I have been listening to this debate on the Republican side and it is self-contradictory. On the one hand, don't worry about it. Obergefell is not threatened. It is the law of the land. The Supreme Court has decided it. There is no threat. You guys are exaggerating the threat to Obergefell. On the other hand, this bill is catastrophic. My God, it will change things. Well, how will it change things if Obergefell is going to keep going? This bill will threaten the institution of marriage somehow. Really? I don't think it will threaten the institution of marriage, especially since it is irrelevant since Obergefell is going to continue. You can't argue out of both sides of your mouth. I would also point out, as I will in my closing statement, that contrary to the fears expressed about religious liberty, almost every church group in the United States has endorsed this bill. I will read a list in my closing statement. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
Share & report
More from Jerry Nadler
On that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 255, nays 161, not voting 16, as follows: [Roll No. 454]…
The Pro Codes Act is sensible, bipartisan legislation that strikes a balance between copyright protection and public access to information, thus resolving a clear uncertainty in the law. This legislation would allow standards developing…
Once again, I point out that what everyone thinks of the Biden administration's immigration policies, the only effect of this bill would be to take all Federal funds away from States like New York, California, North Dakota, Utah. Again…
As we have both said, we are going around in circles, so I will say what everybody has been waiting to hear: I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.





