There is No Respect in the “Respect for Marriage Act”

Next week, the House of Representatives will consider the “Respect for Marriage Act.” which aims to redefine marriage according to federal law. A Democrat controlled Congress, with the aid of some Republican senators, have brought forward an unnecessary and concerning bill to codify Obergefell v. Hodges. Proponents of the bill claim it would ensure the right to same-sex “marriage” with no intention of affecting the millions of Americans of faith who hold sincere beliefs about the sanctity of marriage.  Unfortunately, “intention” means very little, and the fact remains, this bill lacks explicit protections against violations of our Constitutional right to freedom of religion that are sure to follow. 
 
For example, if a woman who owns a flower shop declines service to a same-sex couple for their wedding due to her sincerely held conviction about the sanctity of marriage, this bill opens the door for retaliation against that business owner. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker in a similar position, but the ruling was narrowly applied to the specifics of the case. Justice Kennedy wrote, “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”   The Constitution is our master agreement between we the people and that agreement explicitly states that the government may not meddle in a citizen’s religious freedom.
 
This bill opens the door for government retaliation against individual religious liberty as well as faith-based organizations who believe in traditional marriage by revoking or changing their tax-exempt status and opening those organizations up to the risk of liability. While there is language to protect churches and other organizations from being forced to solemnize or celebrate a marriage against their sincerely held religious beliefs, the bill could be used to punish social-service organizations that work closely with government—like adoption or foster placement agencies. There is also language to address concerns about the tax-exempt status of nonprofits, but, once again, it is insufficient to constitute proper protections. When the IRS determines whether an organization is “charitable” under the Internal Revenue Code, it asks whether the entity’s conduct is “contrary to public policy” or violates a “national policy.” For this reason, the IRS could rely upon the bill to conclude that certain nonprofits are not “charitable.” 
 
The truth is, the Respect for Marriage Act does nothing to change the status of same-sex “marriage“ or, more accurately stated, government acknowledgement of benefits afforded to same-sex couples following Obergefell. It does much, however, to endanger religious freedom. This bill has nothing to do with respect. Marriage is a religious institution that predates any government and exists outside of government regulation. The United States government has one role when it comes to marriage, and it is to refrain from any attempt to redefine the word and the institution.