Radical ‘Respect for Marriage Act’ Could Spell End of Religious Tax Exemptions
Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah (left), and Marco Rubio, R-Fla.—seen here March 4, 2015, on Capitol Hill—are offering amendments to the radical Respect for Marriage Act to mitigate its potential adverse impact on religious individuals and institutions. Will a dozen of their fellow Senate Republicans heed their warnings?
Republicans have long been sounding the alarm that religious liberty is under attack in the United States. It seems that many people, especially in the infamous Gen Z category, have grown deaf to many of the religious liberty concerns latent in legal debates surrounding same-sex marriage, gender, and more.
Nonetheless, the import of today’s vote on the Respect for Marriage Act cannot be overstated. If the bill passes as it currently reads, the United States is looking at a fundamental shift in its religious liberty protections. This bill could impact not only how religious institutions function, but whether they’ll even be able to afford to do so.
The perfect example of this is the current bill text of the Respect for Marriage Act. With the amendment by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Tammy Baldwin, R-Wis., the act seemingly provides protections for religious individuals and institutions who still believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.
The only problem? It doesn’t do that at all.
Instead, the bill simply says that it protects an individual’s or organization’s right to believe in traditional marriage. It says nothing about their right to act in accordance with those beliefs.
Moreover, the current text of the Respect for Marriage Act only provides negative protections for religious liberty.
In short, if you believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, then you have the right to believe and act in accordance with those beliefs. Lee’s amendment explicitly protects the tax-exempt status of religious individuals and institutions, their eligibility for government contracts, grants, or accreditation, and licenses for adoption, foster care, or counseling services.
But, without Lee’s amendment, the Respect for Marriage Act would make same-sex marriage the de facto “law of the land” and make anti-discrimination cases against religious schools and nonprofits the norm.
I wonder how many in Congress actually know what is in the bill or even care.
This is one of those “virtue signaling” thingies that could be catastrophic for religion.