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
I used to think that David French (hack, spit) was just a grifter lawyer type who wanted everything to be decided by the courts so that he could make more money taking cases to the courts on religious freedom grounds and thus make tons of money. On a good day I even felt that he truly believed that he was arguing in good faith. His actions post 2016 (not even considering his flirting with running against Trump) have beclowned him and he is almost into Rubin/Boot territory now…with this latest he might as well be Rubin/Boot because what conservative principles does he espouse anymore?
I must confess to being confused here because . . . Donald Trump supports gay marriage. Trump has publicly said that he is “fine with” it. He has publicly said it has been “settled in the Supreme Court. I mean, it’s done.” He has publicly chastised the GOP for being insufficiently pro-gay throughout its history (“as a Republican it’s so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said,” he said at his nomination event, after he said, “I will do everything in my power to protect LGBT citizens”). And he has explicitly endorsed Richard Grenell’s description of him as “the first president in American history to be pro-gay marriage from his first day in office.”
Why is that different from these twelve senators?
They have the power of the vote, Charlie. He now has no vote.
I understand that. But he was the president of the United States, or running to be, when he said those things. And he’s running again now.
My question is: How is this some typical betrayal by the establishment, when Donald Trump has the same position?
I am not a “one position” voter. There were many things I disliked about Donald Trump. He wasn’t my first choice. He wouldn’t have been my second choice. In many ways, the corruption we are seeing now in the establishment justifies my voting for him in 2020. And may he fade into the sunset . . .
In a sense, Trump’s position on this issue didn’t and doesn’t matter since he didn’t have – and wouldn’t have if re-elected – a vote in the Senate. The position of the senators does matter.
That’s all fair. And I agree. I’ve just always wondered why Trump gets a pass on this — “oh, it’s just one of his foibles” — where, for others, it “says so much.”
Kind of a non-sequitur. What does Trump being “pro-gay” have to do with this legislation and its effects on churches and other religious institutions?
Well, it did, and would, matter, because as president — and as a potential president again — he’d have to veto or sign any bill that came out of the Senate.
But he’s not President. So injecting him into this discussion is a distraction from the issue. It has absolutely no relevance.
It doesn’t per se. And, despite being in favor of gay marriage myself, I oppose this law because of the lack of those protections. But the thread as a whole talks a lot about the establishment, and the supposedly manufactured support for gay marriage, and Mitch McConnell, and even heresy, and I just wondered why Donald Trump gets a pass for having caved on the issue while others do not.
I respectfully fail to see how it can matter how a senator, or potential senator, would vote, but not how a potential president — and Trump is running again — would veto/sign.
The heresy I mentioned is David French’s support for the legislation while propping himself up as the Voice of the Evangelical Elite. Others from his club do the same.
I don’t even know if Donald Trump is a Christian. I certainly don’t consider him a religious leader, so I never expected him to take a Christian view of marriage. So I don’t think his views really matter here. He’s not President. He’s not going to get to sign or veto it.
I read the article that you posted “When Christians Capitulate” earlier this morning and felt it was worth a post here (I just haven’t gotten to it yet). It posits an issue that I wonder about myself. To be clear, I am not a marriage warrior and am OK with multiple forms of marriage being legal, but I also do not wany any of that forced onto anyone, but especially Churches and Religious institutions. Thus, a Jack Phillips with a strongly held belief should be able to refuse to bake a cake, but not necessarily refuse to sell to a person just because they are gay/lesbian/etc. I do not believe that the gov’t should force people to participate in SSM ceremonies, but they also should not be denied universally.
So, what to make of evangelical leaders who attend gay weddings for their co-workers? Are they being hypocritical? I am not sure that I agree with Dr Mohler that a Christian should eschew attending any gay wedding, but I am not against gay weddings. Am I sinning if I attend one? I don’t think so, but that’s me and your mileage may vary. But what the leaders do is critically important. Dr Mohler is more consistent, but is that what every Christian should do? These leaders that embrace gay marriage should explain why they are doing so, and I am not sure that they have other than, “it’s not popular to oppose SSM”
Because if he does become President again, he won’t be taking office for 26 months. If this legislation gets tabled until then, sure, it’s a valid point of discussion. But it does matter what currently-seated Senators (or those taking office in a few weeks) think on the issue.
Trump certainly says he’s a Christian, and did multiple times while running for president and while president. Does that not count? Should he not, as a Christian, take a Christian view of marriage? If not, then why does it matter what other Christians say about the issue? And why are there different rules for senators, who presumably aren’t religious leaders either?
Because of the timing, it certainly matters more what the current set of Senators think. But, as the last few years have shown, this is not a one-time deal. It’s going to come up again and again in different forms.
Is this law even some kind of step towards banning same-sex marriage? Doesn’t seem like it to me. So what might motivate Trump to veto it even if he WAS president again?
You’re conflating politicians who make law, and Christian leaders whose actions influence the thinking of their fellow Christians who they deign to lead and instruct.
Trump is not a religious leader. I don’t expect him to be promoting orthodox Christian tenets. And as a citizen now, he can’t make legislation or vote on it. Senators are not religious leaders, but their legislation affects the lives of the citizens, and in this case, the religious lives of the citizens.
Christian leaders should be promoting orthodoxy, but many of them are not. As influencers, they are leading young Christians astray by promoting heresy.
And if all you’re trying to do, Charlie, is play “gotcha” with Trump, I’m not interested. But I think that’s what you’re trying to do.
The case for vetoing this bill, even if you support gay marriage, is that it lacks the requisite conscience protections. The case for signing it is that the Lee amendment, if adopted, renders that objection moot.
No, I wasn’t. I asked a question in good faith, and received some responses. Thanks for yours.
I think there are a few things that are getting lumped together, which is making for a messy discussion. First, this law is not about whether a person accepts gays or agrees with same sex marriage. It is about senators who are choosing to vote for a law that can potentially damage freedom of religion. So in a sense, what the senators believe isn’t necessarily relevant; they are supposed to be representing their constituents. And they are supposed to be representing Republican and Conservative beliefs and values. If they vote for this law, they will be turning a blind eye towards those they are supposed to represent, and their positions.
Edit: I saw your comment, Drew, after I wrote mine. They complement each other nicely!
Yes. That makes sense.
My concern is entering an age of Soviet-style/ East German totalitarianism, made easier by technology. And those who say it’s bound to fail, seem not to fully realize that it took 70 years for the Soviet Union to reform to more or less what it was before.
Will our children’s children’s children even know what we were once like, and what could be achieved, and how to achieve it?
This is the thing that makes me sadder than anything. There will come a time when those who remember the “before times” will be gone. And who will then be able to draw forth the mystic chords of memory to sing of what America once was.
Buy some hardcopy history books and keep them safe?
It depends on how they’re dressed.
There has always been a conflict between freedom of association and equal treatment. I don’t think the courts are always the right venue for deciding these.
“Establishment” seems merely descriptive, as a distinction from “the base”. Neither are insults on their face, even if we spit when we say it.