United States House Republicans Ashley Hinson and Mariannette Miller-Meeks will once again have the opportunity to vote in favor of the (Dis)Respect for Marriage Act shortly.
The question is, will they once again reject the beliefs espoused in the Republican Party of Iowa’s platform and side with Democrats or will they defend religious liberty and oppose it?
Hinson put out the following statement on July 19 after voting for the bill:
“I voted for the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation that respects and maintains settled law. Now, Democrats need to focus on policies that will help families: lowering costs for groceries and gas, securing our border to keep our communities safe, and getting our economy working again.”
Keep in mind that version had to be amended in the U.S. Senate to add some so-called religious liberty protections by moderate Republicans and Democrats. Family advocacy groups along with conservative Senators said the amendment didn’t provide enough of a solution to advance the bill, but enough Republicans — including Sen. Joni Ernst — joined every Senate Democrat in supporting the bill.
Now the bill returns to the House.
In addition to her vote in support of the (Dis)Respect for Marriage Act, Hinson received support from the Log Cabin Republicans in her re-election bid.
The Log Cabin Republicans exist to make the GOP “more inclusive, particularly on LGBT issues.”
Log Cabin Republicans champion legal protections ensuring LGBT couples can adopt, wants to ban conversion therapy for kids (which means it would be illegal to take a child confused about their sexuality or gender identity to a licensed health care professional to talk through their confusion — unless the provider affirms their feelings of confusion) and supports the so-called “Fairness for All Act.”
Hinson was one of the group’s endorsed candidates in 2022.
During her initial run for Congress, Hinson also joined the radical GLBT Youth in Iowa Schools Task Force (fictitious name of “Iowa Safe Schools”) for the “Rainbow Forum.” You can watch that discussion below.