marriage

Protecting Marriage and our First Freedom

The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act (H.R. 3133) introduced by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID)Heritage ActionScorecardRep. Raul Labrador81%House Republican AverageSee Full Scorecard81% today currently has over 60 original co-sponsors, including members from both political parties.  This legislation is coming at a pivotal time for the fate of marriage law in America, and consequently, for the fate of American society as a whole. The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson notes:

The bill is an important step for conscience protection. Government policy should respect those who stand for marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Even in jurisdictions that have redefined marriage, those who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman should be free to live in accord with their moral and religious convictions.

Why does this matter?  He continues:

[I]n a growing number of incidents, government has not left these Americans free. Last month, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect a photographer’s right to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony—even though doing so would violate the photographer’s deeply held religious beliefs as a Christian.

But will this legislation prevent some individuals in America from living as they choose?  No.  It is designed to protect religious liberty:

While Americans are free to live and love how they choose, they should not use government to penalize those who think and act differently. Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. All Americans should be free to believe and act in the public square based on their beliefs about marriage without fear of government penalty.

Anderson has written extensively in defense of real marriage and has made abundantly clear the damage that will result to society when lawmakers attempt to redefine marriage for the purposes of federal law.

Rep. Labrador’s legislation comes at a critical moment and is a step in the right direction to protect both marriage and religious liberty.

Suggested Tweets
The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act is designed to protect our First Freedom. #religiousliberty

Tweet This

Marriage is between one man and one woman. What does this mean for public policy and #religiousfreedom?

Tweet This

Please Share Your Thoughts
  • scottbashaw

    Marriage is between a Man and a Women,… Gays can have a civil union which has the same and many ways better benefits Lets move on from this, it takes away from more serious problems. Men and women have Marriage and because being gay is different than being strait Gays have civil unions.,if its different it can not be called the same

  • JohnHoward

    No it’s a step in the wrong direction! What we need is the Natural Marriage and Reproduction Act which would end same-sex marriage in every state by prohibiting genetic engineering of human beings and preserving the meaning of marriage as approving and allowing procreating offspring together using the marriages own genes. That would mean no state could have same-sex marriage anymore, and therefore no conflict with anyone’s religious liberty.

    This effort will just cement same-sex marriage in place, when it is a horrible travesty of secular justice. We cannot have same-sex marriage because it means we have to allow unethical attempts at same-sex reproduction and also denies the natural reproductive rights of all people to have their own offspring together with their spouse. Those are both horrible horrible legal outcomes and we can’t stop fighting them. It’s great that we are finally talking about federal laws, but the right federal law is the Natural Marriage and Reproduction Act.

  • JohnHoward

    And I have no sympathy for a photographer who would take the job, or the baker who would bake the cake, but then they look at the customer or find out something about him, and then say sorry, they won’t do it. I don’t think that’s what “deeply held religious beliefs” are supposed to be at all! Who cares if the baker or photographer approves of the wedding, they shouldn’t care about the wedding anyhow. They should care about the cake! About the photos! Sheesh! They aren’t the priest!