***The Iowa Standard is an independent media voice. We rely on the financial support of our readers to exist. Please consider a one-time sign of support or becoming a monthly supporter at $5, $10/month - whatever you think we're worth! If you’ve ever used the phrase “Fake News” — now YOU can actually DO something about it! You can also support us on PayPal at new[email protected] or Venmo at Iowa-Standard-2018 or through the mail at: PO Box 112 Sioux Center, IA 51250

Both Republican Representatives Ashley Hinson and Mariannette Miller-Meeks voted in support of the (Dis)Respect for Marriage Act on Thursday. The pair also voted for it in July but had to do so once again after the Senate amended the bill. Sen. Joni Ernst voted for the bill and has been censured by at least six Republican county central committees in Iowa.

Representative-Elect Zach Nunn said he would’ve supported it if he were in office when asked in July.

Hinson put out the following statement:

“This bill maintains the status quo,” Hinson said in a statement. “We should be focused on reducing inflation, securing our border, and restoring American energy independence – these are the issues Iowans talk to me about every day and want Congress to prioritize.”

The bill codifies homosexual marriage, repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, puts at great risk the religious liberty of various organizations and forces every state to recognize whatever another state may deem a “marriage.”

Ernst has received a lot of blowback from Iowa Republicans since her vote. Miller-Meeks was censured by Mahaska County in the summer, but both Hinson and Miller-Meeks were invited and allowed to speak at the Iowa Faith & Freedom Fall fundraiser after — AFTER — voting against traditional marriage.

Here is what the Republican Party of Iowa platform states:

“We believe that traditional, two-parent (one male (XY) and one female (XX)), marriage-based families are the foundation to a stable, enduring, and healthy civilization. We encourage the repeal of any laws allowing any marriage that is not between one natural man and one natural woman.”


  1. Ashley Hinson, this applies to your sons now, thanks to your vote:
    “Statutory rape is when one of the parties to sexual activity is below the age of consent. It does not have to be forcible, because a minor is not legally able to consent. 18 U.S.C. Section 2243(a), on the Sexual Abuse of a Minor, applies when a person “knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person” who is between the ages of 12 and 16 and is at least four years younger than the perpetrator. 18 U.S.C. Section 2243(c)(2) allows a defense to this crime when “the persons engaging in the sexual act were at that time married to each other.” This means that, at the federal level, child marriage is viewed as a valid defense to statutory rape.

    This law not only suggests that the federal government condones the practice of child marriage, it allows an adult to engage in sexual activity with children as young as 12, and gives sexual predators an incentive to force a child to marry them. The law can effectively turn child marriage into a “get out of jail free” card for predators. This law must be repealed. Repealing 18 U.S.C. § 2243(c)(2) is a simple, commonsense step towards aligning U.S. laws with international standards and discouraging child marriage and rape in the U.S.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here