“They will still be subject to years, and sometimes decades, of government discrimination, harassment, and litigation.”
Let’s get this out of the way. Whatever you think about gay rights, Obergefell v. Hodges was legally illegitimate in much the same way as Roe v. Wade. It was another case of a Supreme Court majority dictating its cultural preferences under the color of law. Unlike Roe v. Wade, there’s no significant pressure campaign to roll it back worth mentioning. Abortion opponents kept their fight going for generations. There’s zero evidence of gay marriage opponents having that kind of political stamina, organization or movement. Simply put, there’s zero reason for the push to abolish the Defense of Marriage Act which is what HR 8404, misleadingly named the Respect for Marriage Act, does.
The Left is claiming that after the Dobbs decision, there’s an urgent need to codify Obergefell into law lest the Supreme Court wake up tomorrow and wipe it off the map. That’s nonsense.
So HR 8404 is not out to codify Obergefell and there’s no reason to think that everyone is going to all this trouble just to nail down something that already exists and isn’t going away.
So what is it doing?
Roger Severino warns that, “Again, the practical effect if this becomes law, will have nothing to do with the benefits of same-sex couples. It’ll have everything to do with excluding people of faith from their tax-exempt statuses for houses of worship, from adoption agencies that believe that the best most conducive place for a child in placement would be with a married mother and father, and for those who contract or receive grants from the government who want to live according to the beliefs with respect to marriage. Those are the groups who are going to be targeted. And this law would actually create this bludgeon, which is a private right of action, which means individuals could sue on their own in federal court to hound these groups.”
Private cause of action is in there and there’s no reason for it to be there.
Furthermore, Severino notes, “We had a case from the ’80s with respect to tax-exempt status for a violator of a civil rights law. They were deemed not to be a charity, and they lost their tax exempt status. And the Supreme Court said, because there’s an established national policy against that type of discrimination that you lose your tax-exempt status and there’s no recourse. That same tool will be deployed against people who believe that marriage is a union of one man and one woman, which is very different than other types of beliefs that are protected by statutory anti-discrimination laws.”
Mitt Romney was a vocal supporter of this shameful bill. But quite a few Senate Republicans were jumping on board. A few were dissuaded after they heard from voters in their states. But not all.
“Make no mistake,” Alliance Defending Freedom President Kristen Waggoner warned, “this bill will be used by officials and activists to punish and ruin those who do not share the government’s view on marriage.”
On Wednesday, HR 8404 received 62 “aye” votes and 37 “no” votes.
Twelve Republicans voted for advancing the legislation: Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Shelley Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mitt Romney of Utah, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Todd Young of Indiana.
A fact sheet from the Family Research Council deconstructs promises that religious freedom will be protected.
Section 6(b) only protects those people or entities “whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion” and only from being forced to “solemniz[e] or celebrat[e] […] a marriage.”
FRC notes that religious organizations not officially recognized as such, like Yeshiva University, not to mention foster care and adoption agencies, would not be protected.
“Even those who do, or should, fall within the very narrow protections of Section 6(b) could still be sued and have to prove themselves. They will still be subject to years, and sometimes decades, of government discrimination, harassment, and litigation.”
As the Heritage Foundation writes:
…the only reason to add Congress’ explicit blessing… is to cement same-sex marriage as national policy that can be used as a club by government agencies, such as the IRS, to deny traditional religious institutions tax-exempt status, licenses to assist in adoptions, and government funding and contracts.
This is what a GOP Senate betrayal means for religious freedom.
wpm says
I wonder what new marriage “Lifestyles ” will be accept in the near future can child brides be too far off ,or polygyny ,or incest ?? Will churches be forced to accept furriers “lifestyle ” as a new normal ,we like Roman are going to start circling the drain in my humble opinion.
milo minderbinder says
wpm,
The USA has been circling the drain for some time now. It’s not a matter of if, but when, the collapse will happen.
“The Decline of a Nation – History and Christian Values.”
https://probe.org/the-decline-of-a-nation/
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Yeah, the first thing that this new Senate does is vote to codify gay marriage into law. Something that became law just by fiat of one man: Justice Anthony Kennedy. May he go to the islamic hellfire whenever he croaks, regardless of his ‘faith’
I fully understand why some people decide that the GOP is no longer for them. For all the claims of it being a ‘Trump party’, GOP candidates were successfully sabotaged 2 weeks ago, and neither Rick Scott nor Andy Biggs could mount a successful challenge to leadership. I rarely wish for the death of political opponents, but I don’t see what else would bring about a change in leadership in the Senate. In Alaska, looks like Comrade Murkowski will return, thanks to Dems supporting her in the ranked choice voting. I really wish President Trump would start a new party, instead of pretending that he owns the GOP. The way Right wing parties in several countries are letting down their voters is dismaying
Wellington says
It’s not the new Senate, Infidel, it’s still the old Senate. The new one won’t come in until January 3rd, not that it makes any difference because Democrats and RINOs will still control it.
As for Trump starting a new party, I cant imagine anything that would delight Democrats more. It would split the former Republican Party into RINOs and those in Trump’s new party—a recipe for permanent Democratic rule. Either the Republican Party prevails because people like Trump, DeSantis, Hawley, Jordan and Cotton make it prevail in their image or all is almost certainly lost.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
The RINOs – and their voters – have more on common w/ the Dems than the America First crowd. If Trump were to start a new party, it would automatically get rid of the Romneys, the Murkowskis, the Collins’, the McConnells….
I don’t see how the Republican party is remade in Trump’s image if in every election, the people most like Trump are trounced when they run for positions like speaker, conference chair and so on. Rick Scott went down to McConnell. Andy Barr went down to McCarthy. It may be a Trump party at the grassroots, but that’s not showing in the conference. If it did, guys like Matt Gaetz, MTG and Boebert would be the party leaders
Incidentally, this is not an America issue alone. I watch Mark Steyn these days on GBNews Mondays to Thursdays, and he’s predicting that the Tories would go extinct the same way the Canadian Conservative Party went extinct some 20 years ago, when they got only 2 seats in parliament. So in Britain, they’re now scrambling to see who would be a real Right wing party that people can rally around. There are several small parties but none of them have the reach of the Tories, but the Tories are now totally hijacked into the globalist agenda
Wellington says
I believe it is only a matter of time here in America before Leftists aplenty, especially Democratic politicians and judges, move to charge religious organizations and sects which think that marriage should only be between one man and one woman with violating federal law and therefore should be deprived of any tax-haven status, never mind civil lawsuits launched against such organizations and sects for negligent or even intentional infliction of emotional distress. I have to wonder as well that if gay marriage is a constitutional right, why isn’t polygamous marriage which continues to exist in that religion which is more equal than all other religions?
America is sinking fast and the key to understanding this descent is to realize that the Judeo-Christian tradition on marriage and on so many other matters is consistently being eroded by the decade. The fact that an agnostic like myself has to note this is itself dispositive of just how far America has fallen over the past half century or so.
James Lincoln says
Wellington says,
“I believe it is only a matter of time here in America before Leftists aplenty, especially Democratic politicians and judges, move to charge religious organizations and sects which think that marriage should only be between one man and one woman with violating federal law…”
Likely so, as leftists will try to build upon the SCOTUS Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Sen. Ted Cruz remarks on how that decision was wrong:
https://nypost.com/2022/07/17/ted-cruz-scotus-gay-marriage-ruling-was-clearly-wrong/
bill carr says
All religious bodies should lose tax exempt status, and they are always begging for money from their gullible followers. They should pay taxes just like everybody else. While their so called religious leaders go around in $2000 suits, live in big houses, stay at the best hotels and drive expensive cars. Of course it wiil never happen as the religious lobby is too powerful and no politician dares to touch the subject.