Posted on 11/22/2022 8:32:19 AM PST by SeekAndFind
In an op-ed for Christianity Today, Carl H. Esbeck, R. B. Price Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Missouri, offers a positive assessment of the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA). He writes, “All in all, RMA is a modest but good day’s work. It shows that religious liberty champions and LGBT advocates can work together for the common good.”
With due respect to Prof. Esbeck’s legal knowledge, I categorically differ from his assessment.
I have already challenged the Republican senators who voted to advance the bill this week. Here, I want to focus on Prof. Esbeck’s reasoning.
He writes, “Some conservatives will undoubtedly treat the act as a loss. But others will take the view that, in a morally pluralistic society, a few concessions yield a win for the common good. I’m one of them.”
Specifically, he notes that under the final version of the bill, “religious nonprofits and their personnel have a statutory right to decline any involvement with a marriage solemnization or celebration — including a same-sex one. This federal right would preempt any state or local law to the contrary. It means clergy can refuse to officiate a gay wedding. A church can decline to be the venue for these unions. A Christian college can deny use of its chapel for the same reason, and a Christian summer camp can refuse use of its lake and nearby pavilion, as well.”
But he acknowledges that the bill “doesn’t address ongoing litigation over for-profit Christian wedding vendors — photographers, bakers, florists, dressmakers, and others. However, RMA doesn’t harm wedding vendors. It’s simply silent and leaves the matter for resolution in the courts” (his emphasis).
And for this reason, he, as a Christian conservative, thinks the bill is a good idea? The fact that it doesn’t do further harm to individuals who, in conscience, cannot affirm same-sex “marriage” is a positive?
To paraphrase, “Hey, you’re already in a heap of trouble, but this bill doesn’t pile any more rubble on you!”
The national climate is already hostile to such individuals, who at best, end up spending years in costly legal battles where the charges against them are finally dismissed. At worst, they lose their businesses, their reputations get soiled, and they are even found guilty by the courts.
Yet this bill doesn’t explicitly protect them. Why not? And why would any Christian conservative say, “Well, that works for me!”
As for the idea that this would not further harm such people, that, too, is questionable. After all, it is not just the Supreme Court that affirmed same-sex unions but Congress itself, with the signature of the president.
A November 15 article in The Daily Signal quotes a wide range of religious leaders, all of whom raised serious concerns about the bill.
“Stephen Minnis, president of the Catholic Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas, warned The Daily Signal that ‘Catholic institutions will have a tough time living our faith under this legislation.’”
Baptist pastor Richard Callahan described the bill as “an assault,” and Roger Severino of The Heritage Foundation warned that, “All this bill does is target people of faith who don’t support woke ideology.”
Similarly, Rabbi Yaakov Menken, the founder of Project Genesis and the managing director of the Coalition for Jewish Values, said, “Here you have a piece of legislation that exposes every traditional Jewish practitioner of anything to potential litigation.”
And Prof. Esbeck, writing for Christianity Today, finds this acceptable?
As for the redefining of marriage, Esbeck writes, “Now that RMA has the legislative backing of Congress, no Supreme Court reversal of Obergefell would dislodge the validity of a same-sex marriage or the government benefits, tax breaks, and other gains that go with it. But in my view, it's very unlikely, anyway, that Obergefell will ever get overturned.”
This is a highly unfortunate comment.
Do we affirm a wrong thing as right because it’s unlikely that society will reverse the wrong? What kind of reasoning is this?
There was a time when it looked like slavery would not be abolished. Should we, therefore, have codified it more deeply in our laws?
The same could be said for overturning Roe v. Wade.
For many years, especially after the Casey decision in 1992, it looked as if Roe would never be overturned. Should we, as Christian conservatives, have thrown in the towel and said, “If Congress wants to codify this and make it impossible for the Supreme Court to clean up the mess it made, no problem! After all, it’s very unlikely that Roe will ever get overturned.”
I ask again: what kind of reasoning is this, especially for a Christian?
Prof. Esbeck concludes his op-ed stating, “All in all, RMA is a modest but good day’s work. It shows that religious liberty champions and LGBT advocates can work together for the common good. It says to the original House bill, ‘If a bill is about us, it has to be with us.’ And it shows that Congress can still legislate, not just be a gaggle of egos who go to Washington to perform but never fix.”
What this bill actually shows is that religious liberty champions must sell their souls and compromise their ethics in order to work out an acceptable deal with LGBT advocates. This is anything other than a “modest but good day’s work.”
How telling that Christianity Today, once the flagship Evangelical publication, chose to publish an op-ed offering support for a bill that enshrined homosexual unions into our national laws.
To the core of my being, I am committed to loving my LGBTQ+ neighbors and protecting them against discrimination, hostility, and attack.
But in conscience before God, I cannot affirm as right what God does not affirm. Neither Congress nor Christianity Today will change that for me (and, I trust, for many of you reading my words).
Dr. Michael Brown(www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Revival Or We Die: A Great Awakening Is Our Only Hope. Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube.
“Gay marriage”’is legal simply because a bunch of rich oligarchs hate normal people.
Christianity Today was another target and the woke cancer moved in some years ago.
The 12 Republicans who voted to advance the bill last week are gaslighting the American public about its real purpose.
Everyone, including the dozen Republican senators who voted to advance the legislation last week, knows exactly what will happen. It’s not some big mystery.
What will happen is this: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and anyone else who dares maintain that marriage is a lifelong conjugal union between one man and one woman — the definition of marriage for thousands of years until the U.S. Supreme Court descended from Mount Sinai with Obergefell v. Hodges inscribed on stone tablets — will be branded a bigot and driven from the public square and marketplace.
Anyone who owns a small business related to the wedding industry — photographers, bakers, website designers, venue owners, caterers, florists — will be sued into oblivion if they refuse services to same-sex couples. Religious colleges and universities will lose their tax-exempt status. Religious institutions of every kind, if they hold to their teachings and traditions about marriage, will face an onslaught from the Department of Justice and the federal bureaucracy.
Here’s one example to ponder:
Suppose a Catholic or Christian college or seminary refused to allow a same-sex married couple to live in college owned graduate student housing for families, they might be subject to all kinds of litigation. Such a college might lose its nonprofit status. Their students might lose eligibility for federal financial aid and their faculty might lose eligibility from research grants from government agencies.
Well, yes. Of course all that would happen. Democrats and left-wing activists hear these kinds of concerns from people like New and think, “Good. Let them face ruinous litigation. Let them lose funding. Ghettoize them. Crush them. Grind their institutions into dust. They deserve it, the bigots.”
All the more appalling, then, that 12 Republican senators voted to advance the bill knowing full well what it will do. One wishes the explanation is just that these lawmakers are too stupid to understand what the purpose of the proposed law really is and what its effect will obviously be, but that’s wishful thinking.
The legislation also ignores churches that don’t apply for non-profit status.
Faggotry or the faith ... if you think you can honor or have both you already may not be in the faith.
Repent.
If the bill pushes us out of the public square and limits us to (Obama favorite term) “Freedom of Worship” in our churches, vs Freedom of Religion, then yes it is doing harm.
questionable?
Christian persecution is the whole point of the bill
the truth is blacks opinion on gays is what swung the debate towards gays.
conservative blacks that vote democratic opposed gay anything UNTIL Obama supported it, then they fell in line behind the first black president and we lost the majority against gay rights.
CT has turned woke. Garbage publication.
World News is a general news magazine, I am glad to subscribe to it.
The Bill’s sole purpose is to quiet the critics of the lgbtq agenda, and gives the government the authority to effectively shut down any faith based groups that don’t comply.
Marriage is a religious institution at its core, not a civil one. As one astute person pointed out to me some time ago: "Your state didn't give you a Baptismal certificate or a bar mitzvah license -- did it?"
Start from there, and step aside while the pagan world unravels.
The Munich Marriage Agreement?
For many years, it has been correctly branded, with good reason, as “Christianity Astray.”
Hadn’t seen that attribution before, but the shoe fits.
We know this bill was not written to protect REAL marriage. Just the fake kind.
Haha...
under the final version of the bill, “religious nonprofits and their personnel have a statutory right to decline any involvement with a marriage solemnization or celebration — including a same-sex one. This federal right would preempt any state or local law to the contrary. It means clergy can refuse to officiate a gay wedding. A church can decline to be the venue for these unions. A Christian college can deny use of its chapel for the same reason, and a Christian summer camp can refuse use of its lake and nearby pavilion, as well.”Just where is this stated: - https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text:
(a) In general.—No person acting under color of State law may deny— “(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or “(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals. “(b) Enforcement by Attorney General.—The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates subsection (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief. “(c) Private right of action.—Any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against the person who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.
If any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or any amendment made thereby, or the application of such provision to all other persons, entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby. Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 2022.- https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.