By Michael Brown, CP Op-Ed Contributor| Tuesday, November 22, 2022
In an op-ed for Christianity Today, Carl H. Esbeck, R. B. Price Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Missouri, offers a positive assessment of the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA). He writes, “All in all, RMA is a modest but good day’s work. It shows that religious liberty champions and LGBT advocates can work together for the common good.”
With due respect to Prof. Esbeck’s legal knowledge, I categorically differ from his assessment.
I have already challenged the Republican senators who voted to advance the bill this week. Here, I want to focus on Prof. Esbeck’s reasoning.
He writes, “Some conservatives will undoubtedly treat the act as a loss. But others will take the view that, in a morally pluralistic society, a few concessions yield a win for the common good. I’m one of them.”
Specifically, he notes that under the final version of the bill, “religious nonprofits and their personnel have a statutory right to decline any involvement with a marriage solemnization or celebration — including a same-sex one. This federal right would preempt any state or local law to the contrary. It means clergy can refuse to officiate a gay wedding. A church can decline to be the venue for these unions. A Christian college can deny use of its chapel for the same reason, and a Christian summer camp can refuse use of its lake and nearby pavilion, as well.”
But he acknowledges that the bill “doesn’t address ongoing litigation over for-profit Christian wedding vendors — photographers, bakers, florists, dressmakers, and others. However, RMA doesn’t harm wedding vendors. It’s simply silent and leaves the matter for resolution in the courts” (his emphasis).
And for this reason, he, as a Christian conservative, thinks the bill is a good idea? The fact that it doesn’t do further harm to individuals who, in conscience, cannot affirm same-sex “marriage” is a positive?
To paraphrase, “Hey, you’re already in a heap of trouble, but this bill doesn’t pile any more rubble on you!”
The national climate is already hostile to such individuals, who at best, end up spending years in costly legal battles where the charges against them are finally dismissed. At worst, they lose their businesses, their reputations get soiled, and they are even found guilty by the courts.
Yet this bill doesn’t explicitly protect them. Why not? And why would any Christian conservative say, “Well, that works for me!”
As for the idea that this would not further harm such people, that, too, is questionable. After all, it is not just the Supreme Court that affirmed same-sex unions but Congress itself, with the signature of the president.
A November 15 article in The Daily Signal quotes a wide range of religious leaders, all of whom raised serious concerns about the bill.
“Stephen Minnis, president of the Catholic Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas, warned The Daily Signal that ‘Catholic institutions will have a tough time living our faith under this legislation.’”
Baptist pastor Richard Callahan described the bill as “an assault,” and Roger Severino of The Heritage Foundation warned that, “All this bill does is target people of faith who don’t support woke ideology.”
Similarly, Rabbi Yaakov Menken, the founder of Project Genesis and the managing director of the Coalition for Jewish Values, said, “Here you have a piece of legislation that exposes every traditional Jewish practitioner of anything to potential litigation.”
And Prof. Esbeck, writing for Christianity Today, finds this acceptable?
As for the redefining of marriage, Esbeck writes, “Now that RMA has the legislative backing of Congress, no Supreme Court reversal of Obergefell would dislodge the validity of a same-sex marriage or the government benefits, tax breaks, and other gains that go with it. But in my view, it’s very unlikely, anyway, that Obergefell will ever get overturned.”
This is a highly unfortunate comment.
Do we affirm a wrong thing as right because it’s unlikely that society will reverse the wrong? What kind of reasoning is this?
There was a time when it looked like slavery would not be abolished. Should we, therefore, have codified it more deeply in our laws?
The same could be said for overturning Roe v. Wade.
For many years, especially after the Casey decision in 1992, it looked as if Roe would never be overturned. Should we, as Christian conservatives, have thrown in the towel and said, “If Congress wants to codify this and make it impossible for the Supreme Court to clean up the mess it made, no problem! After all, it’s very unlikely that Roe will ever get overturned.”
I ask again: what kind of reasoning is this, especially for a Christian?
Prof. Esbeck concludes his op-ed stating, “All in all, RMA is a modest but good day’s work. It shows that religious liberty champions and LGBT advocates can work together for the common good. It says to the original House bill, ‘If a bill is about us, it has to be with us.’ And it shows that Congress can still legislate, not just be a gaggle of egos who go to Washington to perform but never fix.”
What this bill actually shows is that religious liberty champions must sell their souls and compromise their ethics in order to work out an acceptable deal with LGBT advocates. This is anything other than a “modest but good day’s work.”
How telling that Christianity Today, once the flagship Evangelical publication, chose to publish an op-ed offering support for a bill that enshrined homosexual unions into our national laws.
To the core of my being, I am committed to loving my LGBTQ+ neighbors and protecting them against discrimination, hostility, and attack.
But in conscience before God, I cannot affirm as right what God does not affirm. Neither Congress nor Christianity Today will change that for me (and, I trust, for many of you reading my words).
Dr. Michael Brown(www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Revival Or We Die: A Great Awakening Is Our Only Hope. Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube.
The ‘Respect For Marriage Act’ Disrespects Faithful Americans
BY: STAR PARKER AND MARTY DANNENFELSER NOVEMBER 22, 2022
The legislation puts small business owners at risk of fines and imprisonment for declining participation in a same-sex wedding celebration.
The U.S. Senate has begun debate on a same-sex marriage bill they call the “Respect for Marriage Act,” and senators are expected to cast a final vote on the legislation when they return after Thanksgiving. Proponents dubiously claim this bill provides religious liberty and conscience protection. They’re also making a contrived argument that the legislation is necessary to protect interracial marriage.
In its 1967 decision, Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state ban on interracial marriage because it was in clear violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. The court rightfully struck a blow against racial discrimination, but its decision did not alter the nationwide consensus that marriage is a union of one man and one woman.
Today — 55 years after the court’s historic Loving decision — not one legislative body in any state of America is considering legislation to ban interracial marriage. While we’re not professional gamblers, we estimate that the odds are less than 1 in 100 trillion that any state in America will ever ban interracial marriage or that the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold such a ban in the infinitesimal chance it was placed on their docket. We further estimate that about 99 percent of Americans agree with our prediction and that a comparable percentage would be appalled if any state ever brought such a racist proposal to a vote.
Punishing Those with Traditional Views of Marriage
Despite knowing that the banning of interracial marriage anywhere in America is a near impossibility, members of Congress are sowing fear across America and seeking to exploit the politically contrived argument that interracial marriage is at risk. This diversion seeks to distract the American people and their fellow legislators from the true goal — advancing legislation that puts photographers, wedding planners, and other small business owners or contractors at risk of severe fines, imprisonment, and bankruptcy if they dare to decline participation in a same-sex wedding celebration due to their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Having manufactured the argument that interracial marriage is at risk, proponents of the “Respect for Marriage Act” now argue it is necessary to pass this legislation in order to alleviate the fear they have sown with their cynical political tactic.
In crafting this bill, sponsors have created a new legal standard that will punish Americans who “cling” to their religious beliefs despite the new orthodoxy about marriage. Photographers and other entrepreneurs who don’t bend to the will of leftist activists will be treated as if they are racist bigots who refuse to provide a service to fellow Americans based on the color of their skin. The faithful entrepreneurs will effectively be presumed guilty of marriage discrimination and will have a high legal bar to clear in seeking to prove their innocence.
Department of Justice’s Abuses
The Biden administration is showing how legal tools in the arsenal of radical appointees can be turned against everyday Americans. The U.S. Justice Department, which would receive enhanced enforcement power under this legislation, has abused a federal law that criminalizes peaceful protests in front of abortion facilities by sending a swarm of armed agents to the home of a peaceful anti-abortion protester despite the fact that local law enforcement found no reason to charge the person with a crime. That individual now faces the prospect of severe penalties and years of imprisonment because the Biden administration is determined to crush any organization or individual that stands in the way of a single abortion being performed in America at any point in pregnancy for any reason.
The same Biden Justice Department has labeled parents protesting at school board meetings as domestic terrorists and has conspired with social media companies to deny the First Amendment rights of Americans. This Justice Department cannot be trusted with enhanced authority to prosecute and delegitimize faithful Americans who respect other people’s beliefs and just want to be left alone and allowed to exercise their beliefs outside the doors of a church — even as they seek to support their families through a local photography business or other enterprise that sometimes provides wedding services in their communities.
Members of Congress Must Create Protections
Conservative senators who have voted to advance the “Respect for Marriage Act” will have another chance to protect their faithful constituents when they return to the U.S. Capitol after Thanksgiving. While we believe this legislation is completely unnecessary and that it purports to address a threat that doesn’t exist, we also believe it will cause real harm in its present form.
At a minimum, conservative senators from America’s heartland should insist that the legislation have airtight protections for nonprofit organizations and social service providers (e.g., adoption, foster care), as well as for small business owners and contractors.
Biden has proved to be a Trojan horse for the radical left, and his aspiring successors from California, among others, are even more radicalized than he is. No responsible legislator should hand them another cudgel that can be used to destroy the livelihoods and reputations of our fellow Americans.
Star Parker is president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE) and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators. Marty Dannenfelser is vice president for government relations and coalitions at CURE and previously served as staff director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/11/22/the-respect-for-marriage-act-disrespects-faithful-americans/
Senate Passes ‘Disrespect for Marriage’ Act Without Religious Liberty Protections
Ben Johnson November 30, 2022
On Tuesday night, the U.S. Senate passed the so-called “Respect for Marriage” Act which critics say invites “predatory lawsuits” against people of faith, stigmatizes biblical values, and drives Christians from the public square. Although nearly all Senate Republicans voted for amendments demanding greater respect for religious liberty, 12 Republicans voted for the unamended bill — and against the interests of their own voters, according to pro-family organizations.
H.R. 8404, which skeptics call the “Disrespect for Marriage” Act, requires all 50 states to recognize any marriage legally recognized by any other state and gives individuals the right to sue if they feel they have been harmed by people who believe in natural marriage. After the Senate rejected a series of religious liberty amendments, a dozen Republicans sided with Senate Democrats in the 61-36 vote for final passage. Two of its supporters, Senators Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), had served as co-chairs of the congressional Values Action Team, “dedicated to advancing pro-life and pro-family policies.”
“These 12 senators are literally putting a target on their base and driving them out of political engagement,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins shortly after the vote. “This bill is a club, with which the Left will attempt to beat people of orthodox faith — who believe in marriage as God designed it and history has defined — into submission.”
“My experience as a former chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has shown me that religious freedom’s greatest threat is not a military force that eradicates or suppresses religious freedom,” Perkins added. It comes from “policies like the so-called Respect for Marriage Act,” which lead to the “systematic suppression and eventual loss” of religious liberty.
The Senate had the opportunity to fix provisions of the bill that would infringe on the rights of people who hold biblical values but rejected each amendment in succession.
Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) put forward a comprehensive religious liberty amendment protecting religious believers from vindictive federal officials who might take “discriminatory action … wholly or partially on the basis of their belief in marriage.” Lee’s amendment failed by one vote, 48-49. His amendment received bipartisan support, with Democrat Joe Manchin (W.Va.) voting yes. But one Republican, Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), voted against Lee’s amendment; two Republican senators, Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), skipped the vote, as did Democrat Raphael Warnock (Ga.).
“This is a discouraging development in our country’s storied history of protecting the free exercise of religion,” said Senator Lee after the narrow vote. “While I’m disappointed that my amendment was not included, I remain committed to preserving the religious liberties enshrined in our Constitution for all Americans.”
Travis Weber, vice president for Policy and Government Affairs at Family Research Council, gave a grave assessment of the outlook for religious freedom in America on “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” as the votes unfolded Thursday. “It’s going to set in motion a series of events that will aim towards the marginalization of Christians from society because of their beliefs about marriage,” he said. “These are the contested issues of today, and Christians cannot do anything but stand on them. And yet we’re seeing Republicans side with Democrats in marginalizing these believers. This is a sad moment, but we must do everything we can to call attention to what’s happening and light the way forward.”
Senator James Lankford’s (R-Okla.) amendment would have clarified portions of the bill’s language. As written, the Respect for Marriage Act “just says if someone feels they’ve been harmed” by another individual’s views of marriage, “they would now have the opportunity to be able to sue someone else because of that. … It’s fairly obvious” trial lawyers and LGBT activists will file “countless numbers of lawsuits, testing every new definition” codified in the bill. “I encourage everyone in this body to ask a very simple question of themselves: Is today about respecting the rights of all, or is it about silencing some and respecting others?” Senator Lankford asked.
Senator Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) amendment would have struck LGBT activists’ ability to sue believers. Both amendments failed by the same 45-52 margin. Republican Senators Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Rob Portman (Ohio) sided with the Democrats against religious freedom.
“Members of Congress who voted for this bill and claim to support religious liberty are either naïve or don’t understand the laws they are passing,” said the Heritage Foundation’s Roger Severino. “As a result, the tax-exempt status of religious schools and nonprofits is now up for debate.” Others said the vote held disturbing implications about the state of the Senate. “What does it say about our Congress & our country if including religious liberty protections in a bill that would otherwise force Americans to act against their religious convictions proves to be an unacceptable addition to the (Dis)respect for Marriage Act?” asked Liberty University’s Standing for Freedom Center.
LGBTQ political victories had not been under threat prior to the bill’s introduction. Democrats pounced on the issue this summer after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas encouraged his fellow justices to reconsider Obergefell v. Hodges, the controversial 2015 opinion that first discovered a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. After the bill’s passage, CNN admitted, “This is all academic right now.”
“This dangerously cynical and completely unnecessary bill is a direct attack on the First Amendment. It does nothing to change the legal status of same-sex marriage anywhere. But it undermines religious freedom everywhere and exposes Americans throughout the country to predatory lawsuits by activists seeking to use the threat of litigation to silence debate and exclude people of faith from the public square,” said Ryan Bangert of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). “If the Senate truly cared about protecting religious freedom, it would have included comprehensive amendments proposed by Sens. Lee, Rubio, and Lankford.”
In place of these amendments, the Senate adopted a legally ambiguous bipartisan amendment that religious liberty advocates called “dangerous,” “deceptive,” and “harmful.”
Pro-family conservatives say Republicans lost a major vote on religious liberty, in part, because the broader conservative movement provided little coverage of the issue. Christianity Today, now edited by former ERLC leader Russell Moore, ran only one article on the topic — supporting the bill. “While conservatives were chasing the shiny ball of #trans extremism, #LGBTQ activists worked with #UsefulIdiot Republicans (& churches, eg #LDS) to pass a law enshrining the radical concept of homosexual ‘marriage’ in federal law,” tweeted Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth, adding this is how the “LGBTQ lobby advances.”
LGBT activists did not greet the bill’s passage with gratitude, indicating passage only emboldened them to demand more restrictive legislation. “If the Senate really wanted to take a big step to protect LGBTQ Americans and our families, it would finally pass the Equality Act,” which actively repeals religious liberty protections, wrote Jonathan Capehart in The Washington Post.
But Democrats celebrated a political victory — fueled, in part, by Republican votes. “I just called my daughter and her wife — who are expecting a baby next spring — to let them know that this Senate passed the Respect for Marriage Act! What a great day!” enthused Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Schumer critically agreed to delay a vote on the bill, which he says the majority of Americans support, until after the midterm elections to spare liberal Republicans electoral backlash.
Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) praised the dozen Republicans who voted for the final bill, because “the attempts to derail this piece of legislation were probably more focused and robust than any other bills I’ve worked on in the last two years.”
“Republicans privately estimate perhaps 30 or so of their senators want the bill to pass, conservative backlash limited the whip count,” reported Politico. Republican Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said GOP support sent the message “that this is not about an extreme liberal, progressive end that would destroy religious freedom in this country. This was about settling something that is on the minds of millions of people and their families.”
The bill returns to the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives for a vote on final passage. A harsher version of the bill passed the House on July 19 with 47 Republican votes, although some Republicans who initially voted for it now say they have seen the error of their ways.
President Joe Biden has already committed to sign the bill. “Love is love,” tweeted Biden, just days after his 80th birthday. “I look forward to the House passing this legislation and sending it to my desk, where I will proudly sign it into law.”
Politically active people of faith promise passing a bill redefining marriage without meaningful conscience protections will come at a cost to supporters in both parties. “Those in Congress who dismissed legitimate warnings about this bill and the harms that would be caused by it must be held accountable. This bill was designed from the start as a political weapon for left-wing activist groups to harass and shut down conscientious Americans who hold fast to the time-honored institution of marriage,” said Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.
Most importantly, pro-family advocates say changing legal definitions cannot alter the fundamental truths embedded in marriage and family life by another Lawgiver. “We know what is right. We know what is true. Whether by the Court or by the Congress, truth cannot be altered,” Perkins concluded. “We need to have the courage to stand for it, remembering the words of the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 6, ‘and having done all … stand firm.’”
The 12 Republican Senators who voted for final passage of the “Respect for Marriage” Act are:
- Roy Blunt (Mo.);
- Richard Burr (N.C.);
- Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.);
- Susan Collins (Maine);
- Joni Ernst (Iowa);
- Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.);
- Lisa Murkowski (Alaska);
- Rob Portman (Ohio);
- Mitt Romney (Utah);
- Dan Sullivan (Alaska);
- Thom Tillis (N.C.); and
- Todd Young (Ind.)
The 47 House Republicans who voted for the “Respect for Marriage” Act in July are:
- Kelly Armstrong (N.D.);
- Don Bacon (Neb.);
- Cliff Bentz (Ore.);
- Ken Calvert (Calif.);
- Kat Cammack (Fla.);
- Mike Carey (Ohio);
- Liz Cheney (Wyo.);
- John Curtis (Utah);
- Rodney Davis (Ill.);
- Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.);
- Tom Emmer (Minn.);
- Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.);
- Andrew Garbarino (N.Y.);
- Mike Garcia (Calif.);
- Carlos Gimenez (Fla.);
- Tony Gonzales (Texas);
- Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio);
- Ashley Hinson (Iowa);
- Darrell Issa (Calif.);
- Chris Jacobs (N.Y.);
- David Joyce (Ohio);
- John Katko (N.Y.);
- Adam Kinzinger (Ill.);
- Nancy Mace (S.C.);
- Nicole Malliotakis (N.Y.);
- Brian Mast (Fla.);
- Peter Meijer (Mich.);
- Dan Meuser (Pa.);
- Mariannette Miller-Meeks (Iowa);
- Blake Moore (Utah);
- Dan Newhouse (Wash.);
- Jay Obernolte (Calif.);
- Burgess Owens (Utah);
- Scott Perry (Pa.);
- Tom Rice (S.C.);
- Maria Elvira Salazar (Fla.);
- Mike Simpson (Idaho);
- Elise Stefanik (N.Y.);
- Bryan Steil (Wis.);
- Chris Stewart (Utah);
- Mike Turner (Ohio);
- Fred Upton (Mich.);
- David Valadao (Calif.);
- Jefferson Van Drew (N.J.);
- Ann Wagner (Mo.);
- Michael Waltz (Fla.); and
- Lee Zeldin (N.Y.)
Respect for Marriage God’s Way | Pastor Shane Idleman
Related
https://illinoisfamily.org/marriage/marriage-one-man-one-woman/
NarrowPathMinistries 