Representative Glenn Thompson opposed same-sex marriage before his gay son married

Comment

Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) last week voted against federal legislation that would require states to recognize same-sex marriages. Three days later, the congressman attended his son’s same-sex wedding.

“The Congressman and Mrs. Thompson were delighted to attend and celebrate their son’s wedding on Friday evening as he began this new chapter in his life. The Thompsons are very happy to welcome their newest son-in-law to their family,” Thompson’s publicist, Maddison Stone, told The Washington Post Monday night in an email.

On July 19, Thompson joined 156 other Republican House members in opposing the Honor Marriage Act. Congressional Democrats push legislation in response to Supreme Court reversal last month Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision that, for nearly half a century, guaranteed women the right to abortion. The court’s decision raised fears that other high-profile precedents could be next.

After the vote but before the wedding, Thompson’s press secretary denounced the legislation as political sleight of hand intended to distract voters.

“This bill was nothing more than an election year message blow to Democrats in Congress who have failed to address historic inflation and runaway prices at gas pumps and grocery stores,” Stone said in an email to the Center Daily Times.

Stone did not answer the Post’s question about what Gawker, who first reported the news, described as the “apparent hypocrisy” of the congressman celebrating his son’s wedding after voting against a federal legislation that would guarantee her son the right to have this marriage.

The Respect for Marriage Act is a failsafe. Currently, the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Oberfell v. Hodges prohibits states from banning same-sex marriages. In addition to protecting same-sex marriages, the Respect for Marriage Act would also enshrine the right of interracial couples to marry, which is protected by the 1967 Court ruling in Love against Virginia.

House Democrats vote on same-sex marriage, birth control rights

Democrats’ fears were stoked by Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationthe decision that overturned deer. In that opinion, Thomas wrote that the same legal reasoning used by the court to overturn deer could be used to override other decisions, The Post reported.

“In future cases, we should reconsider all substantive due process precedents of this Court, including Griswold, Lawrenceand OberefellThomas wrote, referring to rulings establishing birth control rights, same-sex relationships, and marriage equality, respectively. “Because any substantive due process ruling is ‘demonstrably wrong’…we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

Biden and other critics fear Thomas’ ‘extreme’ stance on birth control

Earlier this month, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said the Supreme Court was “clearly wrong” when it guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage with Oberefellwho he said “ignored two centuries of our nation’s history,” the Dallas Morning News reported.

“Marriage has always been an issue left to the states,” Cruz said in a YouTube clip posted on July 16. “We have seen states before Oberefell that were moving, some states were moving to allow same-sex marriage, other states were moving to allow civil partnerships.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Cruz’s comments should cause concern, The Post reported. “As we know from the Dobbs decision, one of the things that we have seen from [Thomas] it’s that they’re looking to go further, whether it’s privacy, birth control or marriage equality,” she said.

Most Americans support gay marriage. Last week, Marquette Law School released a poll showing that two-thirds of respondents support the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage.

On June 26, 2015, the day the Supreme Court rendered its judgment in OberefellThompson’s reaction to the news suggested there was a gap between what he believed in and what he thought was good public policy.

“Regardless of my personal beliefs and my continued support for states’ rights, today’s ruling must be followed by adequate congressional scrutiny to ensure that the federal protections the Supreme Court has granted to same-sex couples sex do not infringe on the religious freedoms of others,” he said in a statement to PennLive.com.

Thompson’s son confirmed his father attended his wedding to NBC News, but focused on the fact that he “married for the love of [his] life.”

After whitewashing the House, the fate of the Respect for Marriage Act now belongs to the Senate. The legislation faces an uncertain future as, in an evenly divided Senate, it must win unanimous support from Democrats and 10 Republican votes to overcome a filibuster.

Leave a Comment