[Gay SCOTUS?]
Two Republican lawmakers are
proposing a bill that would protect the religious freedom of
organizations if the Supreme Court recognizes same-sex “marriage.”
If you remember, Bob Allen posted about Albert Moehler’s review of the arguments presented to the Supreme Court about same-sex “marriage.” One of the things that the government spokesman told the justices was that a decision in recognizing such pseudo-marriage would put religious employers in jeopardy. They could be required to hire employees in such relationships and to extend them benefits as if they were really married.
I have feared that many Republicans in government are simply waiting for the Supreme Court to “force” them to recognize same-sex “marriage” in the hope that they could then “reluctantly” condone it without worrying about conservative voters getting angry with them.
If you remember, Bob Allen posted about Albert Moehler’s review of the arguments presented to the Supreme Court about same-sex “marriage.” One of the things that the government spokesman told the justices was that a decision in recognizing such pseudo-marriage would put religious employers in jeopardy. They could be required to hire employees in such relationships and to extend them benefits as if they were really married.
I have feared that many Republicans in government are simply waiting for the Supreme Court to “force” them to recognize same-sex “marriage” in the hope that they could then “reluctantly” condone it without worrying about conservative voters getting angry with them.
But there is hope from some
Republicans. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Representative Raul Labrador
(R-ID) have introduced the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA). The point
of this law is to stop the threat that the government has already made
before it can ever become a real issue.
Ryan T. Anderson, at the Daily Signal, points out that the bill
Ryan T. Anderson, at the Daily Signal, points out that the bill
is good policy in part because it is
so simple. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate
against people and institutions that speak and act according to their
belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. That’s it in a
nutshell.
President Obama should support the
First Amendment Defense Act given his previous stand in favor of
male-female marriage, made as late as 2012, and his more recent remarks:
“On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide
range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s
commitment to religious freedom is also vital.”
Riiiiiight. This is the same president
who said that he opposed same-sex “marriage” and then changed his mind.
Except that he did neither of those things. He pretended to oppose
same-sex “marriage” and then pretended to change his mind about it. He
also said we could keep our doctor, our insurance policy, and that he
would run a transparent administration.
I have no doubt he will veto this bill when it passes.
But that is why the bill is so important. It needs to be part of the campaign for the 2016 presidency. And the Republican candidate needs to know what is expected of him if he should win. This all needs to be made clear and this bill will help do that.
I have no doubt he will veto this bill when it passes.
But that is why the bill is so important. It needs to be part of the campaign for the 2016 presidency. And the Republican candidate needs to know what is expected of him if he should win. This all needs to be made clear and this bill will help do that.
No comments:
Post a Comment