Lauren Boebert is opposed to marriage equality and agreed with Charlie Kirk that opposing “homosexual marriage” could be “a signal boost” for Republican candidates “if handled correctly.” pic.twitter.com/MTkfDsnYDz
Boebert slammed the legislation as an “assault on America’s traditional values” on Kirk’s podcast.
“I think the federal government should not be involved in marriage,” she said. “My marriage between my husband is really between me and God, not between me and the government. But this was absolutely unnecessary. They have attacked our institutions. They have weakened the nuclear family and undermined masculinity and even femininity.”
She went on to say that the Republicans who voted in favor of the legislation—including Rep. Elise Stefanik, the No. 3 House Republican, and Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney—did so because they wanted to avoid a political backlash.
Newsweek has contacted Boebert’s office and House Republicans, including representatives for Stefanik and Cheney, for further comment.
“They are absolutely afraid of attack ads,” Boebert said of the Republicans who voted in favor. “That always is the conversation that is taking place on the House floor.”
She continued: “This happens on a regular basis, whether it be infrastructure, whether it be funding whether it be sending more money to Ukraine… but they do not want the political attacks to come against them. And Charlie, I arrived in Washington D.C. on attack ads, so I’m not really afraid of another one.”
Kirk then seemed to suggest that opposing same-sex marriage “could be a signal boost if you handle it correctly.”
“Absolutely,” Boebert responded.
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) speaks during the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit held at the Tampa Convention Center on July 23, 2022 in Tampa, Florida. Boebert has said the same-sex marriage bill that passed the House “undermined masculinity.”JOE RAEDLE/GETTY IMAGES
“Look at the people who are fleeing the Democrat Party and coming over to the Republican Party,” she said.
“The only way we lose the midterms this November is if we start acting like Democrats, so we have to be firm we have to stand tall and and remain true to our principles. That is what keeps our base with us and is what is attracting Democrats to come to our party.”
The Respect for Marriage Act has bipartisan sponsorship, with Republican Senator Susan Collins serving as a co-sponsor. Republican Senator Rob Portman also recently announced he would co-sponsor the Respect for Marriage Act. Other Republican senators have also said they would vote for the bill—or were still considering it— NBC News reported.
In the Senate, which is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, 60 votes are required to end unlimited debate and bring legislation to a vote. Though legislation only requires a simple majority to pass the Senate, lawmakers can use the unlimited debate tradition, called a filibuster, to indefinitely delay a vote on legislation.
FFS. I spent over a decade beating back these stupid arguments. I thought with Obergfell it was over. Now we have to deal with this crap all over again.
Sorry dearie, but God has nothing to do with your marriage. Marriage is a legal contract between two people — and, while many religions enjoy services which proclaim the marriage, those services are not legal, nor necessary to be married – at least in the USA. So it’s about time you read up on the actual law in the matter, for the law is the only thing that counts in this country.
Another one who thinks his religion’s doctrines should be the laws of the country. We are not a theocracy yet. He doesn’t get to set the definitions of marriage for others. I am so sick of these religious fanatics. Notice he claims the court was activist when they grant rights but not activist when they remove them, like ending Roe. Hugs
Via email from hate group leader Tony Perkins:
Never underestimate the Republican Party’s ability to self-destruct. That’s the one thing years of cultural battles have taught everyone.
Heading into November with the elections on a silver platter, the men and women who rebranded themselves as the forces of anti-wokeness have suddenly gone soft on an issue that should be a political no-brainer: marriage.
After seven years of letting the court take the heat for redefining history’s oldest institution, a surprising number of Republicans are making a fatal mistake — believing they can win back Congress by sounding just as radical as the party set to lose it.
If the GOP’s defectors are making a political calculus, it’s a terrible one. Conservatives who abandon marriage are only endearing themselves to two sets of people: radical Democrats who would never vote for them anyway, and moderates from both parties who wouldn’t make marriage the deciding factor of any vote.
Who they stand to lose, on the other hand, is far more significant this November. Not only do they risk suppressing their evangelical base, but also other Americans who: a) see same-sex marriage as the gateway drug to all of the transgender, LGBT, sex-ed chaos we’re experiencing in society; b) don’t believe an activist court should usurp the democratic process; and; c) disgruntled Democrats who thought the Republican Party would be the counterweight to the Left’s extremism.
Christians Cannot and Must Not Support Same-Sex Marriage.
Marriage doesn’t belong to evangelicals, Tony. If you don’t support or agree with same-sex marriage, that’s your prerogative. But understand this — your chosen religious beliefs don’t give you the right to tell me that my 33+ year relationship to my husband isn’t as important as yours, or shouldn’t be allowed.
Why should the fucking evangelicals get to decide who gets to be married. I just looked this up on Pew research. 22.5% consider themselves to be evangelical. That is the same percentage as the Nones/No religion.
On NPR I just heard some ignorant asshole’s voicemail comment that he didn’t think there needed to be any federal legislation to protect same sex marriage because you didn’t need to go to a church to get married.
Perhaps he wasn’t a dumbfuck but rather an evil bastard who was trying to throw some false shit out there to try to hold back support for the vote by giving idiots some dumb excuse not to support it.
>>> Not only do they risk suppressing their evangelical base, but also other Americans who: a) see same-sex marriage as the gateway drug to all of the transgender, LGBT, sex-ed chaos we’re experiencing in society;
What the FUCK does this mean??? Gateway drug? Do they think we get married before the whole gay thing kicks in?
According to the 2020 US Census, only 23% of Americans are Evangelical. Why should 77% of Americans be subjected to their cult, their rules, & their gawd? Furthermore, they lost all moral authority when they made the very epitome of their anti-Christ their new orange messiah.
Americans who “b) don’t believe an activist court should usurp the democratic process,” Tony? You mean like the Supreme Court did with Dobbs? But I thought you liked that one.
Today we’re going to talk about the Gender Critical movement, why their views on science and social issues are wrong, and what the real problems are that we should all be concerned about. Spoiler alert, violent hate crimes and discrimination are more important than guessing people’s chromosomes.
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) on Monday announced he is opposed to federal legislation that would protect the right to same-sex marriage, joining Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) in speaking out against a bill passed by the House last week.
Daines, the junior senator for Montana, said in a statement he believes “marriage is between a man and a woman” and the push to pass the Respect for Marriage Act is a ploy from Democrats and Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
“I’m opposed to this bill and believe it’s another attempt by Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats to distract the American people from the inflation crisis, energy crisis and the southern border crisis they’ve created,” Daines said.
Daines last appeared on JMG when he wondered “why we protect sea turtle eggs under the law but not human baby eggs.”
In May 2022, he was among five GOP Senators who authored a letter demanding that the FCC create a method for parents to block television shows that feature LGBTQ characters.
Last year, Daines lamented that Montana’s homemade meth industry has been taken over by Mexican cartels.
Really important for reporters to point out that this bill does not only protect same-sex marriage, but interracial marriage as well (which Senator Daines colleague Mike Braun recently called into question!) https://t.co/3h7XHPtOT0
“I’m opposed to this bill and believe it’s another attempt by Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats to distract the American people from the inflation crisis, energy crisis and the southern border crisis they’ve created,” Daines said.
Gosh Sparklepants, where’s the legislation from your side to do something about inflation, energy or the border?
Oh, no, you misunderstand. He just brings those issues up because he wants to blame Biden and policies from the Democrats for them. His idea of “doing something about” those issues would be to defeat Democrats and put the Rethuglicans completely in charge. THEN things would get done!
Nobody expected Daines to be on our side, but consider his statement to be the first shot in the pressure campaign launched by NOM and Tony Perkins over the weekend.
““marriage is between a man and a woman”” Until such time as he finds a younger, hotter woman or his wife is dying of cancer. In which case, it’s one marriage at a time.
More Christian Nationalism. He’s trying to force those who don’t subscribe to his religious beliefs to live under them. These people don’t believe in freedom, but rather religious tyranny.
Its a distraction from Nancy Pelosi so we arent thinking about inflation. Didnt nancy put a bill together to do something about gas prices/inflation that got filibustered in this dude’s chamber BY REPUBLICANS???
This is what we face. Right wing media simply claims same sex marriages cannot be a thing, and it goes along with red states use don’t say gay laws. They want to erase the public acceptance LGBTQ+ people have worked hard to get. As I said before marriage is a legal contract between people and confers state and federal legal benefits. What words mean changes over time and can be broadened when needed. Marriage is not owned by religion. Why do these people work so hard to destroy the rights of the LGBTQ+ that doesn’t affect them in anyway? They are kids crossing their arms and stomping their feet saying they don’t like it. Hugs
“What I suspect it is is that Marco Rubio doesn’t think that gay marriage is real. I think Marco Rubio believes that marriage is between a man and a woman and that there is no such thing as same-sex marriage.
“It’s just that Pete Buttigieg isn’t really married. And it’s hard — I know it’s hard to say that in our politically correct culture. But it’s not because two guys can’t be married to each other.
“Marriage is the union of a man to his wife. A perpetual union of a man to his wife for the sake of the generation and the education of children. That’s what it is. And that’s not possible between two men and two women.
“Marriage essentially has sexual difference at the heart of it. And so, if we call things that don’t have that marriage, we don’t expand marriage, we just get rid of marriage.
“If Pete Buttigieg and Chasten can be married, then marriage has no concrete meaning.” – Daily Wire host Michael Knowles, who also co-hosts Ted Cruz’s podcast.
There is no Constitutional "right" for two men or two women to marry one another; the founders would have died laughing. There is no moral "right" to government approval for whatever sexual relationships you form. That doesn't mean a legal bar to such activity. https://t.co/ea773HWOsO
The “founders” would’ve been shocked that we did away with slavery, after going to war over it.
They would’ve been shocked to learn women were granted the right to vote, along with non-white men.
They’d have been shocked to discover we now not only had a permanent standing army, but it receives the lion’s share of the discretionary federal budget.
They’d have been shocked to find out we have rifles which can fire dozens of rounds a minute and are capable of literally shredding the human body. (And that we did not ban them for civilian possession and use.)
And they would have been completely flabbergasted to hear that we had an unfit and manifestly unqualified criminal President who launched a violent coup and threatened the lives of his Vice President and members of Congress so he could stay in power after losing his reelection—and we didn’t immediately arrest and imprison the treasonous, seditious motherfucker.
And they never stopped believing those things. Did people think that just because they lost in Windsor and Obergefell that they would just give up and quit. They didn’t give up on overturning Roe and they won’t give up on overturning gay marriage either. They never give up. It’s the lesson the left never seems to learn. You don’t win your rights and then you can stop fighting. You win your rights and you have to keep fighting for them so long as there’s any opposition and at least in my lifetime there always will be.
I’m surprised he didn’t mention marriage was divinely inspired. As well, using his argument that marriage is for the procreation of children would mean that all those married heterosexual couples that either can’t or have chosen not to have children aren’t married either.
So straight marriages that have no kids are not real either. I want to punch this guy. I’m pretty sure that’s not the right thing. Don’t like the second class, third rate status we enjoy.
Yes, those of us who have been involved with the marriage-equality fight have heard all these idiotic arguments 1000 times (and they’ve been shot down 1000 times), yet the bigots always think they’re the first to come up with them.
I still argue with people about this. They claim we aren’t “really” married. I say, it doens’t matter what you think — we are LEGALLY married. You don’t have to believe it’s valid, or like it, or approve of it. And if we are not REALLY married, then why are you trying so hard to ban something that doenst’ exist? That always stumps them.
Marriage is what the state says. Windsor proved the IRS and DOMA could not override state laws about inheritance. Obergefell expanded on this to say that if DOMA could not restrict the IRS, then “full faith and credit” required states to respect same-sex marriages, which should thus be available everywhere.
No religious leader informally deputized to act as an officiant or witness to legal marriages is required to marry people he or she does not want to marry.
This is the new talking point to delay or get out of answering on the new law to protect marriage equality. First they deny there is a threat to same sex marriage saying it is settled law. That was the code words they used with Roe and we see what happened with that right. Next they say it is a messaging bill, which in some respects it is. It tells same sex couples that the Democrats and the country support their marriages and will put them in law to protect them. The message the republicans are trying not to send is that they are against the marriage equality because they don’t want to piss off the gays that vote for them and the big money gays that donate to them. Also this is a case of something that is good for an elite lawmaker but not for the public. They can do it but make laws against you doing it. I hate that. Hugs
The gay son of Rep. Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., got married on Friday. A few days earlier, his father voted against the Respect for Marriage Act.
Rep. Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., leaves a meeting of the House Republican Conference at the Capitol Hill Club on Dec. 1, 2021.Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Link copied
By Zachary Schermele
A Republican lawmaker attended his gay son’s wedding just three days after joining the majority of his GOP colleagues in voting against a House bill that would codify federal protections for same-sex marriage.
The gay son of Rep. Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., confirmed to NBC News on Monday that he “married the love of [his] life” on Friday and that his “father was there.” NBC News is not publishing the names of the grooms, neither of whom is a public figure.
Thompson’s press secretary, Maddison Stone, also confirmed the congressman was in attendance.
“Congressman and Mrs. Thompson were thrilled to attend and celebrate their son’s marriage on Friday night as he began this new chapter in his life,” Stone said in an email, adding that the Thompsons are “very happy” to welcome their new son-in-law “into their family.”
Gawker was the first to report on the nuptials in an article published Thursday, the day before the ceremony, though it was not reported whether the lawmaker would attend.
In an email last week to the local newspaper Centre Daily, Stone called the Respect for Marriage Act “nothing more than an election-year messaging stunt for Democrats in Congress who have failed to address historic inflation and out of control prices at gas pumps and grocery stores.”
Thompson, who represents the state’s 15th congressional district, was one of 157 House Republicans who voted against the bill on Tuesday. However, 47 of his GOP colleagues joined Democrats to pass the bipartisan measure following fears that existing same-sex marriage protections could be in the crosshairs of the conservative-leaning Supreme Court.
The Respect for Marriage Act is now being considered by the Senate, where 10 GOP lawmakers must join all 50 Democrats to send the legislation to the desk of President Joe Biden. One of five Republican senators who has already confirmed a yes vote on the bill is Rob Portman of Ohio, who declared his support for same-sex marriage in 2013 after his son came out as gay.
The bill comes at a time when 71% of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, supports same-sex marriage, according to a Gallup poll last month.
GOP congressman who voted against a House bill that would codify same-sex marriage protections attended his gay son’s wedding over the weekend.https://t.co/wdKLTHPqEm
Remember this was for older kids, and the parents could have just withdrawn from the classes. At the school board hearing there was 38 parents / students who wanted the books used and the classes given. Four parents were against it and only three of them spoke. Yet the maga minority got their way. Because of the way the law is written any parent can sue and get big money from the school district and the school personal personally. Same as the abortion laws, designed to cast fear of ruin for doing what the maga minority disapproves of. Hugs
CNN’s Alisyn Camerota talks to Miami-Dade School Board member Luisa Santos, who says there will be no sex education in Miami-Dade County schools because of controversy against the use of new textbooks.
Florida school board candidate Alisabeth Janai Lancaster suggested doctors who prescribe hormone blockers to trans children ought to be lynched, and was met with applause. Wos breaks it down on Rebel HQ.
Scottie's Playtime 