The nephew of a Missouri Republican congresswoman whose speech opposing the  Respect for Marriage Act went viral after she cried while speaking about the act is responding to her outburst — and seeking to rebut some of her claims.

During the House debate on the Senate-approved version of the Respect for Marriage Act, U.S. Rep. Vicky Hartzler took to the floor to urge a “no” vote on the bill, which would require the federal government and individual states to acknowledge the validity and legality of same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.

While same-sex marriage is legal nationwide, thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, some fear that the conservative high court might revisit and overturn the ruling, throwing the issue of marriage back to individual states to decide. Because 35 states currently have laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, those states would be able to immediately stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But because proponents of same-sex marriage worry about the erosion of protections for same-sex couples, the Respect for Marriage Act would require both the federal government and individual states to recognize same-sex marriage licenses from the 15 states, the District of Columbia, and five overseas U.S. territories where such unions are either not expressly prohibited or are legal.

Earlier this summer, the House approved the bill by a 267-157 margin, with 47 Republicans voting along with the entirety of the Democratic caucus in favor of the bill. But the bill stalled in the Senate due to fears of earning enough Republican support to overcome a filibuster, requiring 60 votes to start and end debate on the measure before it could be brought to the floor for an up-or-down vote.

Read Next

Senate Bill Would Fully Erase Transgender Identity in U.S.

As part of negotiations that were ongoing for months, a bipartisan group of five senators worked on language to add protections for religious entities and nonprofits under the bill, in an effort to assuage the fears or concerns of Republican senators on the fence. The bill ultimately passed the upper chamber, with 12 Republicans voting to support it.

Yet despite gaining the approval of Senate Republicans, the language on religious protections was deemed insufficient by some House Republicans, while others balked at having to pass the Senate-approved version, demanding the right to add their own amendments to the bill — which would have killed it, given the short window of time before a new Congress must be seated in early January.

Never one to support LGBTQ rights, Hartzler took to the floor, calling the bill “misguided and dangerous,” and claiming its protections for religious liberty did not go far enough. Calling the bill the “Disrespect for Marriage Act,” she claimed it was unnecessary, given that the Obergefell ruling remains currently in place, and lamented the defeat of three Senate amendments that sought to water down the bill’s protections for married same-sex couples.

“This unnecessary, misguided legislation not only disrespects the importance of traditional marriage for the health of a family, but also disrespects people and organizations of faith who have the constitutional right to carry out their mission in accordance with their deeply held beliefs,” Hartzler said.

“Let’s be clear: Obergefell is not in danger, but people and institutions of faith are. This bill only serves to further demonize Biblical values by establishing a private right of action against organizations who believe in natural marriage, opening the floodgates for predatory lawsuits against people of faith,” she added. “The bill’s only purpose is to provide the federal government a legal bludgeoning tool to dive people of faith out of the public square, and to silence anyone who dissents.”

Read Next

Gay Teacher in Oregon Wins $90K Settlement

Hartzler claimed that the Respect for Marriage Act wouldn’t provide sufficient protections for religious schools, faith-based adoption or foster care agencies, Christian businesses who contract with the government, or government employees with sincerely held personal religious or moral beliefs who oppose same-sex marriage who do not wish to process claims or issue licenses recognizing same-sex nuptials.

“The bills implications: Submit to our ideology, or be silenced,” Hartzler said. “This is yet another step toward the Democrats’ goal of dismantling the traditional family, silencing voices of faith, and permanently undoing our country’s God-woven foundation. … I’ll tell you my priority: Protect religious liberty. Protect people of faith. And protect Americans who believe in the true meaning of marriage. 

“I hope and pray that my colleagues will find the courage to join me in opposing this misguided and this dangerous bill,” she said, her voice cracking as she began tearing up.

Hartzler’s speech soon went viral, being shared on YouTube and earning attention from political commentators of all stripes. Meanwhile, on the day of the vote, Hartzler’s nephew, Andrew Hartzler, a 24-year-old LGBTQ activist living in Oklahoma, began to receive notifications about his aunt’s speech and was even tagged in a Facebook video of his aunt’s remarks on the floor of the House.

“My initial thought when I saw it was, ‘Oh my, is she crying because she now knows that I’m gay?'” Andrew, 24, told PEOPLE magazine, adding that he began overthinking her speech, imagining that she was getting emotional because she was envisioning him marrying a man and being sent to hell.

Read Next

‘Laughs in Spanish’ Mixes Art World Antics with Heartfelt Drama

“I still don’t know why she has such negative outlooks or perceptions of gay people. I would like my [last] name to be associated with love,” said Andrew, who is one of several LGBTQ plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit fighting to strip religious colleges of an exemption that allows them to continue receiving federal funds while having policies in place that permit discrimination against LGBTQ-identifying students.

Andrew Hartzler subsequently went on TikTok and filmed a video calling out his aunt and pushing back against her claims, denouncing what he sees as “hateful rhetoric and blatant discrimination” being spread against LGBTQ people.

“Negative rhetoric spread by the religious right demonizes LGBTQ people and basically turns their following completely against them,” Andrew told PEOPLE. “It goes back to her actions and her words. They ultimately have real-life consequences, like violence against people in our community.”

In the TikTok video, Andrew Hartzler says: “A United States congresswoman, my Aunt Vicky, started crying because people like me can get married,” before sharing segments of Hartzler’s floor speech.

“So despite coming out to my aunt this past February, I guess she’s still just as much (of) a homophobe,” he says.

Pushing back against Hartzler’s claims over that “institutions of faith” are under attack, Andrew Hartzler said, “Aunt Vicky, that’s not right. Institutions of faith, like religious universities, are not being silenced. They’re being empowered by the U.S. government to discriminate against tens of thousands of LGBTQ students because of religious exemptions, but they still receive federal funding.”

He also refuted his aunt’s claims that people who oppose same-sex marriage are being “silenced,” adding: “It’s more like you want the power to force your religious beliefs onto everyone else. And because you don’t have that power, you feel like you’re being silenced. But you’re not. You’re just going to have to learn to coexist with all of us. And I’m sure it’s not that hard.”

Despite the congresswoman’s hysteria over the same-sex marriage bill, the Senate-approved version ultimately passed the House, 258-169-1. Although the bill lost the support of 10 Republicans who had previously voted for the bill in July, when no language around religious liberty was included, the measure easily surpassed the 219 threshold and now heads to the desk of President Joe Biden, who is expected to sign it into law.