These 10 Home Republicans flipped their votes on the same-sex marriage invoice

The Home has despatched the Respect for Marriage Act to President Biden’s desk in any case Democrats and 39 Republicans within the physique voted to help the invoice. 

The laws, which handed in a 258-169-1 vote, would formally repeal the Protection of Marriage Act and require states to acknowledge interracial and same-sex marriages lawfully carried out in different states. 

The Home initially handed the invoice in July earlier than the Senate authorised it final week together with amendments so as to add protections for spiritual exemptions and to make clear that it doesn’t acknowledge polygamy. The Home then wanted to approve the invoice as amended, which it did on Thursday. 

The invoice acquired some measure of bipartisan help in each homes of Congress, however a number of Republicans within the decrease chamber voted in favor of the invoice in July earlier than opposing it on the second vote, whereas a pair initially opposed it earlier than voting in favor of it. 

Listed below are the ten Home Republicans who flipped their votes on the same-sex marriage invoice:

“Sure” to “no”

Cliff Bentz 

Rep. Cliff Bentz (Ore.) initially voted for the invoice in July earlier than switching to a “no” vote on Thursday. He has not publicly defined his reasoning for switching his vote. 

Mario Diaz-Balart 

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.) additionally switched from voting in favor of the invoice to voting towards it. He mentioned in an announcement on Monday that he deliberate to oppose the laws as a result of it lacked “authentic safeguards” for faith-based organizations that object to the regulation primarily based on their spiritual beliefs. 

“The idea of all states respecting different states’ choices on marriage legal guidelines is deeply rooted in American jurisprudence and custom,” he mentioned. “Equally, our Founders understood that spiritual liberties are sacred and susceptible, and should at all times be vigorously protected.” 

Brian Mast 

Rep. Brian Mast (Fla.) additionally took challenge with the newest model of the invoice over issues about protections for spiritual freedom. He said on the Home ground earlier than the vote that modifications must be made to the textual content to guard the “free train thereof,” referring to a clause within the First Modification to the Structure defending freedom of faith. 

He additionally criticized feedback from Rep. Mary Homosexual Scanlon (D-Pa.), who mentioned that amending the invoice additional would “unsettle the Senate’s fastidiously crafted compromise.” 

Dan Meuser 

Rep. Dan Meuser (Pa.) mentioned in a statement on Twitter that the invoice “goes past marriage” and weakens spiritual freedoms “basic to our nation,” and that he voted towards it Thursday for that cause. He mentioned the Senate’s model of the invoice contains language that places spiritual freedom in jeopardy and opens organizations as much as civil lawsuits, not like the Home’s model. 

“Due to this fact, I can not help the Senate Modification to the Respect for Marriage Act as a result of it jeopardizes the fundamental spiritual liberties of each American,” he mentioned. 

Scott Perry 

Rep. Scott Perry (Pa.) indicated that his preliminary vote in favor of the invoice was a mistake primarily based on a scarcity of time he needed to evaluation it. Axios reported that Perry mentioned the invoice was rushed to the ground and he had simply gotten to the ground because the vote was taking place. 

“I knew I had a alternative between voting towards conventional marriage or voting towards interracial marriage,” he mentioned. 

“I simply made the flawed alternative,” he added. 

Maria Salazar 

Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (Fla.) mentioned in an announcement after the vote that she was disenchanted the ultimate model of the invoice didn’t embody “full protections” for church buildings and People with “sincerely held spiritual beliefs.” 

She mentioned Senate Republicans have been prevented from together with “important protections” for spiritual People within the invoice. She mentioned she voted for the primary model as a result of she believes in “human dignity” and respect for all, however legal guidelines that advance one curiosity and ignore authorized protections for others shouldn’t be handed. 

Jeff Van Drew 

Rep. Jeff Van Drew (N.J.) initially voted for the invoice however additionally cited issues about spiritual freedom protections. He advised Axios that he “completely” heard from many constituents who have been upset with the invoice and he discovered them persuasive.

“No” to “sure”

Mike Gallagher 

Rep. Mike Gallagher (Wis.) was one of many two Republicans who initially voted towards the invoice earlier than later backing it. 

He advised The Hill in an announcement {that a} spiritual liberty modification and a clarification that the invoice doesn’t allow polygamy that the Senate added led him to vote in favor of the invoice the second time. 

“The Respect for Marriage Act fixes the polygamy loophole in Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi’s unexpectedly written model and creates robust spiritual liberty protections for spiritual organizations, together with colleges, church buildings, and adoption companies,” he mentioned. 

Jaime Herrera Beutler 

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (Wash.) additionally flipped from opposing the invoice in July to supporting it Thursday, however has not publicly shared her reasoning. She will likely be leaving Congress on the finish of the time period subsequent month.

“Sure” to “current”

Burgess Owens 

Rep. Burgess Owens (Utah) initially voted in favor of the invoice however was the one Home member to vote “current” on Thursday. 

“Whereas right now is undoubtedly an enormous step towards spiritual liberty, my lone ‘current’ vote indicators a warning beacon that the struggle is way from gained,” he tweeted

He mentioned spiritual freedom can not prevail except people and small enterprise house owners have express safety beneath the regulation. He added that defending church buildings and spiritual organizations is barely “scratching the floor” of the scope of First Modification rights.