Cleveland For Congress
Cleveland For Congress

Idaho Dispatch

Your Local Media Ally

Fulcher/Simpson Split on ‘Respect for Marriage Act’ Vote

By • July 20, 2022

The U.S. House has passed the “Respect for Marriage Act” and sent the bill to the U.S. Senate.

47 Republicans joined the Democrats in passing the measure. Congressman Mike Simpson (R) voted to pass the bill, while Congressman Russ Fulcher (R) voted against it.

According to HR 8404, the “Defense of Marriage Act” would be repealed.

DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton (D). Under DOMA, the federal government recognized marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

In 2013 and 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued opinions that said most of DOMA was unconstitutional or legally devoid.

Under the RMA that just passed the House, DOMA would be repealed entirely. Additionally, marriage is defined as,

For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

HR 8404 now heads to the U.S. Senate, where the bill will need 10 Republicans to support the bill to avoid a filibuster.

What do you think of the RMA? Let us know in the comments below.

Amazon Outlet

Tags: Defense of Marriage Act, Marriage, Mike Simpson, Respect for Marriage Act, Russ Fulcher

30 thoughts on “Fulcher/Simpson Split on ‘Respect for Marriage Act’ Vote

  1. First time I’ve heard of this. My question is who’s behind this and if SCOTUS has issued those opinions, why did “they” wait until now to dump it? This article could have added a little more info IMO.

  2. Just another proof of why Simpson is an idiot and does not belong anywhere in Idaho politics.

    Start his recall now!

    1. A “useful idiot ” or fellow traveler would be a more accurate term. Destruction of the family is a key element of the Marxist / communist / Progressive agenda. Re-defining marriage is part of the plan.

  3. I agree with the previous comments regarding Simpson. I too can’t understand why a majority of Idaho conservatives believe he represents the state well. His voting in support of measures that I believe are so divisive, particularly for a majority of Idahoans, make it a wonder for me why he is still in office. Idaho can do so much better and should. His vote in support of the 6 January Congressional inquiry and what he should have known what it would descend to
    is something I can never forgive him for.

  4. Mike has one foot in the liberal environmentalist side with his work on the White Clouds and his idiotic, totally unsupported push to remove the dams on the Snake, but the reason he stays in office is his support of the church in eastern Idaho. Mike never listened to the voters when he was in the Legislature.

  5. Mike Simpson doesn’t represent most Idahoans. He should be removed from office. Marriage is between a biological man and woman period. The USA is going down a dark road and people Ike Simpson are leading the sheep.

  6. The Federal government has no part or parcel in marriage. Period. It was not given in the Constitution for the Federal government to have a say one way or the other.

    Marriage is and should be – as per the Ninth and Tenth Amendments – a matter solely for the States.

  7. God created marriage between a man and women. How do you think this world was populated in the beginning of creation?

  8. The real question should be.
    Why is government even involved in marriage in the first place?
    And with everything going on these idiots are wasting time on this.

  9. What part of this is confusing to the federal idiots?

    10th amendment:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Simpson is simply a bad choice for Idaho, yet the more “moderates” we have moving in, we’ll see more of his likes in office. What the folks fleeing from places like California to our state are finding, their idea of “conservative” is much closer to liberal values when they realize what real conservative values truly are.

    1. Broad brush you are using there. Most Californians I have met are conservative and make Idaho conservatives look like moderates. Californians didn’t vote in Little and Simpson, Idoahoans did.

    2. Late to comment here, but you’re wrong on that one, cclem706. Listen to Tom P, and don’t disparage your new best friends.
      I’m a ex-Californian, and I’m shocked at the seeming complacency of conservatives here. This complacency is blind to the looming and increasingly-transparent threat. I understand that you haven’t lived under/seen what I and other ex-Californians have, but this complacency feels like California a few decades ago. If Idaho turns blue, it will primarily be the fault of the Idaho Republican party and other “conservatives” who were too afraid to be direct, to be loud, and and to BE STRATEGIC. My gosh, people, wake up! One month after moving here a few years ago, I was standing before Congress in the Idaho statehouse, speaking in favor of a firearms-related bill, which passed, btw. It took an hour to prepare my statement, a few minutes to drive, parking is free. Seriously. The time to act is NOW, while there is a +/- Republican supermajority, and to work smartly and codify, codify, codify while we can. That’s what the Democrats did in CA.

      1. I went on a tangent in defense of ex-Californians and of codifying conservative values in Idaho, so I forgot to state my agreement that Simpson is horrid. That he continues to be voted in is testimony to what I said above about complacency being deadly.

  10. We must remove Simpson from office. He always votes with the demonrats. He is the enemy of Idaho. Lets go Brandon

  11. Mostly very good comments. Especially from Idaho Seven and Bob. Couldn’t agree more. I’ve said it before, Simpson is a RINO – period. And Marc Seeley is spot on. Way, way too much government, and dooLittle will most assuredly fall right into step with the liberal plan!

  12. HR 22 passed on CALIFORNIA which reads marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman. IT PASSED! in Cancerfornia. Then was over turned by the Feds. I left cancerfornia for a state that I believed was faith based and moral and God fearing. Please Vote to keep the sanctity of marriage as God intended. Thank you Mr. Fulcher.

  13. Simpson keeps getting elected in the SE Idaho. Could it be that there are few voters there. That possibly he gets voted in by default. otherwise one would think that the people in the SE are just plain stupid to keep elected this man.

    1. I personally think they’re too lazy to do their research on the candidates & just vote by familiarity. I could be wrong but, that’s my take on it.

  14. Simpson is a disease to Idaho and the Nation!
    We must cut him out or we will watch our state and nation die.

    Thank you Fulcher for you representation!

  15. Why do you people keep voting for this idiot. He continuously votes against his constituents wishes. He is a boozed out rino. Wake up district 2 and get rid of this loser.

  16. Maybe the 2nd Congressional District Conservatives need to run a Conservative who isn’t an attorney debt collector. So-called “Representative” Simpson only represents the uni-party of Mitch McConnell. He fits right in with the Biden Klown Kar. Thanks, SE Idaho.

  17. Marriage is legislated or recorded by the States. I’m not sure why the Fed. Government needs to legislate anything pertaining to this, as their only role should be pertaining to statistics and the census. Marriage is not a right. It’s a contract (social) between two people. The relationship between a traditional marriage and civilizations is obvious, so there fore should continue to be protected. The problem I see with non traditional marriage is now we see people wishing to marry animals or objects. We are already seeing people wishing to BE animals or objects, with protections sought in a court of law. Larry Flint, thinking the way he does, once mentioned that ‘you should be able to marry a tree if you want to.’ OK, fine. What does it prove or accomplish? Marriage is for the betterment of civilization, not to cater to a passing social fancy. Let the same sex people marry if they want to. But see what happened? Now they get spousal benefits of all types. This no longer impacts them, it now impacts ME. It impacts all of US. Where’s it going from here? Rogue governmental ideations have no bounds.

  18. Well there you go: It was thought that Bedke was the most hated and vindictive rino politician in Idaho…..But from the above comments, Simpson is giving Bedke a run for his money.

  19. Dang, why does it matter? You think ANYTHING is going to get the LGBTQ community to change? I have a female “couple” with a child in one of my rentals. You want me to toss them out because your opinion on marriage is different than theirs? Live and let live. No special treatment either way.

  20. I don’t give a damn who marries who. I also don’t think we need another bill speaking to the issue. I also think that Simpson is a poor fit for Idaho, but Fulcher is my rep so I don’t get a say on that. My main complaint is that the national legislature is wasting valuable time on garbage like this when there are so many real problems facing every day Americans that they should be addressing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *