 In a 267-157 vote, the House has successfully codified Obergefell at V. Hodges' meaning that they voted to make marriage equality the law of the land, secure that as a civil right before the Supreme Court inevitably tries to strike it down. And also, this bill formally repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by Bill Clinton. Now, that was actually overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013 in the Windsor case, but what they're doing here is just trying to take steps to make sure that these rights that we've secured through the Supreme Court are actually protected. That's the first reason why this is really important, but the second reason why this is important is for political reasons. We don't necessarily know if this is going to pass in the Senate because of the makeup of the Senate, but still this is interesting because it's going to force Republicans to show their cards after for years they've tactically retreated on the issue of same-sex marriage until basically this year when we saw a resurgence of homophobia. But with 71% of voters now supporting marriage equality, it's no wonder why the GOP was forced to tactically retreat. So with these votes, they've got to take a stand. There's no more being silent on this issue. You have to say, do you or do you not support marriage equality when its popularity is at an all-time high? Now of the 211 Republicans in the House of Representatives, surprisingly not all of them voted against codifying Obergefell V. Hodges, but still the numbers aren't great. So less than a quarter of Republicans in the House voted to codify Obergefell V. Hodges, just 47. So look, credit to that 47 and we'll look at who in particular voted in favor of codifying Obergefell. But for the overwhelming majority of the Republican caucus to take this stand publicly, it goes to show you how out of step this party is with the American public. Now let's get to some of these names here. In no particular order, this includes Andy Biggs, Lauren Boebert, Mo Brooks, likely closeted homosexual Madison Cawthorne, Dan Crenshaw, Myra Flores, Matt Gaetz, Louis Gohmert, Paul Gosar, Marjorie Taylor-Green, Jody Heiss, who last week asked if a woman can give birth to a taco. Literally, Jim Jordan, Debbie Leshko. I believe this is the woman who recently claimed that she loved her grandchildren so much she would shoot them. So, yeah, leader Kevin McCarthy, Chip Royce, Steve Scalise and many, many more. So all of these Republicans, they're coming out and they're admitting that they are against freedom. I mean, it's 2022. So being gay, being in a same sex relationship no longer implies that that couple is definitely going to be democratic voting. I mean, sure, most of them are, but there's a lot of gay Republicans. Dave Rubin, Glenn Greenwald, for example. So they are looking at their allies and they're saying, even if you go out of your way to defend us at every step of the way, we still refuse to acknowledge your basic humanity. Even if you're a political ally and you do propaganda on our behalf, we still don't think that you should have the freedom to live your life in the way that we live our lives. I mean, even after they made this embarrassing vote, gay Republicans are still defending them and they still, these elected officials won't acknowledge their humanity. For example, Glenn Greenwald tweeted out yesterday. Gates was one of the House Republicans to vote against codification of Obergefell same sex marriages that no vote wasn't due to opposition to marriage equality. Sure, Glenn, but to his view, that individual states have always regulated marriage, not the federal government. And as my Twitter mutual, Jack will then points out here in response, find you something that's as important to you as defending Republicans. 24 seven is the Glenn Greenwald. Exactly. Now, Glenn's argument is extremely fucking stupid, because if you believe that states should have the ability to ban marriage equality, then by definition, you're against marriage equality. Because if you support it, you believe that that right should be guaranteed, regardless of what state you're in. And this isn't a state's rights issue. Marriages are inextricably linked to federal and state governments. And Obergefell, the Hodges and Lovik, the Virginia, these are not cases that just determine whether or not states can or can't ban gay marriages. This was about interstate travel. And we'll get to that in an article by Ross Story. But still, you see the mental gymnastics, you see the way that Glenn Greenwald is bending over backwards to defend them. And they still won't even accept their basic humanity. I mean, Marjorie Taylor Greene assumed that there was a gay person who was like a fellow QAnon or agreed with everything, thought the insurrection was good, was anti-vax, but just happened to be in the same sex marriage. Marjorie Greene, still, even if that person is a political ally, would vote to overturn their marriage. So this is how anti-freedom these Republicans are, even if their gay allies are craven like Glenn Greenwald and would do anything to defend them, even including striking down his own gay marriage. It's just it's astonishing that in 2022, Republicans are still this shameless. But I've got to give credit, I guess, to the 47 Republicans who did the right thing. In no particular order, these Republicans voted to codify marriage equality. This includes Kat Kamek, Liz Cheney, Tom Emmer, Daryl Iza, Adam Kinzinger, Scott Perry, Elise Stefanik, Jefferson Van Drew, among others. And I know what you're going to say, Mike, we shouldn't have to give these folks credit for doing the bare minimum and just being decent human beings and allowing people the freedom to live. But you've got to understand the bar here in America is very, very, very low. So if a Republican does something that is reasonable, I feel inclined to give them credit. Now, we've talked about the House, but we've got to talk about the Senate because that will ultimately determine the fate of this bill and it doesn't really look good. You're already seeing some pretty hard no votes. For example, Marco Rubio told CNN's Manu Raju he'll be voting against it and called it a quote, stupid waste of time. Yeah, I bet that if his marriage was that threat of being abolished, he wouldn't feel that this was a stupid waste of time, but he's a nova. Another one is so-called populist Josh Hawley. Now, again, we looked at the numbers. Seventy one percent of Americans support marriage equality, but this populist Josh Hawley is saying, no, don't support it. So as Sarah Ferris of Raw Story explains, Senator Josh Hawley said that he didn't support the marriage equality decision in 2015, when the Supreme Court legalized a same sex marriage nationwide in the Obergefell V. Hodges decision. According to Hawley, the decision shouldn't have been up to the Supreme Court because marriage is a state's rights issue. What the court addressed at the time is the interstate conflict. The problem with Obergefell is that I don't think there is any constitutional basis for the Supreme Court to say this is what the definition of marriage is according to the Constitution. I don't think the Constitution has marriage in it. Hawley told Raw Story and I think the states traditionally that has been because the definition of marriage that has been a big controversy in this country all around the country and the states have defined it in one way or another. And I think that that's the right difference. Senator Marco Rubio agreed with Hawley saying that states decide marriages. You can get married in Las Vegas by an Elvis impersonator in two hours. Neither Rubio nor Hawley clarified whether they supported the interracial marriage ruling the Supreme Court decided in 1967. In that case, too, the couple was married in an area of the country where interracial marriage was legal. When they moved to Virginia, where it was illegal, they were charged with violating the state's anti-miscegenation statute, found guilty and sentenced to a year in prison unless they agreed to exile. And both Loving and Obergefell, the Supreme Court justices, ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires all states to recognize the marriages granted in other states. So because they know that their position against same sex marriage is unpopular, well, they have to try to cloak their bigotry in some sort of a legal defense. But their legal defense doesn't necessarily make sense, unless you also agree that interracial marriages should be left up to the states as well. But they're not willing to go that far. They don't want to say, well, you know, I'm consistent and I support states' rights on the issue of marriage entirely. So, yes, that includes interracial marriages. But they don't want to say that. They don't want to say that states should have the power to ban interracial marriages. So they're stuck in this awkward position where they're doing this weird tap dance where they don't want to come off as bigots. But they are. But they also, you know, they want to make a legal justification. But they know that it's pretty murky because if you're against gay marriage for legal reasons, you are going to have to be against interracial marriages if you're consistent. So it's just weird and awkward. And I love watching them squirm. Now, as to whether or not other Republicans in the Senate will support this, you know, there's at least one firm, yes. But there's also a lot of awkward tap dances from people who don't really want to say from Republicans, to be clear, who don't want to say their position. And they're hoping that this doesn't come up for a vote. So raw story continues, retiring Senator Rob Portman is a co-sponsor of the Senate version of the bill to eliminate the Defense of Marriage Act and codify marriage equality in the national statutes. He is one of at least four Republicans willing to support the marriage equality bill. Another is Senator Lisa Murkowski, who told reporters, I have long been a supporter of equality in marriage. But Senator Mitt Romney said that it was a pointless bill because the law isn't changing and there's no indication that it will delusional. When Ross Story asked him about Justice Clarence Thomas opening that door, Romney said, well, he's opened a lot of doors that no other judges have walked through. Senator Chuck Grassley told reporters asking him about the law, that same-sex marriage is, quote, the law of the land. So was Roe, but Roe no longer is, Ross Story said back to him. Grassley refused to respond. We don't know if the bill is coming to the Senate, said Senator John Thune in a conversation with ABC News' TJ Holmes. So they hate that they have to show their cards. They are desperately hoping that this doesn't come up because they know this is another issue that they're going against the American people. They recognize that Roe v. Wade was something that the American people, the overwhelming majority of the American people supported. They're seeing the stories of how women are being forced to carry dead fetuses for two weeks because they're being denied abortions. And so they know that if there's another victory for their side that's unpopular, it could end up undermining them and it could hurt them as the Roe decision now is demonstrably hurting them, at least politically, at this point in time with regard to polls, but they know that this is unpopular. They know that they're on the wrong side of history and against the American people. So they're just trying to say, oh, well, you know, a bird fell same-sex marriages. That's already the law of the land. Oh, what's that? You think it's going to be overturned? Well, it probably won't. So don't worry about it. They don't want to show their cards. And this is why this is brilliant. Democrats should bring up a bunch of other popular policies and force them to show their cards, interracial marriage, force them to vote on that. Other things, you know, when it comes to contraception, sodomy forced them to make their positions known because they're very uncomfortable because as dumb as Republicans may seem, they're at least savvy enough to acknowledge when they are or aren't against public opinion. And in these issues, most Americans just don't agree with them. So forcing them to show their cards is really important politics. But on top of that, the substance itself is more important because these rights are under threat and in order to protect them, you have to be proactive and take action to codify them. So all around, I don't know how the Senate vote is going to go. If I had to guess, it's going to fail. But just showing these Republicans or watching them show their cards in and of itself has been a victory to me because this is really great to see. I love to see them squirm. Love it. Better have her way.