AMAC Exclusive – David P. Deavel
The twelve Republican Senators and sometimes conservative figures such as David French say it’s now safe. But they are wrong. The so-called Respect for Marriage Act, now having passed the Senate and likely to pass the House sometime this week, is a bill that will provide an opportunity for potential lawsuits and legal penalties for religious and other Americans who do not think that two men or two women can contract a real marriage, whatever the government has decided.
That is not all, however. Ever since the issue started heating up almost two decades ago, those who opposed “same-sex marriage” warned that such a redefinition would certainly not be the end. While many of those who approved it knew this, they largely kept this aspect of the “battle for equality” in the shadows and often attacked those who spoke about how this change could result in government recognition of polygamous, polyamorous, incestuous, and who knows what other kinds of relationships as marriages.
On November 29 the Senate passed Act 62-37. The bill, which repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act recognizing only the union of one man and woman as a marriage, would also require those “acting under color of state law” to recognize same-sex marriages, allow for a right to sue for those who do not do so and command the federal government to recognize marriages as defined by one or more states.
Republican Senators 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 all ended up voting for it while no Democrats voted against.
On what basis could these GOP Senators justify such a vote given the obvious danger to churches and religious organizations? Senator Mike Lee had spoken out vociferously about the danger this bill posed and had himself offered an amendment that would have prevented the federal government from taking any retaliatory action against individuals who speak or act on the basis of a “sincerely held religious belief, or moral conviction” that marriage should be recognized as either the union of one man and one woman or what federal law states it is. Lee’s amendment clarified that such retaliation included penalties or the taking away of tax-exempt status by the IRS as well as the withholding or removal of any federal grants, loans, employment, or benefits of any kind on the basis of such beliefs.
Despite the clarity of this amendment, it failed 49-48 earlier in the week in the Senate. While Texas GOP Representative Chip Roy has introduced an identical amendment in the House, what passed the Senate was instead an amendment authored by Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin that does not identify how the federal government may not punish those who hold sincere religious or moral convictions. It does provide a patina of support for religious freedom by asserting that: “nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.”
Writers such as David French and the Church of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons) supported the passage of the act on the assumption that with Baldwin’s Amendment religious liberty claims would be strong. But, as ADF’s Kristen Waggoner wrote in reply to French’s contention that very few private organizations would really be forced to provide such services, accommodations, and so on lest they create a civil claim or cause for action, that phrase in Section 3 about “[n]o person acting under color of State law” has very often been interpreted to mean private organizations that work closely with the government. Not only have private adoption and foster agencies been deemed as acting “under color of state law,” but so have: “state high school athletic associations, bail bondsmen, state bar associations, cooperative extensions, redevelopment corporations, drug testing companies, private universities, foundations, housing contractors, housing providers, insurance companies, hospitals, mental health facilities, non-profit corporations, physicians, private security officers, racing associations, prison chaplains, prison ministries, and towing companies, among others.”
The danger is obvious. Simply saying that “entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion,” as Baldwin’s amendment puts it, will be under no obligation doesn’t cut it when all sorts of organizations run by Christians, Jews, and Muslims would be vulnerable given the broad array of organizations. Think about all the Christian colleges and universities that take federal funding and work with various federal agencies. As Waggoner observes, the very ambiguity of what any given court will rule is acting “under color of state law” means that it will be easy to punish such dissenting organizations by subjecting them to expensive litigation either by individuals or the government if this passes. Whether a given group holding to man-woman marriage wins or not, the ruinous fees from this lawfare will be devastating. There is a reason that not only religious liberty groups such as ADF but also many Evangelical groups and the U. S. Catholic Bishops Conference were imploring the Senate to reverse course before passage.
But this danger to religious organizations is not the only thing. While the current language of the bill specifies that this demand to recognize any union recognized by one or more states applies to only two people in a union and Baldwin’s amendment explicitly rules out polygamous unions, it is not clear that this is much of a barrier either to more radical redefinitions of marriage.
Senator Ted Cruz proposed an amendment that would have specifically ruled out not only polygamous marriages but also incestuous and child marriages—but it was defeated. As for the supposed defense against forced recognition of polygamous unions, the Heritage Foundation’s Roger Severino noted that this isn’t clear either. While the current terms “cover unions where three or more persons are married to each other as one family unit,” he observes that “the bill leaves open the possibility that one person can be in multiple two-person marriages at the same time, which would trigger federal recognition if a state legally were to recognize such consensual, bigamous unions as separate family units.”
Given that in Massachusetts, which pioneered the recognition of same-sex unions as marriages, there have already been two cities that have recognized polyamorous unions, and in New York, a civil court judge has ruled that polyamorous relationships must be recognized as equal to two-person relationships, it is not hard to see that Severino’s hypothesis might very well be taken up.
While we can pray that the House takes up Representative Roy’s amendment, I think it is a long shot. If the Senate, where Republicans had more favorable numbers, could not figure out a way to at least protect religious liberty and ensure that further redefinitions of marriage are not enacted, it is hard to see how this will happen in the current House.
This bill is quite likely, if passed, to display the kind of severely distorting effects on society that those who objected to redefining marriage in the first place warned about. The ideas that marriage is constituted solely by an amorphous “love” and that “love is love” have no limiting principle. And, as we have seen, even the limits present are easily permeable with some clever lawyers. For Jews and Christians who believe that marriage is a divinely ordered institution that highlights the remarkable image of God, male and female, this is a deeply troubling barrier to finding our true humanity. For Muslims who believe marriage is a sacred bond, this will be troubling too. And for Christians, for whom marriage is a divine sign or sacrament representing Christ’s relationship with the Church, this will present another veil over the truth of salvation that we preach.
And, as President Obama used to talk about “freedom of worship” as if it were all about private and public ceremonies rather than living out one’s faith in “freedom of religion,” we are likely to see that the solid protections for religious groups will likely be limited to not being required to perform marriage ceremonies. To keep their educational, charitable, and service organizations running according to their beliefs is going to require a lot of clever lawyers and a lot of fortitude.
Pray that the Roy Amendment somehow makes it in. And get ready to do a lot more praying and lawyering if the bill does pass the House.
David P. Deavel teaches at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas, and is a Senior Contributor at The Imaginative Conservative.
If this law goes into effect many people will be punished because of their religious beliefs. Our lawmakers know this but don’t seem to care about people’s religious beliefs. This should have been left up to the States. A person can move out of a State if they disagree with the laws of that State. But it’s not so easy to move out of a Country.
While our laws continue to get more and more complicated (and in my opinion unnecessary) the lack of debate and forthought is criminal. Our federal legislators are not doing their respective jobs! Think for a moment how obsurd this might become if a particular state allows someone to ‘marry’ anything or anyone. If I ‘marry’ my new automobile and someone totals it in a collision, I’d be able to sue them for ‘murdering’ my ‘spouse’. Thats how stupid things have become.
We small few who still believe the Bible is the word of God find ourselves being forced to except abhorrent live styles. Next will be that a person can marry their pet or livestock, as long as they love them. To rephrase Charlton Heston only when they rip this Bible from my cold dead hands.
I think it’s wonderful.My Border Collie and I have been living in sin since she was a pup now at long last,we can tie the knot!
When man’s laws supersedes the Law of God, judgement will be forthcoming. Our first President, George Washington, stated it quite clearly that if this nation moves away and forgets about God, then disaster will surely follow. Look out for it is coming.
With 12 Republicans having already voted for it, passage in the still Democrat controlled House of Representatives this coming week is a lock. From there, it is a short trip to Biden’s desk, where his people will instruct him to sign it into law. So this is already a done deal.
The time to act was BEFORE the Senate voted on it. Everyone on the Republican side knows who the usual suspects are when it comes to RINOs marching across the aisle to help Democrats enact anything. I for one am NOT surprised by who in the Senate, on the Republican side, voted to approve this legislation. Most are the same folks that always support so-called “progressive” legislation drafted by the Democrats.
Trying to retroactively clean up all the issues with this bill in the courts after it is signed into law won’t be very successful. The courts move very slowly and the longer the bill is law, the less the courts will be willing to deem parts of it unconstitutional. Sorry, but that is just reality. Learn how to be proactive instead of always reactive, so bad bills like this can actually be stopped beforehand.
If this bill passes even the ones drafting and or sponsoring it will live to regret their actions, or their “relatives” will. When we as a civilized? Country turn our backs on our God then we have turned our backs on managing our civilized society, and we are doomed to fail as that society and return to the animalistic way of life.
Again something else that the government should keep its nose out of how about defending our country oh we’re doing a bang-up job there Biden like the borders stick to that work on that try to see if you can sell that if you can’t get out of the White House
Despicable!!! We are in the last days in the world we know, as in the days of Noah!! God’s judgement on this nation has started with this administration’s unmoral, lack of values, unconstitutional bills and laws, abortions,etc…. The foundation of this once great nation and its covenant with God has been broken and if people don’t return to God’s principles, this nation is doomed!!! Its time for people to put their faith and trust in the Lord rather then politicians that are leading this country to destruction!! We can’t save this nation but you can save yourself by turning back to God!!! Mystery Babylon has fallen, Get out of her before it’s too late!!!
As Republican with Libertarian leanings, I tend to agree with Michael Stevens. There is much diversity in the world, but attempting to codify universal acceptance of every individual belief is an unnecessary complication and a slippery slope that will ultimately only benefit attorneys that can make money on litigation while disallowing opposing beliefs. The basic concept of individuality falls within the realm of liberty with equal protection under the law. Much like Democrats have sought to persecute and deny the beliefs of conservatives, (which is so contrary to the concept of democracy they say WE threaten), codifying acceptance creates special protections beyond equality and commands everyone else to disregard their own beliefs. The American foundation of Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness is as simple as live your life as you see fit while doing no harm and expect no harm in return. Our Legislature’s attempts to control and complicate social structure while ignoring the issues that are their duty to address is yet another distraction from the ultimate goal of a totalitarian hive mind structure, where we are told what to think while forgetting how to think!
Where as I believe two guys getting together is discussing I feel it’s OK for two women. I guess it’s due to women having been doing this openly for years and I’ve gotten use to it. It wasn’t officially sanctioned but tolerated. Men never enjoyed the same acceptance and never will. They will forever be tainted with the stigma of being gay. You can forbid the word, change the laws but the stigma will always remain, it won’t go away. I have gay friends, I don’t pass judgement on them. I feel there’s a line, I stay on my side and they stay on theirs. Works for me….
This issue never seems to die, those that push this agenda draws us closer to a government that will decide what marriage is. Unanimous democrat support and some republican cross over has shown that demonizing traditional views will become mainstream. In California, man and woman marriage definition (prop 8) was passed by the people only to be challenged by the state and the will of the people was overturned. Family law will be redefined, unintended consequences will reveal themselves and the institution of holy matrimony will be but a memory.
Stolen elections have consequences!
Another Communist liberal bill rammed through Congress and Senate with no regard the damage it does to our country.
How about “Republicans” actually representing their constituents. Now that’s a novel idea.
My border collie is so disappointed that AMAC didn’t post my comment!
I remember reading the results of a research paper that stated same-sex unions, on average, last longer than heterosexual marriages. I’ve known gay couples who had stronger commitments to each other than many in traditional marriages. The federal government recognizes LGB issues and makes discrimination illegal. Other people’s choices for how they choose to live their lives have no bearing on how I live my life or how you live yours! You could even see the First Amendment addressing the freedom to express oneself being brought up to affirm same-sex marriages.
The author didn’t go into the ramifications of certain aspects when these unions are not legally recognized. When one spouse is hospitalized, his or her loved one might not even be allowed to visit. The hospital won’t allow the partner to request the course of treatment even if it has been stipulated in a living will. Instead, an estranged family member, who isn’t sympathetic to the wishes of the patient and the partner, can call the shots. If the patient dies, the courts can set up all sorts of obstacles to settle the will. And if there is no will, the partner might not get anything. Only a legal marriage would see the end to these tragedies.
When it comes to forcing a bakery to make a cake celebrating a gay marriage, that’s where I draw the line. In my business, I often turned down work from prospective clients requesting my services, and I didn’t need to offer a reason. No one sued me for that. So, a bakery should be able to decline work because…no reason need be given. These lawsuits that caused long-standing businesses to close their doors and possibly bankrupt the owners should have been thrown out of court. If a church refuses to perform a ceremony because it’s not sanctioned by that church, then the couple should look elsewhere. Those who choose to create a media sensation are doing so with other notions in mind (big $$$ lawsuit, notoriety, shaming an unsupportive family…).
Underage or incestuous unions and cultish behaviors among unconsenting adults are not acceptable.
It’s a sticky wicket, how far legislators are willing to go to respect the rights of individuals while at the same time respecting the obligations of the Constitution and society. For peace on earth, I think we have to be less punitive when it comes to same-sex unions.
So this is the AMAC that asks me to join every so often? Getting to hew the Gay Marriage Line just like AARP. Consider the six or seven states that allow brother-sister marriages when one or both a adopted. New Hampshire had that under a judge-created process requiring hearings and a court-appointed special master to help a judge make the final determination that such a particular marriage was NOT incestuous. I knew a brother-sister who got married in 1980–that process has since been outlawed by statute but they are grandfathered. In a majority of states it is illegal for first cousins to marry–Pennsylvania is the nearest. Anything can still be done by special legislative act–Massachusetts a few years ago allowed an aunt-nephew marriage by Special Act of the General Court our quaint legal name for our legislature; the aunt was the ex-wife of the man who was now married to the groom’s mother’s younger sister.
In short, this Bill is intended to cause a lot of lawsuit trouble. But when a gay coupe asks a mosque to let them stage their gay wedding in the mosque expect some violence–except I don’t expect a gay couple to ever do that! Which gives the game away–They’re all about destroying only the Christian religion. I doubt any gays will sue synagogues but they might–after all, they’re going after Yeshiva University.
“On what basis could these GOP Senators justify such a vote given the obvious danger to churches and religious organizations” Your entitlement is ASTOUNDING and can basically be summed up as
“Society should solely serve my alternative lifestyle and nonsense beliefs. I get to decide to is entitled to government legal & financial protections. Anything less is an attack on me”
What it shows is that those that are governing our country do not care about the religious standings of its people. We react to the few over the many. What baffles me is that there is so much emphasis on our sexuality and physical appearance negating that who we are is not the outside body. Who we are is the source of energy of what we are from within our spirit. Lost in the illusion of insanity to be what we are not. Why is it so hard to love ourselves as we are made, because we don’t know who and what we are, and our society will solve that too by AI and then we will cease to exist at all. All of this is to our destruction, blinded, eliminating our survival to exist. Was having more intelligence a benefit, or should we have remained more animalistic?
There is no such thing as a new definition of marriage. The definition of marriage was determined by God alone as a union between one man and one woman. Human beings cannot redefine marriage and humans cannot defend their redefinition of marriage. It may be a civil union or whatever else they choose to call it, but homosexual unions are not marriage so they can’t be defended.
So, does that mean someone will be able to marry their pet? Where does it end?
This country is out of control, and needs a major arce kicking. The hell with the liberals, and fanooks.
1 Corinthians 7:2 – Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Mark 10:6 – 10:9
6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
The Christian God grants men free will, even to be sinful. In my opinion, that is consistent with separation of church and state.
So, legally I believe marriage between men and men, women and women are constitutional. However, 1st Amendment freedom of religion denies government authority to require those who practice the Christian religion to approve of homosexual marriage or facilitate it!
It is worthy of note that those who fled Europe to practice their religions passed and recognized laws that would stone those who practiced such unions.
Restaurant cancels Christian group’s event just before start time because eatery’s staffers — many of whom are LGBTQ+ — felt ‘uncomfortable,’ ‘unsafe’
theblaze.com/news/restaurant-cancels-christian-group-s-event-just-before-start-time-because-eatery-s-staffers-many-of-whom-are-lgbtq-felt-uncomfortable-unsafe?utm_source=theblaze-7DayTrendingTest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Blaze%20PM%20Trending%202022-12-05&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%207%20Day%20Engagement
If gays can deny service because Christians make them feel unsafe, shouldn’t Christians have the right to refuse to marry them because it makes them feel unsafe?
Whats nest Marry your dog?
In closing, let us briefly consider Pascal’s famous great Wager. Pascal, one of the greatest mathematicians and physicists of all time, argued that either God is (exists) or he is not ( does jot exist). If you bet ( fhe wager being your life) that God is and you are right then you will win everything; if you are wrong then you would have lost nothing; a win-win situation. On the other hand, if you wager that God is not and you are right, then you will have won nothing; far worse still, if you are wrong, you will have lost everything- a lose-lose situation. So, Pascal asks, “what have you to lose?” Wager on God. For all you unbelievers I suggest reading ” The collapse of Evolution” by Scott M. Huse
Should anybody disbelieve that Satan exists the comments made by the likes of “Freya” etc should be more than enough to convince them otherwise.
More good news for all you lost souls Evidence that demands a verdict :” Further evidence that demands a verdict “Josh McDowell” who moved the stone?”Morris” Merry Christianity “C.S LewisAll three books written by atheist whose sole purpose in writing them was to prove that God was a myth and did not exist. Instead they found the opposite.
OK BOOMERS LOL