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
Religious freedom is not a privilege, its a fundamental right that virtually all other rights are predicated upon, much like free speech.
Also, ‘privilege’ theory is nothing but claptrap specifically designed to justify special privileges (as in actual unequal treatment) to promote politically favored groups.
I wanted to comment on the idea that popular things should get voted into reality. It does not usually seem to work that way. Closing the border is popular, yet neither party really seems interested in doing that, for instance.
Neither side is interested in our needs, concerns or agendas. They know best, after all.
For an article that covers the basics on this topic, just out this morning–
The fundamental problem is that Congress has lost the “consent” frame of legislating. Opinion polling (between elections themselves) are a way of measuring consent to act. All legislation deprives someone of some thing. And it is the consent of the person to be deprived that should be considered before the desires of the persons favoring the “thing”. If our representatives took this approach and made the debate about the justness of deprivation for those who would lose out, then there would be a clarity of exactly what is being proposed and why government, not individuals, should act.
This is an excellent point, Rodin. You’re right, of course, but I’ve never thought of “consent” that way. I suspect our legislators wouldn’t begin to know how to enter this debate.
The more one reads the more stunning is the betrayal.
Are no fellow Republicans telling these people what is toxic about the bill?
Depends on the penumbras a judge sees in the law or wishes to see.
Never outsource defense of your liberty
This is the problem with a two-party system. But we as voters are to blame. We should care about state and local politics and this is where third parties should focus and prove their worth. But we vote for people based on what we want to hear from them not their actions because 95% of people don’t spend the time to look at details of actions. Only propaganda.
Third parties are idiots and focus on the president way to much. No third party should even talk about presidential candidates let alone run one until they have won quite a few local and even federal congress elections.
We have been tricked by too many promises, lies, deceptions, politicians, and judges. Red line time.
See inserted responses and comments above. .
They have done everything they can to marginalize such folks.
They have, and they are ignored. The post has a letter sent by Mike Lee and several other Senators to the entire Senate. No one cares.
Too long now the left has solely owned, “they will be made to care.” It is time certain Republicans also felt what it is like to be targeted by that political sentiment.
I would think that Mike Lee’s letter would have informed them.
Well, the precedent was set with Bob Jones University losing their tax-exempt status because they refused to allow interracial dating, so, that horse is out of the barn when Justice Kennedy allowed for same sex marriages. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before religious people and organizations would be required to allow same sex marriages, then participate in them, and finally to accept them as part of their religion else be destroyed. As @kedavis noted above, its why you have to manufacture the popular support. Then refusal to participate is cast as bigoted and not following public accommodations.
Privately owned businesses such as florists, photographers, bakers, et alia are not public accomdations unless that definition is expanded so broadly as to make it meaningless. Question, though: Can I force “Adam and Steve’s Rainbow Printshop, Queerest Store in Town” to print Romans 1:24 to 27 t-shirts? How about posters saying “Gay sex is just masturbation between maladjusted overgrown children”? If you say I could and should be able to force them to print these messages, in quality to my satisfaction, then I will take you seriously in any discussion of this issue. If not, you are just another totalitarian, and a slaver to boot.
A religion, by it’s definition, is not a “public accommodation.”
Well obviously you can. What’s sauce for the goose, etc.
Please don’t strain yourself on my account.
No, but a university is. Even if it isn’t Bob Jones U eventually caved to the IRS and allowed interracial dating to regain their tax exempt status.
Businesses have long had signs saying “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” So when homosexual privilege – being the flavor of the month, etc – runs up against that, they suddenly feel the same “oppression” that everyone has had to deal with. Tough luck.
Very good.
David French thinks this is just wonderful and finds nothing wrong with this bill. I think David French is far beyond pharisaism, now that he is actively promoting the tenets of secularism.
David French and the Future of Orthodox Protestantism
See also, . . .
When Christian Leaders Capitulate On Marriage, Innocent Children Suffer
I gave up on him and just blocked him for good.
But then you’ll miss out on the heresy.
I’m finding enough of that on some posts on ricochet.
I think it’s important to pay close attention to the Evangelical Elite, and call them out for the brood of vipers they are. Jesus would.
Can a business in the US legally refuse to serve Blacks and put up a sign saying that? If you say so, but I’m surprised.