In remarks on the floor of the House of Representatives, Missouri congresswoman Vicky Hartzler broke down in tears as she urged her colleagues to vote against a bill preserving marriage equality for same-sex and interracial couples.
The Republican claimed that the “only purpose” of the legislation, which President Joe Biden will sign into law in coming days, is to “hand the federal government a legal bludgeoning tool to drive people of faith out of the public square and silence anyone who dissents”.
Her nephew Andrew Hartzler, who is gay, posted a response on TikTok that has been viewed more than 800,000 times since it was published on 8 December.
“My aunt Vicky started crying because gay people like me can get married,” Andrew, 24, said in the video. “So despite coming out to my aunt this past February, I guess she’s still just as much of a homophobe.”
The legislation ultimately passed the chamber by a vote of 258-169-1, with 39 Republicans joining all Democratic lawmakers in support. It passed the Senate last month by a vote of 61-36.
Andrew Hartzler told NBC News that he grew up down the block from his aunt in Kansas City. He recalled childhood family outings with her, including traveling through the underground tunnel system beneath the US Capitol.
But he said she dismissed him when she came out to her as gay earlier this year.
“I was met with the same type of, ‘I love you, but I don’t accept you, because you’re gay,’” he told NBC News.
He said they have not spoken since.
In her remarks on the House floor on Thursday, the congresswoman said that “Obergefell is not in danger,” a reference to the US Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 ruling in Obergefell v Hodges that required states to recognize same-sex marriages and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
“Obergefell is not in danger, but people and institutions of faith are,” she added.
“Aunt Vicky, that’s not right,” her nephew responded in the video. “Institutions of faith like religious universities are not being silenced. They’re being empowered by the US government to discriminate against tens of thousands of LGBTQ students because of religious exemptions. But they still receive federal funding.”
She also claimed that the bill tells Americans to “submit to our ideology or be silenced”.
“I hope and pray that my colleagues,” she said, as her voice began to break, “will find the courage to join me in opposing this misguided and dangerous bill.”
“It’s more like you want the power to force your religious beliefs on to everyone else, and because you don’t have that power you feel like you’re being silenced but you’re not,” Mr Hartzler responded on TikTok. “You’re just going to have to learn to coexist with all of us, and I’m sure it’s not that hard.”
Mr Hartzler told NBC News that claims like those amplified by his aunt in Congress have “real-world effects”, pointing to disproportionate rates of mental health issues and suicide risks among LGBT+ young people.
“I’d be doing them a disservice if I didn’t counteract her narrative with truth,” he said.
In a post on Twitter sharing a clip of her remarks, he wrote: “when my aunt says religious freedom what she really means is an open license to discriminate. freedom of religion is not freedom to hate anyone outside your religion.”
The Respect for Marriage Act repeals the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which allowed states to refuse to recognise civil marriages of same-sex couples and prohibit all same-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, from federal benefits and protections.
That law was effectively struck down by a pair of landmark Supreme Court decisions: Windsor v United States in 2013 and Obergefell v Hodges in 2015.
The new bill also requires the federal government to recognise a marriage between two people if the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed. It would also guarantee that such marriages are given full faith and credit, regardless of their sex, race, ethnicity or national origin.
Congress worked relatively quickly to advance the bill after the US Supreme Court’s June decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which revoked the constitutional right to abortion care. In his concurring opinion, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that the court “should reconsider” court decisions affirming marriage equality and access to contraceptives.
The 1973 decision in Roe v Wade protected abortion rights under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which Justice Samuel Alito – in his opinion overturning that decision – argued should not include the right to abortion care.
Justice Thomas agreed and further argued that the court has a “duty to ‘correct the error’ established” in other due process cases, including a case that overturned anti-sodomy laws and cases that affirmed same-sex marriages.
President Biden is expected to sign the bill into law on 13 December.
