Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Ruling Fuels New Religious Freedom Bill

The congressional bill aims to protect the liberty of business owners and religious organizations, but if signed into law, can it survive the very courts that made the bill necessary in the first place?

By Rachel Alexander Published on June 29, 2015

Now that the Supreme Court has made same-sex marriage the law of the land in Obergefell v. Hodges, it remains to be seen how it will affect all the religious institutions that believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Will churches and religious schools lose their nonprofit, tax-exempt status?

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) aren’t wasting any time finding out. Over a week ago, even before the ruling, they proposed the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), which would prevent any agency from denying a federal tax exemption, grant, contract, accreditation, license or certification to an individual or institution for acting on their religious belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Religious organizations and  business owners with sincerely held religious beliefs could not be penalized for refusing to participate in same-sex weddings.

The court in Obergefell v. Hodges did not mention how it would be put into effect, but in a guest op-ed for Deseret News, Lee cited a verbal exchange during oral arguments that hinted religious institutions could be in jeopardy,

In a brief back and forth about IRS regulations, Justice Samuel Alito asked Solicitor General Verrilli whether religious institutions — including schools — that maintain the traditional definition of marriage would lose their tax-exempt status should the court strike down state laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The solicitor general responded: “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is, it is going to be an issue.”

Lee went on, “This was a chilling moment, but not totally unexpected. For years we’ve seen warnings that, for some activists, the objective is not just legal recognition of same-sex unions, but government coercion of individuals and institutions to affirm — and even participate in — such unions, regardless of good-faith religious objections.”

Hot Air covers some situations where this is already happening, both in the United States and particularly in Canada where same-sex marriage was legalized in 2005. Some of the highest profile incidents have involved bakers, bed and breakfasts and florists. Lee speculates further:

The next controversies will not be over whether gay couples should receive marriage licenses, but whether people who don’t think so may keep their business licenses; whether colleges that don’t think so will be able to keep their accreditation; whether military chaplains who don’t think so will be court-martialed; whether churches who don’t think so will be targeted for reprisal by the state; whether heterodox religious belief itself will be swept from the public square.

Lee has 18 co-sponsors in the Senate, and Labrador has 57 in the House. Even if FADA passes and is signed into law, there is a good chance it will be challenged in court, where it may be struck down. In recent years, states that have tried to pass versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act have not been successful. The opposition has already started alarmist warning bells, making head-scratching claims like FADA “would permit a federal employee, for example, to refuse to process tax returns, visa applications or Social Security checks whenever a same-sex couple’s paperwork appears on his or her desk.”

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, X, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

Inspiration
The Good Life
Katherine Wolf
More from The Stream
Connect with Us