Last week, 157 House Republicans voted against the Law of Respect for Marriage, a bill that would repeal the federal ban on same-sex marriages. But only one of those downvotes was “delighted to attend and celebrate” his gay son wedding days after.
That dubious distinction goes to Rep. Glenn Thompson, who is serving his sixth term representing a swath of western Pennsylvania. Thompson’s son confirmed to NBC News who had “married the love of [his] life” and that his “father was there”. (NBC News and other outlets do not name his son or his partner, as they are not public figures.)
And Thompson was not a passive assistant. BuzzFeed News reported Tuesday that he made a speech at the wedding, praising his son’s choice of mate and welcoming him to the family. Thompson told his son’s new husband that he and his wife are “very grateful that you’re here. Actually, he goes beyond that, as parents. We love when they find their true love, especially when they become part of our families.” To which I say: Wow, the nerve of this guy.
There is no shortage of Republicans who have characterized their move to approve same-sex marriage or LGBTQ rights in general as part of their support for a family member. Last year, when Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyoming, said he was wrong to oppose gay rights in the past, he quoted his sister, Mary, a lesbian. “I was wrong,” Cheney said. “I love my sister very much. I love her family very much.” Also, Senator Rob Portman, R-Ohio, embraced same-sex marriage in 2013 for supporting her gay son.
Thompson has made no such political change, even though he and his wife are “delighted to attend and celebrate their son’s wedding on Friday night,” as his press secretary, Maddison Stone, told NBC News. Stone had previously he told the Center Daily Times in Pennsylvania that the Respect for Marriage Act is “nothing more than an election year messaging gimmick for Democrats in Congress who have failed to address historic inflation and runaway prices at gas stations and grocery stores” .
That’s an interesting view given the precarious state her son’s marriage could be in given the vast majority of conservatives on the Supreme Court. Pennsylvania, like all states, has to accept same-sex marriages as a result of the 2015 Supreme Court case Obergefell vs. Hodges, which established a federal right to such marriages and invalidated state laws to the contrary. Obergefell followed 2013 United States vs. Windsorwhich held that the Defense of Marriage Act’s federal ban on recognizing same-sex marriages was unconstitutional.
Thompson’s colleague, Pennsylvania Rep. Fred Keller, also a Republican, quoted Obergefell in defense of his vote against the Respect for Marriage Law. It is an unconvincing argument to give the recent Supreme Court vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, erasing the federal right to abortion. Both Obergefell and Windsor decided on a 5-4 vote, making it unclear whether the current court will oppose also trashing LGBTQ protections if given the chance. That risk becomes clear when you read Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion, where he specifically names Obergefell as target for reconsideration among other “demonstrably erroneous decisions.”
It was in response to that uncertainty that House Democrats introduced the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) entirely and require states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. . Although that would still be leave states free to ban new same-sex marriages in case the Supreme Court reverses its previous decisions, those that have already been registered would be protected.
Without that protection, Thompson’s son and her husband would be in trouble in Pennsylvania, which passed a law in 1996 define marriage as a “civil contract by which a man and a woman take each other as husband and wife”. That law holds that a “same-sex marriage that was entered into in another state or foreign jurisdiction, even if valid in the place where it was entered into, will be void in this Commonwealth.”
It still amazes me that Thompson was able to look his son in the eye after his vote.
that law is technically still on the books; if Whitewood vs. Wolf in 2014, a federal court did not allow it to apply, but that court’s decision was based on Windsor’s finding that DOMA is unconstitutional. If that precedent falls, Whitewood likely will too, leaving Pennsylvania free to enforce its ban. Doing so could dissolve the marriage recognition of Thompson’s son and others. The wording of the statute would also make it impossible for them to travel to a different state to remarry and have that union recognized in Pennsylvania.
Given those facts, it still amazes me that Thompson was able to look his son in the eye after his vote. I emailed Stone, his press secretary, asking if the congressman supports the Pennsylvania General Assembly repealing the “one man, one woman” statute and why he seems so sure the Supreme Court won’t allow it to be annul your son’s marriage. As of Tuesday night, she had not responded.
There is some hope that the Senate will also pass the Respect for Marriage Act. Several Republican lawmakers say will support (or at least not block) the bill passed by the House. That still doesn’t excuse Thompson for his vote. He knew his son’s wedding was just days away, and 57 other Republicans who voted for the bill also gave him the coverage he needed to support it. There could be nothing in the registry of gifts from his son and his son-in-law as significant as Thompson’s “yes” vote.