Subscribe!
Rep. Gabe Amo votes “Nay” on Charlie Kirk Resolution. He “spouted demeaning, dehumanizing ideas”
Today, the US House of Representatives took a vote on Resolution 719 – Honoring the life and legacy of Charles “Charlie” James Kirk. It passed with a vote of 310 Yes votes to 58 Nays, 38 Presents and 26 Not Voting.
The two Rhode Island representatives, Gabe Amo and Seth Magaziner cast their vote. Amo in the “Nay” column and Magaziner in the “Yes” column.
STATEMENT of Rep. Gabe Amo:
“The assassination of Charlie Kirk was a tragedy that took a father from his children, husband from his wife, son from his parents, and makes us all less safe. His killing is unequivocally unacceptable.
In the heightened intensity of our political climate, a resolution that divides and reinforces pain does not alleviate political discord or support the principled disagreement essential to American democracy. While the First Amendment entitled Mr. Kirk to spout demeaning and dehumanizing ideas I vehemently disagree with, that same amendment allows me to use my voice to promote kindness and unity for those he disparaged.
As a Black man, I could not in good conscience vote for a resolution that aimed to rewrite history and erase the hateful things Mr. Kirk espoused. We are entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. While he has many followers who extol his words that may have been positive, the negative parts of his legacy do not warrant high honor or praise. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ‘hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.’
Political violence has no place in our democracy, but meaningful, non-violent dialogue is essential. That is why I am co-sponsoring, H.Res 746, a resolution introduced by my colleague Rep. Marc Veasey that condemns Mr. Kirk’s killing and the extreme rise in political violence we have recently witnessed.
I will continue to champion free speech and dialogue, and work to end the scourge of gun violence. While Donald Trump and Republicans are abusing the power of government to silence dissent, I will work to ensure every American, even those with different views than my own, can express their beliefs and opinions without fear of violence or reprisal.”
___
Statement of Rep. Seth Magaziner:
“Rep. Magaziner in no way supports the prejudiced and misguided views Charlie Kirk at times advocated.
However, he believes that the country needs to come together to condemn political violence and heal our divisions. And part of that work includes extending grace to those with whom we have strong disagreements, particularly those who have been killed.”
Whereas Charles “Charlie” James Kirk, born October 14, 1993, was a courageous American patriot, whose life was tragically and unjustly cut short in an act of political violence on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University;
Whereas Charlie Kirk was a devoted Christian, who boldly lived out his faith with conviction, courage, and compassion;
Whereas Charlie Kirk was a dedicated husband to his beloved wife, Erika Kirk, and a loving father to their daughter and son, exemplifying the virtues of faith, fidelity, and fatherhood;
Whereas Charlie Kirk was a fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility;
Whereas Charlie Kirk, at 18 years old, founded Turning Point USA in 2012, a student movement with the mission to “identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government”;
Whereas Charlie Kirk became one of the most prominent voices in America, engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic;
Whereas Charlie Kirk personified the values of the First Amendment, exercising his God-given right to speak freely, challenge prevailing narratives, and did so with honor, courage, and respect for his fellow Americans;
Whereas Charlie Kirk’s commitment to civil discussion and debate stood as a model for young Americans across the political spectrum, and he worked tirelessly to promote unity without compromising on conviction;
Whereas the assassination of Charlie Kirk was not only a heinous act of violence, but a sobering reminder of the growing threat posed by political extremism and hatred in our society;
Whereas such acts of politically motivated violence are antithetical to the principles of a free republic, in which differences of opinion are to be debated—not silenced—with civility, reason, and mutual respect;
Whereas the rise in targeted violence against individuals for their political beliefs undermines the very fabric of our constitutional democracy and chills the free exchange of ideas essential to a healthy civic society;
Whereas leaders at every level—government, education, media, and beyond—must stand united in unequivocal condemnation of political violence, regardless of their ideology;
Whereas the tragic loss of Charlie Kirk must not be allowed to deepen the divides in our Nation, but instead serve as a turning point to recommit ourselves to better angels, and to the timeless American principles of liberty governed by truth and the virtues of peaceful dialogue; and
Whereas Charlie Kirk would not have us respond to his death with despair, but rather with renewed purpose—to speak truth with courage, to stand firm in faith, to seek unity while standing firm in principle, and to serve as living reminders of the values he championed: faith, family, and freedom: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the assassination of Charles “Charlie” James Kirk, and all forms of political violence;
(2) commends and honors the dedicated law enforcement and emergency personnel for their tireless efforts in finding the suspect responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk and urges the administration of swift justice to the suspect;
(3) extends its deepest condolences and sympathies to Charlie Kirk’s family, including his wife, Erika, and their two young children, and prays for comfort, peace, and healing in this time of unspeakable loss;
(4) honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty; and
(5) calls upon all Americans—regardless of race, party affiliation, or creed—to reject political violence, recommit to respectful debate, uphold American values, and respect one another as fellow Americans.
___
Massachusetts votes were as follows, with Rep. Moulton and Pressley “Nays”:
This is a developing story
As to Mr. Amo’s statement “As a black man,” what does that mean? Should he not be looking at things as an American first. He is a man of dark skin, because his lineage is from Africa, as someone whose ancestors were Swedish would have white skin. He is living in prosperous 21st-century America, where millions and millions of black men and women are successful, prosperous, living well, and have unlimited opportunities and mobility; he is not living in the southern US states in 1850. A phrase like that makes me uneasy, 1) because it implies an unwholesome grievance agenda, and 2) as a representative he has to represent and take account of everyone, and that includes the majority of Americans who elected President Trump to the highest office. It doesn’t give me much confidence, that’s all.
>>> MIDDLETOWN GOP AND DEMOCRATS UNITE TO CONDEMN POLITICAL VIOLENCE AFTER CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION
>>> We agree with this statement below
>>> I wanted Kirk to be safe for his sake, but I also wanted him to be safe for mine and for the sake of our larger shared project. The same is true for Shapiro, for Hoffman, for Hortman, for Thompson, for Trump, for Pelosi, for Whitmer. We are all safe, or none of us are.
The Congressional Resolution should have been trimmed to the bone, and the political puffery left out. But it’s politics, not poetry. Or scripture.
As for Mr. Amo’s statement, it could take a couple of pages to deconstruct.
The correct word to use would be murder. Not political words like assassination or social words like tragedy. There’s much indirect verbiage in the statement that is unhelpful.
And he couldn’t finish without dragging Mr. Trump into it, expressing a general misreading of what is going on, in my view.
And he wants opinions to be expressed by everyone, “even those with different views than my own.” Huh? “Even” makes it sound like Amo must be right, always right, and differing opinions must be wrong from the start. Slip of the pen?
He should have left off partisan pettiness and voted for the resolution—a document that will be read by no one and forgotten in a week—as an act of American common decency.
Rep. Amo co-sponsored another resolution speaking to similar issues – please feel free to wordsmith – it is very difficult to not have a good editor (we face that every day) – but to keep knee jerk reactions at a minimum, Congress could do better. Here’s a link to the long resolution: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/746/text
The difference comes down to scope and motive:
Murder is the unlawful killing of one person by another, with intent. It applies broadly—anyone can be a victim, and the motive can be anything (personal anger, financial gain, revenge, etc.).
Assassination is a specific type of murder. It usually refers to killing a prominent person (political leader, public figure, activist, journalist, etc.), often for political, ideological, or religious reasons. Assassinations are meant not only to eliminate an individual but also to send a message, destabilize, or influence larger events.
So:
All assassinations are murders, but not all murders are assassinations.
I wasn’t sure if your response was an invitation to comment further, but anyway, here are three thoughts.
1. The Arabic/Islamic derivation of the word assassin, an organized group to kill political and religious opponents to protect a tribal dynasty, supports the initial part of your description of who assassins target; the rest may–or may not be–too broad. I dislike use of the word too broadly: there is always a whiff a justification that somehow attaches to the word, because there is always a political reason, for someone.
2. Charlie Kirk was not an office holder, was not seeking elective office, he had no political authority. His was an ongoing lecture and debating tour of the country.
His content was cultural. Unfortunately, cultural issues have become so political, e.g., the partisans who insist on boys in girls’ bathrooms, and boys in girls’ sports.
3. In choosing the right descriptive word, I appreciated Italian President Georgia Meloni’s, stern, stare-you-down, terse summation: this was “a pre-meditated, intentional, cold-blooded murder of a man who was defending his ideas.”
I suppose we can argue about the meaning of ‘Patriotism’ and whether or not a true patriot must oppose the rise of totalitarianism in this land. No one need doubt many of the things claimed in this resolution.
But most assuredly, Charlie Kirk did not by his words and actions support human equality, nor did he represent “the Christian faith,” which is diverse, nor did he support the Way of Jesus at least the Way portrayed and called for by the Jesus in the stories and sayings of scripture.
We can morn the loss of every single citizen. We can mourn the use of the guns to kill each other (something which Charlie Kirk more or less dismissed as inevitable to “defend our God given rights.”).
We can grieve for him and his family (which I do). But we should not try to do so by making false claims about who he was, or what he advocated, or the movement he was a part of.
The truth, and the faith and hopes for our nation, and the faith of those of us that attempt to follow the way of radical love in scripture and experience – even when we disagree – is all just to precious for that to support the factual misrepresentations included in this congressional statement.
I support Congressman Amo’s statement in response to his refusal to sign. I to so I believe he is right to refuse because of the untruths that an are included in the congressional statement. I am one who attempts to follow the radical way of Christ which is inclusive of both justice and mercy toward all other and and which, by my baptismal pledge, opposes oppression in all its forms, (including racism, classism by which wealth destroys the poor and working classes, and all forms of gender bondage, and ability status) as well. I support any nation that seeks (as ours is pledged to seek), “the common welfare of all.” I grieve the loss of every soul that is lost, but oppose the mischaracterization of the official Congressional statement with respect to both patriotism and Christianity, and what both entail and should teach.
Unfortunately, Charlie can’t defend or explain himself. Sunday he will be honored by over 100,000 people – and millions more watching, streaming. 38,000 new applications for chapters at colleges.
Philippians 4:8 – Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
Please can we all remember that our Government is and must always be separate from Church and Faith. I object that Congress offered to honor a citizen/Representative for his particular Faith.
I think the primary role he was being honored for was Turning Point, a political advocacy group
I agree with Ms. Della-Piana. Turning Point made the arrangements. I didn’t watch it but within minutes of the ending, headlines began showing up, saying Kirk was considered a martyr. Any video or photo clips extolled a religious bent.
Politics and religion don’t mix. No doubt that he was a man of faith and worth mentioning. It was part of the man. However, this wasn’t a religious service but a memorial. I fully expected the crowd to stand and yell ‘Hallelujah’ and beat their chests. Our leadership uses religion as a prop to push its agenda, which shows no kindness, goodness, or empathy.
It was nothing more than a promotion for Turning Point.
I encourage you to watch it – particularly Erika’s presentation.
Mr. Clinker, I’m with you 100%.