June 19, 2015
"to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life."
--Abraham Lincoln
Later this month the Supreme Court will issue its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case involving state marriage laws. But back in April, when the Court heard oral arguments in the case, it became clear that the implications of the Court’s ruling will extend far beyond the narrow issue of marriage licenses.
In a brief back and forth, Solicitor General Verrilli revealed to Justice Samuel Alito that religious institutions that maintain the traditional definition of marriage would be at risk of having their tax-exempt status revoked by the IRS should the Court strike down state laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
This was a chilling moment, but not totally unexpected. For years we’ve seen warnings that, for some activists, the objective is not just legal recognition of same-sex unions, but government coercion of individuals and institutions to affirm – and even participate in – such unions, regardless of good-faith religious objections.
You don’t need to subscribe to any particular faith, or hold any particular beliefs about marriage, to see the danger of a government forcing innocent people to violate their conscience when they are just trying to make a living, serve their community, or educate the next generation.
That’s why Congress must move swiftly to pass the “First Amendment Defense Act,” a bill that would prohibit the federal government from penalizing individuals or institutions on the basis that they act in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
The First Amendment Defense Act would prevent any agency from denying a federal tax exemption, grant, contract, accreditation, license, or certification to an individual or institution – including the nation’s tens of thousands religiously affiliated schools – for acting on their religious beliefs about marriage.
"The First Amendment Defense Act would prevent any agency from denying a federal tax exemption, grant, contract, accreditation, license, or certification to an individual or institution – including the nation’s tens of thousands religiously affiliated schools – for acting on their religious beliefs about marriage."
Some on the Left will decry this as an unprecedented and inappropriate exercise of Congress’s powers. To see the absurdity of such a claim, look no further than the remarks President Bill Clinton made prior to signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993.
After applauding the Democrat-controlled Congress for passing RFRA, Pres. Clinton proclaimed that “we can never be too vigilant” in safeguarding the “space of freedom between Government and people of faith that otherwise Government might usurp.”
Protecting that “space of freedom” is precisely what the First Amendment Defense Act does. Anyone who opposes it must explain to the American people why religious liberty was worth defending in 1993 but is not in 2015.
