In mid-November, 12 Republicans joined every Democrat in the Senate in voting for cloture on the so-called Respect for Marriage Act, which overcomes the filibuster and allows the bill to move forward for finalization.
While the name of the bill may sound attractive to those who support religious liberty, the bill’s contents are anything but respectful of religious liberty and free association.
Rather than respect marriage, and particularly in its traditional understanding, this bill takes away protections from the faith-based communities and people that hold to the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. This bill also makes people, churches, charities, nonprofit groups, and all other sorts of organizations vulnerable to lawsuits, revocation of tax-exempt status, and other forms of legal action just for standing up for their religious beliefs on the issue of marriage.
My friend the Rev. Franklin Graham summed it up well: “The current version of the Respect for Marriage Act being pushed by Senator Chuck Schumer is designed to provide strong protections for same-sex marriage—but it fails to protect those of us who believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” he wrote. Graham went on to express concerns that this “dangerous” bill would become a cudgel “used against individuals, churches, and organizations who honor traditional marriage.”
In order to address these glaring deficiencies, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced an amendment to the bill that would bring religious liberty and conscience protections to the bill. Lee wrote a letter to his colleagues asking them to support his amendment, in which he argued that “no American should face legal harassment or retaliation from the federal government for holding sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.”
Lee is exactly right. America was founded on the ideals of religious liberty, and faithful people of all stripes have been let down by the 12 Senate Republicans who are expressing support for this bill.
No society that fails to legislate with a view to its future can long endure. That’s why marriage has been a sociopolitical institution from ancient civilizations all the way up until this very day. Civilizations have a vested interest in their future citizenry, and therefore they must also be engaged in providing protections for the institution that fosters the rearing of children, namely marriage. That’s why the state has an interest in marriage, and that’s why marriage as a public institution is essential to the formation of strong families. Same-sex marriage severs this bond between the primary purpose of state support for marriage.
Of course, this is not where things ever end. In the early days of the same-sex marriage movement, advocates said they just “wanted to be left alone” and be able to live their own lives in the “privacy of their own bedroom.” Conservatives looked upon these claims with suspicion. We feared that this would start our country down a path that, once started, cannot easily be reversed. In other words, once we accepted the premises offered by the proponents of gay marriage, there would be no way to stave off the onslaught of attacks on the faith-based community that was sure to follow.
One doesn’t need to look far to see that the slippery slope argument came true. Today, the sexualization of society has saturated our televisions, our social media feeds, our advertising, and even our precious children in public schools. Conservatives should be standing even more stalwart in defense of religious liberty — not joining the far Left to use the heavy hand of the federal government to further erode religious liberty.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
Ben Carson is the founder and chairman of the American Cornerstone Institute and served as the 17th secretary of housing and urban development.
