Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Betrayed Again
Just when I started to believe that the Republicans in Congress might actually be ready to act boldly, they have betrayed us again. It’s difficult for me to determine whether I am angrier with the Democrats for proposing this deceitful bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, or with the Republicans for lining up behind them. This Act further damages and weakens our religious liberties, in particular our support of traditional marriage, and it reminds us that the Progressive Left will never stop infringing on our rights and freedoms.
So what’s the big deal? A dozen Republicans have decided that they want to cozy up to the Democrats, or are too lazy or foolish to study the real intentions of the bill, or simply don’t care:
The 12 Republicans who voted yes on Wednesday were Susan Collins of Maine, Rob Portman of Ohio, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Mitt Romney of Utah, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Todd Young of Indiana and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
For anyone who wants to read the bill, go here.
What are the real dangers built into the bill? Mike Lee and several of his Senate colleagues wrote to their peers about the potential dangers and solutions in the legislation:
Instead of subjecting churches, religious non-profits, and persons of conscience to undue scrutiny or punishment by the federal government because of their views on marriage, we should make explicitly clear that this legislation does not constitute a national policy endorsing a particular view of marriage that threatens the tax exempt status of faith-based non-profits. As we move forward, let us be sure to keep churches, religious charities, and religious universities out of litigation in the first instance. No American should face legal harassment or retaliation from the federal government for holding sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions. My amendment would ensure that federal bureaucrats do not take discriminatory actions against individuals, organizations, nonprofits, and other entities based on their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions about marriage by prohibiting the denial or revocation of tax exempt status, licenses, contracts, benefits, etc. It would affirm that individuals still have the right to act according to their faith and deepest convictions even outside of their church or home.
Although several supporters of the bill admitted it had problems, Mike Lee’s amendment wasn’t supported. In fact, no amendments were considered, although several were submitted.
Other possible attacks on religious institutions may be on the horizon:
H.R. 8404 abandons all current limits in federal law requiring marriage to be the union of only two persons. Under H.R. 8404 all it takes is a single state to recognize a polygamous or other unusual union as a marriage and the federal government must automatically recognize it for all federal purposes, including tax deductions, welfare benefits, immigration status, and federal employee benefits.
And as outrageous as polygamous marriages may seem, they also have the potential for being legalized:
There are upwards of 60,000 people practicing polygamy without legal recognition in the United States today. Public support for polygamy has more than tripled since 2010 to nearly one in four people today. In 2020, Utah reduced the criminal penalties for living in polygamous relationships to infraction status. Organizations such as the Polyamory Legal Advocacy Coalition, with support from Harvard Law School, are pushing for legalization of polyamorous unions. Two cities in Massachusetts, Somerville and Cambridge (home to Harvard University) have recently granted official Domestic Partnership status to plural unions. Nothing in Obergefell prohibits any state legislature in the country from following Cambridge’s lead, nor does it prevent a state Supreme Court from imposing polyamory or polygamy by interpretation of its state constitution.
And one other outcome that will make individuals and organizations vulnerable:
Anyone merely alleging a harm would be able to sue under H.R. 8404. Activists will argue that faith-based foster care providers, state-funded religious social service organizations. and religious organizations and businesses that provide services under contract with the government are acting “under color of State law” to, at the very least, impose costs on and harass institutions that seek to live their beliefs about man-woman marriage without having to withdraw from civic or public life.
* * * *
Some people will see these concerns as overreactions or extremes. Ten years ago, we wouldn’t have believed there would be social support for gender mutilation surgery, CRT, taking away control from parents for their children’s education, border invasions or censorship by the media. I think the House Freedom Caucus sees the future clearly:
‘This vote is about more than culture. It is about affirming the self-evident truth that marriage is a natural institution that predates government,’ the letter reads. ‘Republicans must stand united in defense of that truth and the institution of marriage which forms the backbone of a healthy society. There can be no compromise on this question.’
Unfortunately, I doubt that the Republicans are listening.
Published in Politics
Just seems par for the course.
This is awful, Bryan. I’m starting to feel like a conspiracy theorist, except they keep confirming my worst fears.
Too much Scorpion and the Frog in the Republican Party — particularly the Senate.
There is a meme or two for that as well, but I’ll refrain from posting,
Those particular republicans are always aligned with the Turtle . Those particular Senators are for sale and Mitch is the agent for the transaction
Boy, isn’t that the truth! But of course everyone thinks that they are not the frog, couldn’t possibly be the frog, and then are stunned when they are stung. I wonder if they even notice.
You promised to make ’em squeal, Joni. Remember that?
I remember that. I’ll remember this too. I’m not in Iowa anymore, but I’ll make sure everybody I know in Iowa remembers.
Way too many Republicans are not social conservatives. They must have those votes, so they talk it up during the campaigns, but rarely actually deliver on those promises. And, of course, the voters don’t hold them to it.
Or race or miscegenation or Jews or women working and voting or….
Where does it end?
Do I detect a note of sarcasm, Zafar? If you don’t know about the incursions or attacks that have been made on religion in this country already, you’ll want to do some homework.
I’ll make a point that I’ve made in posts by another member who is less, ummm, dignified in his frequent criticisms of the party. There is a serious issue with some Republicans—a distinct minority even. But there are any number of others— you could almost say the considerable majority— who are not on board with this initiative. I’m not necessarily saying this in response to anything in the O/P insofar as it names specific names, but there are a quite a few Senators who don’t deserve to be thrown in with the likes of Romney, Murkowski, et al.
I hope not Susan. None intended.
If sincere religious beliefs justify discriminating against one group why don’t they justify holding another group responsible for killing Christ and acting accordingly?
It’s happened in the past, and society (thank goodness) decided it was not okay. Sincere religious beliefs aren’t automatically intrinsically benign or a free pass for bad behaviour. IMHO.
The desired amendment says where it ends.
A fair criticism of the OP. Maybe I should have emphasized that there were enough Reps to push the bill through without cloture. Did the other Reps work hard enough to explain the potential consequences? Note how there was almost no time to debate or educate. Who is most responsible for those outcomes?
So, I’ve read the Op and comments a couple of times, and have the following to contribute:
1. As usual, GOPe would rather be liked by their Democrat colleagues in Washington than try to maintain any unity within their socially conservative base. To me, it looks like the attitude of the GOPe is, “What are those stupid religious knuckledraggers going to do; vote DEMOCRAT?”
2. Among homosexual rights advocates, their apparent attitude is, “Good! the GOP is finally cutting themselves loose from those stupid religious knuckledraggers! Soon, we’ll have the legal tools to drive them and their bigoted attitudes out of the public sphere!”
3. Since the advent of homosexual “marriage” and the Obergefell decision, gay rights advocates have insisted there was no “slippery slope” towards wider legal recognition of “alternative” lifestyles. The simple facts on the ground (polyamory, transgenderism, etc.) suggest this was the intent and desired end-state all along.
Democrats have no guardrails. They will push left until the country breaks apart. The Republicans have no brains and courage. We will have to keep on picking off seats one or two of a time.
When you push through legislation and don’t allow regular order, you get crap like this bill. When you hold a vote during the holidays you get this kind of crap. When you are a backstabbing establishment weenie you get Senators that vote for this kind of crap.
No arguments from me, PH. But I guess we missed the clues!
The GOPe blame Trump for things they cause.
No surprise there either. But no one will ‘fess up.
Exactly, they take social conservatives for granted and don’t really even try to work towards their goals. I’m not even a strong social conservative and its almost embarrassing how badly they treat them
Which was always the goal. At first it was majority acceptance of same-sex unions, but once that was attained (quite easily), it quickly moved to legal acceptance with the final goal of forcing everyone to participate in same-sex marriages. Personally, I am OK with marriages taking on new forms, but only with strong protections for religious groups to be protected. For example, I don’t think that the Catholic Church should be forced to perform SSM, or poly marriages, but I don’t really care if either exists.
Based on how Justice Kennedy formed the Obergefell decisions it removed the ability of the gov’t from influencing the forms of marriages based on what is “best” for society in favor of what provides “dignity” for the people getting married the expansion of forms of marriage is inevitable. It’s why the establishment surrender on Obergefell was so disastrous for those opposed to SSM.
Do we consider 12 Senators to be the Senate GOPe?
EDIT: That’s not sarcasm. It’s a serious question.
There was a whole lot of coverage, especially of how Manchin and Sinema might vote, around the so-called Build Back Better bill. But there was zero advance coverage of this monstrosity.
One’s only hope is the ever-so-risky Supreme Court which, after all, is the institution that started all this crap with Obergefell.
Edited to add: these GOP senators seem more afraid of sexual-libertine activists than of the drastic social consequences of this kind of legislation on the fabric of the nation. We need a new party.
I have no idea. I don’t think that label is helpful here. Do you?
No. but it’s in the discussion. Which is why I asked
I agree. Now what?
I would agree if I thought that there was a chance the new party would be more effective than the old party, effective meaning garnering enough seats in DC to change things.
I don’t think anyone will admit being part of the GOPe. We labeled them as an insult. Maybe someone else will weigh in here.