal law — with interesting results.

Democrats brought forth the “Respect for Marriage Act” in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. It would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, a voided but still-on-the-books federal law that defines marriage as between only a man and a woman. The legislation would also require states to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.

Here’s the context.

Citing Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in the case overturning Roe, many on the Left fear that the rights to gay marriage and interracial marriage could be overturned next. For a number of reasons I explained here, including the other justices specifically saying they’re not going to go there, I don’t think these fears are well-founded. But they are nonetheless widespread.

Passing legislation would take these fears off the table and undercut the Democrats’ ability to use fearmongering about gay marriage as a political tactic heading into the 2022 midterm elections. It’s also the right thing to do as a matter of limited government and individual liberty.

That’s why the Respect for Marriage Act passed the House with 47 Republican votes, including “yay” votes from notable liberty lawmakers such as Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL), and Rep. Peter Meijer (R-MI).

“I’m a big fan of marriage, having done it a few times,” Mace joked. “And if gay couples want to be as happily or miserably married as straight couples, more power to them. Trust me on this.”

Meijer, for his part, explained in a video that while he doesn’t actually believe either gay marriage or interracial marriage are in jeopardy, he still thought the Respect for Marriage Act made sense and deserved his support.

“I kind of expected [this bill] to be filled with poison pills,” Meijer said. “[Yet] it’s only about 3.5 pages long, and it’s pretty straightforward. It says that with regards to a marriage between two individuals regardless of sex, ethnicity, race, or national origin, if it is legally performed in one state it has to be recognized for the purposes of state-based actions, such as taxation, in another state. That’s it.”

“There’s no compulsion,” the Michigan Republican continued. “There’s no threats to religious freedom. There is just the simple of question of, in the unlikely event that [Supreme Court decisions establishing the right to gay and interracial marriage] go away, making sure that there isn’t absolute chaos.”

“I think it was the right choice from a limited government standpoint, from a liberty standpoint, and frankly from avoiding any circumstance where chaos could come down the line,” Meijer concluded.

This is absolutely spot on.

Now, to be clear, the 157 Republicans who voted against the Respect for Marriage Act had a variety of reasons for doing so. Not all of them actually oppose gay marriage — and they certainly don’t oppose interracial marriage.

Many argued that it was a political stunt by Democrats not worth taking seriously.

They’re right that this is certainly a partisan tactic from Democratic leadership with the election on their mind. But that’s not a good reason to vote against an otherwise commonsense bill — and why play into their hands?

Democrats brought this bill for a vote precisely so they could accuse Republicans of being anti-gay marriage and anti-interracial marriage and fearmonger about those rights being in jeopardy. If Republicans just vote for it, these attacks lose all credibility! Instead, dissidents decided to play right into the Democrats’ hands.

Other GOP opponents argued that marriage is a state’s rights issue or that the government ought not to be involved in marriage at all. This is a legitimate perspective, but again, it does not justify voting against the Respect for Marriage Act.

For one thing, if you truly believe gay marriage is a state’s rights issue, then you ought to support getting rid of DOMA because it imposed a traditionalist definition of marriage on to the entire country via federal law.

And yes, federalism — leaving most things up to states — is generally a good principle. But it’s not really workable as a practical matter for citizens’ marriages to be recognized in one state but then, if they move, suddenly, they are no longer married. Imagine the havoc that would wreak on tax issues, property issues, medical/emergency contact powers, and even the legal parental status of adopted parents.

As far as not having the government involved in marriage at all, that’s certainly a defensible position in the abstract. But it’s not where we are in reality, and there’s no realistic chance of getting there any time soon.

As long as the government is involved in legally recognizing marriages for both financial and legal purposes, it should do so equally for both traditional and same-sex marriages. Anything less is downright discriminatory — and inconsistent with principles of individual liberty.

While legal recognition of gay marriage is wildly popular among the public and even a slim majority of Republican voters, the 47 Republicans who bucked the rest of their party and voted to protect gay marriage are certainly going to come under some withering criticism. But they can take solace in the fact that their vote will age well.

This article originally appeared in the Washington Examiner. 

Like this article? Check out the latest BASEDPolitics podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or below:

YouTube player

Sign up for Our Email List

* indicates required
*By signing up for our email you consent to getting our emails directly in your inbox. These including our newsletter or other informational emails*

Our Latest Podcast

Related articles

Mark Levin apparently agrees with Osama Bin Laden’s philosophy

Mark Levin shared this, this week: The column was not...

Nikki Haley goes viral for INSANE claim about TikTok

I’m used to hearing politicians say crazy stuff. But...

Tennessee Republican fights for key education reform

Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced his support for universal...

Thomas Massie is right: Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism

Only one Republican voted against the House resolution that...

How you know US aid to Ukraine might be coming to an end

Lindsey Graham said on CNN’s State of the Union...
Brad Polumbo
Brad Polumbo
Brad Polumbo is a libertarian-conservative journalist and co-founder of Based Politics. His work has been cited by top lawmakers such as Senator Rand Paul, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Pat Toomey, Congresswoman Nancy Mace, Congressman Thomas Massie, and former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, as well as by prominent media personalities such as Jordan Peterson, Sean Hannity, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, and Mark Levin. Brad has also testified before the US Senate, appeared on Fox News and Fox Business, and written for publications such as USA Today, National Review, Newsweek, and the Daily Beast. He hosts the Breaking Boundaries podcast and has a bachelor’s degree in economics from the University of Massachusetts Amherst.