Victoria Cobb, President
December 10, 2022
On Thursday the U.S. House of Representatives approved the amended Senate version of the misnamed “Respect for Marriage Act” by a 258-169 vote, with help from 39 Republicans, codifying same-sex “marriage” into federal law.
For many people of faith, the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act” is an insult to the institution of marriage they know to be between one man and one woman as designed by God and has been the foundation of civilization itself. It will also lead to more widespread persecution of anyone who does not follow the federal government’s view of marriage and sexuality, just like we experienced with Metzger’s restaurant recently.
The bill, which originated in the House of Representatives, was amended by the Senate to include supposed “protections” for certain organizations and religious entities whose “principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion” from being prosecuted, leaving, for example, institutions like faith-based foster care and adoption agencies vulnerable. This fig-leaf of a religious protection was added to acquire enough Republican votes to reach the 60 vote threshold needed to break cloture in the Senate and pass the bill.
From a policy, legal, and Constitutional perspective, the Act does nothing to affect same-sex marriage, which was already legalized with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, but instead will generate even more threats to religious liberty, including:
- creating a private right of action that allows people to sue people who still believe in biblical marriage if they believe their rights have been violated;
- subjecting business owners, like Lorie Smith, Jack Phillips and Baronnelle Stutzman, to more costly litigation;
- jeopardizing the work of faith-based social-service organizations – like faith-based foster care and adoption agencies – by threatening litigation if they follow their views on marriage when contracting with the government; and threatening the tax-exempt status of faith-based nonprofits.
In the moments prior to the final vote on the bill, the Senate rejected amendments offered by Senators Mike Lee (R-UT), James Lankford (R-OK) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) that would have included serious protections for people of faith; ensured that nonprofits do not lose their tax-exempt status for adhering to natural marriage; and removed that private right of action that could lead to costly law suits. The mere fact that these amendments were rejected is evidence this Act is nothing more than a blatant and cynical attack on religious liberty.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) offered this ominous statement regarding religious liberty: “But we must remember this critical First Amendment right is a shield, not a sword. It cannot and must not be wielded to discriminate against individuals solely based on whom they love. We’ve seen too many who tried to turn this crusade the wrong way.” In other words, the government’s views on same-sex marriage trump religious liberty protections.
For Virginians, this issue hits close to home as the battle over the definition of marriage rages on. Progressive liberals have attempted to amend our state constitution, which recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman, ever since it was approved by voters in 2006. In fact, for the past two years progressive liberals have attempted to amend the constitution and replace it with language that would have recognized any marital arrangement, including polygamy.
In fact, last month a bill was introduced for the 2023 legislative session that would begin the process of repealing the state constitutional language that recognizes one-man, one-woman marriage. These continued efforts to redefine marriage can only be disastrous for our society by rejecting God’s design for natural marriage and the family unit.
Our culture is under immense pressure from the LGBTQ revolutionaries, but if our elected officials are willing to compromise on the fundamental understanding of natural marriage, then nothing will prevent them from compromising on any conservative value.