Senate Republicans are feeling the pressure to defend marriage and the natural family, as two large grassroots coalitions warn them that a controversial bill will fuel frivolous litigation and subject the most fundamental unit of society to an infinite variety of experimentation and tampering.
H.R. 8404, which proponents of redefining marriage have dubbed the “Respect for Marriage” Act, would require states to accept any marriage legally recognized in any other state “without any parameters whatsoever,” one of the coalitions notes. “This would include plural marriages, time-bound marriages, open marriages, marriages involving a minor or relative, platonic marriages, or any other new marriage definition that a state chooses to adopt, including through undemocratic imposition by a state Supreme Court,” wrote 83 grassroots organizations led by the Alliance Defending Freedom in a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Another letter cites 10 lawsuits that have already targeted Christians for living according to their biblical values, stating if the hastily introduced legislation passes, far-left activists will take Christians and observant Jews to court for living out their faiths.
“The Court’s decision in Obergefell unleashed religious freedom violations across the land, launching a new era of harassment and coercion of millions of Americans who hold a sincere religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is, or ought to be, between one man and one woman,” wrote the Conservative Action Project, which was founded by Reagan administration Attorney General Edwin Meese and is now chaired by former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. “The Respect for Marriage Act will further usher in this new era of oppression.”
“This legislation will only hasten and intensify hostility” against “those who decline to openly embrace extreme views regarding marriage and human sexuality,” agreed ADF. “H.R. 8404 effectively deputizes activist groups to sue religious individuals, organizations, and businesses that operate according to their sincerely held religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.”
The law could also give birth to draconian federal regulations designed to force Christian and other traditional religious organizations out of the public square. “The Internal Revenue Service could rely on this congressional declaration requiring full recognition of same-sex marriage to strip 501(c)(3) organizations of their tax-exempt status if they continue to adhere to their belief that marriage is only between one man and one woman,” ADF wrote. Same-sex marriage supporters acknowledged this during the Supreme Court debate in Obergefell v. Hodges, when then-U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told justices in 2015 the status of religious nonprofits is “certainly going to be an issue.”
If this Respect for Marriage act is passed and enforced then they should introduce and pass a similar law pertaining to RIGHT TO CARRY (CCW) permits. If you have a permit to carry in one STATE then all states should have to honor each others. There is no difference. If they don’t this would be blatantly discrimination case
Just because two extremist coalitions harbor misinterpretations of the legislation doesn’t mean they’re right. Nobody is advocating for all the various permutations like incestuous marriage. Just same sex. Setting up panic and outrage like this is ridiculous. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married. What concerns you about that, other than your religion?
Marriage is of the church and is between a man and a women!
Civil unions are of the government and can be whatever the government wants them to be!
I wouldn’t let you take the word “marriage” just for religious unions, because non-religious people are just as entitled to marriage was religious people. However, I actually do support your notion that marriage be distinguishable between those done under a religious umbrella and those done civily. Religions can impose whatever religious release they wish upon their members, but the legal implications of both types of marriage need to be the same.
It should cost as much to get married as it does to get unmarried. There would be fewer of both.