PHOTO: THE CHRISTIAN POST/TYLER O'NEIL)
Congressman Raul Labrador (R – Idaho) presented
his new bill to defend the religious freedom of those who believe in marriage,
at The Heritage Foundation on Monday
WASHINGTON – Congressman
Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) presented his new bill to defend the
religious freedom of those who believe in marriage, and experts discussed the
threats religious liberty faces in the public square.
The Health and Human Services contraception
mandate and cases where homosexuals sue religious florists and bakers for refusing
to do business with them "are creating a climate of intolerance and
intimidation for citizens who believe that marriage is the union of one man and
one woman," Labrador declared at The Heritage Foundation on Monday. He
discussed his bill, H.R. 3133,
The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, "to prevent adverse
treatment of any person on the basis of views held with respect to
marriage."
"We have a fundamental misunderstanding of
religious freedom going on," said Sarah Torre, policy
analyst at The Heritage Foundation's DeVos Center for Religion and Civil
Society. Torre argued that the Obama administration is
"watering down religious freedom to just freedom of worship" by
insisting that faith "is not something that you bring into your
workplace." Instead, the current policies presume that "faith is
something that you keep in your home and place of worship."
Austin Nimocks, senior counsel with Alliance
Defending Freedom, agreed. He explained that many recent legal cases
"portray same-sex couples as victims and that just hasn't been the case in
the way all these things have happened." In cases where homosexuals sue
companies for discrimination, they get the service originally denied them, and
they force believers to undertake difficult legal battles.
Labrador explained his bill, H.R. 3133, in terms
of current events. He referred to the HHS mandate as an example of "the
administration forcing religious and other faith-based organizations to spend
money on things like abortion pills that violate their most basic
beliefs." Labrador argued that, in light of the Internal Revenue Service
targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups, the federal government needs
to be restrained from discriminating against those who uphold traditional
marriage.
"We should not assume that the IRS will be
any friendlier to organizations that support and want to continue practicing
traditional marriage," the congressman warned. "My bill is narrowly
tailored to prohibit the federal government from inappropriately targeting
organizations or individuals who hold a religious belief that marriage is a union
of one man and one woman."
The bill prohibits the federal government from
"making tax exempt status contingent on the group's beliefs about
marriage." Labrador articulated the basic premise of the bill, saying
"all Americans should be free to believe and act in the public square
based on their belief about marriage without fear of any government
penalty."
(Photo:
The Christian Post/Tyler O'Neil)
"Am I understanding that because I
believe that God creates life in His image, male and female, at conception,
somehow I could lose a tax benefit?" this local DC-Area pastor asked at
The Heritage Foundation on Monday.
Can It Pass?
Labrador insisted that the bill "doesn't
take away anything from anyone," but instead protects the religious
freedom of those who uphold traditional marriage. "This is something both
social conservatives and libertarians can rally around, and it can generate
support in both parties and actually pass both houses of Congress and become
law," he said.
The bill already has 100 cosponsors, with five
of the six House Ways and Means Subcommittee chairmen declaring their support,
Labrador reported. "We actually have a couple of Democrats who are already
cosponsors of the legislation," he added.
The Persecution Problem
(Photo:
The Christian Post/Tyler O'Neil)
Congressman Raul Labrador and Heritage
Foundation scholar Sarah Torre listen as Austin Nimocks, senior counsel at
Alliance Defending Freedom, discusses the current threats to religious freedom
in the public square, at The Heritage Foundation on Monday.
Nimocks laid out the "massive distinction
between acting because of a deeply-held belief about marriage and acting
because you don't like somebody who defines themselves as gay or lesbian."
Many of the defendants ADF supports have no problem with homosexuals, but
choose not to involve themselves in marriage ceremonies because of their
religious convictions.
The lawyer brought up "the florist in the
state of Washington who was asked to provide flowers for two men" as an
example. Nimocks explained that they were friends and would frequently hug each
other. "But when it came to 'we want you to participate in and celebrate
our ceremony,' that's where she respectfully drew the line."
Although they hugged before the man requesting
flowers left, the florist ended up served with a lawsuit.
"In each instance the same-sex couple or
gay/lesbian at issue got what they wanted," Nimocks explained.
Occasionally, they received the desired service at a discount, or even for
free, as in the case of t-shirts for a gay pride parade. After receiving what
they originally wanted, "they then turn around and go after people with
religious beliefs."
(Photo Credit: The Christian Post/Tyler O'Neil)
Sarah Torre, a Heritage Foundation scholar,
speaks at The Heritage Foundation on Monday. Alliance Defending Freedom Senior
Counsel Austin Nimocks looks on.
Energizing the Young
Torre proposed a strategy to alert Millennials
to the religious freedom issue. "I think you tell them stories," she
explained, about "these salt of the earth people who are doing the good
work of restoring lives, of educating the next generation, providing health
care for Americans." These public servants "are not able to do that
under this rule, in accordance with the beliefs that motivated them to do that
in the first place."
"You want to talk about social justice, you
want to talk about empowering the poor, about taking care of those in need, you
have to let people do that in accordance with their values and not penalize
them through
a government penalty," Torre declared.
2 comments:
This series will conclude the weekend of Feb 15, as anticipated and announced a few weeks ago.
A new poll will be added to the blog tomorrow asking for your reflection on the series' effectiveness.
I have read the blogs about this matter and long before this subject was raised I realised that the matter of same sex or opposite sex marriages were as far as I was concerned something that I could leave to God, and if same sex was a sin then ultimately God would deal with it. If it was not then all the everlasting yapping and posturing of the do gooders was just that.
I have a nephew who is in his eyes "Married " to his companion and has been for many years and they live their lives in the same manner as most other married couples so am I wrong to accept their relationship ? However what I find hard to accept and cannot accept is that in Canberra Australia There is a constant cry "WE want Equality "
The first time our A C T government passed legislation giving gays the right to marry all they had to do was Go to the appropriate Gov. Dept. pay $30-00 and get the form - Go to an authorised Celebrant, "Get Married "and live happily ever after.
However if the relationship broke down, go back to the Gov. Dept. Pay another $30-00 fill out the form and the marriage was dissolved . End of Story
When our son's marriage broke down What happened? Had to have 12 months separation go to the correct "Court " with legal representation. Agree on a property settlement. Satisfy all the matters concerning the children and their support and maintenance and wait 12 months for the divorce to be finalised.
I somehow feel that if Gay marriages were subject to the same Legal strictures there would be a lot less enthusiasm for these ceremonies to be performed than there is at present.
As I wrote at the beginning, If this is the way people feel is right to live their lives then go ahead but if they want to call it marriage then there has to be legal equality.
Former officer
Australia
Post a Comment