'Insufferable' Pastor Mocked After He Says Women Shouldn't Vote After 'Moral Atrocity' Remark

In a widely circulated Instagram reel, entrepreneur-turned-pastor Dale Partridge claimed that women's votes are largely responsible for 'moral atrocities' such as same-sex marriage and abortion. Partridge suggested that women should defer to male authority in voting decisions, citing traditional Christian interpretations of household hierarchy.

The clip, reposted on multiple platforms including TikTok and X (formerly Twitter), provoked widespread ridicule and condemnation. Users highlighted the apparent disconnect between Partridge's assertions and established civil liberties in the United States.

Partridge has additionally promoted the idea that in a Christian household, the husband should effectively cast the vote for the family, a view he frames as consistent with Biblical principles. While he couches his statements in faith-based reasoning, critics argue they constitute a direct challenge to the 19th Amendment, which guarantees women the right to vote.

Origins Of The Remarks

Separately, CNN's filmed profile of Doug Wilson set the scene by exploring the CREC's expansion into Washington, D.C., and the pastor's stated aim to see 'the nation be a Christian nation'. In that interview, Wilson described himself as 'patriarchal' and argued for clearly circumscribed roles for women in church and society.

When asked whether women should vote, other pastors in the segment, most notably Toby Sumpter and Jared Longshore, suggested a return to household-based voting or the repeal of the 19th Amendment as an ideal outcome. The CNN transcript shows the exchange was presented as part of a broader look at the church's ambitions and influence.

The segment was not an isolated sermon excerpt. It was recorded and broadcast as part of a report examining how a church with a growing national footprint is articulating a political vision. That context matters because the group's stated desire to shape civic structures raises immediate constitutional and democratic concerns that go beyond theological debate.

Political Amplification And Public Backlash

The story acquired new momentum when Pete Hegseth, the US Defence Secretary and a congregant linked to the same ecclesiastical network, shared the CNN footage with the caption 'All of Christ for All of Life' on his X account.

The repost sparked outrage among veterans, female service members, and lawmakers who argued that a senior official amplifying anti-suffrage rhetoric undermines the impartiality expected of officeholders.

Pentagon spokespeople moved quickly to counter the political fallout, emphasising that the secretary supports women's right to vote while declining to distance himself from the ideals of his church.

Social media reactions ranged from incredulous ridicule to alarm. On TikTok and other short-video platforms, creators mocked the logic of household voting and highlighted the practical absurdities if such ideas were ever implemented.

Others warned that legitimising this rhetoric could normalise the restriction of civil rights. The debate demonstrates how a single filmed interview can ripple into policy discourse when echoed by influential figures and repackaged for viral audiences.

The Theological and Social Context

Both Partridge and Wilson frame their arguments within a patriarchal Christian worldview, which prioritises male leadership in family and civic life. In Partridge's Instagram reel, he explicitly links women's suffrage to perceived societal decline, while Wilson and his colleagues in the CNN interview extend this logic to broader political structures, advocating for male-led household voting.

Legal scholars are unequivocal: any attempt to revoke or limit women's voting rights would face immediate constitutional barriers in the United States. Civil rights organisations and advocacy groups describe the pastors' remarks as fringe, emphasising that amplification by influential figures could normalise patriarchal and anti-democratic ideologies.

The public backlash highlights the human dimension of these statements. For many women, such remarks are not abstract theological musings but threats to hard-won rights. For supporters of the pastors' perspective, the arguments articulate a coherent vision of moral governance and social order. Across the broader public, the discussion underscores tensions between faith-based authority and secular democracy.

For many women, the exchange was not an abstract theological debate but a reminder that rights once fought for can be disputed in public fora. For congregants and onlookers who support the pastors' worldview, the discussion articulated a coherent moral vision about family and social order. For the broader public, it raised questions about the place of theocracy within a pluralist state, and about the responsibilities of officials who share religious affiliations with figures advancing overtly political aims.

A vivid image lingers: a camera capturing a pastor articulating a social blueprint, a defence chief clicking 'share', and millions of viewers on their phones deciding whether the idea is a backward curiosity, a threat to democracy, or somehow both.