Rep. Gallagher opposed same-sex marriage bill over polygamy concern
WASHINGTON – One week after voting against legislation that would codify the right to same-sex marriage, Wisconsin Congressman Mike Gallagher attempted to explain his position by pointing to a seemingly unrelated issue.
He’s “in favor of marriage equality,” Gallagher told conservative talk show host Guy Benson Tuesday. And he supports repealing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman and allowed states to not recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
But the Green Bay Republican indicated he opposed the Respect for Marriage Act due to fears the bill’s language would allow for polygamy — reasoning some labeled a political strategy.
Gallagher cited a line in the bill that bars states from denying recognition of a marriage “between 2 individuals” from another state on the basis of sex, race and ethnicity. When it comes to federal laws, he noted, the bill doesn’t include that phrase — holding that a person is considered married if the marriage is “valid” in the state it occurred.
“So the second provision would force the federal government to recognize a marriage beyond two people if just one state permitted it,” Gallagher said. “I concede no state permits it now. You may view that as a low probability outcome. But, in my mind, it’s higher than the probability Obergefell gets overturned.
“We don’t want to force the federal government to recognize polyamorous marriages that other states would be under no obligation to recognize.”
The comments strayed from statements Gallagher made after the samesex marriage vote last week. At the time, he said the Supreme Court had “made it clear” in its Dobbs v. Jackson abortion ruling that the decision was limited to abortion. He called the bill a “brazen attempt to fearmonger.”
On Tuesday, Gallagher told Benson, who is in a same-sex marriage, that he understands the worries over the right to marriage.
“It is also true that for the millions of legally-married gay couples in America, Obergefell is — it can seem like a tenuous layer of protection, and their lives would be upended if it were overturned, even if that’s a low probability,” Gallagher said, referring to the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that made samesex marriage legal across the country. “And even if that probability is low, Congress should still be in the business of doing its job and not outsourcing that job to the judicial branch.”
The Respect for Marriage Act passed the House last week on a vote of 267-157.
Forty-seven Republicans voted in favor of the legislation. Janesville Republican Bryan Steil, whose district is more competitive this year due to redistricting, was the only member of Wisconsin’s House GOP delegation to support the bill.
Anthony Chergosky, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, said he was “mildly surprised” Gallagher voted against the Respect for Marriage Act and noted he had never heard polygamy come up during debate on the bill.
He pointed to a 2021 Gallup poll indicating a majority of Republicans support same-sex marriage. That, he said, puts GOP lawmakers in a situation where they’re bound to upset a portion of their party.
“It’s clear that he was trying to find something in the bill that would give him an out, so to speak,” Chergosky said of Gallagher’s comments. “Gallagher is an extremely savvy politician, and he is using a classic strategy that lawmakers use when they’re a little stuck, when they need to find a way to cope with an issue that divides their own party.”
Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said the House vote is indicative of the shift in public opinion on same-sex marriage.
“The issue used to split the Democratic Party; now it splits the Republican Party, and a safe-seat Republican like Gallagher is not even saying that he necessarily opposes same-sex marriage as a concept,” Kondik wrote in an email.
He also pointed to Gallagher’s comments from last week calling the bill fearmongering.
“It is interesting that he is now arguably fearmongering himself in order to defend his vote against the bill (by arguing that it could allow for unintended consequences, such as recognizing polygamous relationships),” Kondik said.
A spokesperson for Gallagher did not respond to questions from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. But the Green Bay Republican told Benson he would vote for the bill if the “between 2 individuals” language was added to the section of the bill pertaining to federal law.
“All I’m asking is for the Senate to make a simple three-word fix, make the bill internally consistent,” Gallagher said. “Should that happen, I would vote for it if it came back to the House, and I think others in the Senate and the House would as well.”