Supporters of marriage across the country have been charged by governmental entities with "discrimination"
 |
| English: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Supporters of marriage across the country have been charged by governmental entities with "discrimination" and subsequently fined, shamed and punished. In Washington, the state Attorney General is suing a 70-year old grandmother simply because she didn't want to personally participate in arranging flowers for a gay 'wedding' because doing so violates her religious beliefs. He has threatened her with financial ruin unless she agrees to apologize, change her ways and pay a fine. Across the border in Oregon, the state has fined two Christian bakers $135,000 because they did not want to bake a cake celebrating a gay 'wedding' even though same-sex 'marriage' was illegal in Oregon at the time.
These are not isolated incidents. Photographers, inn keepers, printers and others have similarly been hit with charges of "discrimination," then hauled before governmental entities and hit with large fines and punishments.
As bad as these things are at the state level, the biggest potential for abuse lies with the federal government which can exercise phenomenal power to attempt to force marriage supporters to abandon their viewpoints or risk punitive measures. Nonprofit groups like NOM or charities representing religious groups could be stripped of their tax exemption. Religious schools could be denied accreditation. Adoption agencies could have their licenses revoked. Charitable and social welfare groups could be put out of business unless they change their polices and positions. The potential ways that the Obama Administration could punish supporters of marriage are virtually limitless.
That is why it is critical that Congress enact the First Amendment Defense Act (S. 1598, HR 2802) which prohibits the federal government from taking any adverse action against any individual or organization for their support of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. For example, it would prohibit the government from going after a minister or church for refusing to officiate a same-sex 'wedding.'
Public opinion polls show that the American public overwhelmingly agrees with us that nobody should be forced against their will to support same-sex 'marriage'. They agree that it is wrong for government to punish people simply for believing that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
We have a limited amount of time to pass this important legislation before partisan politics results in gridlock in Washington. Fortunately, we have already made great progress in advancing the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA).
The Senate version of FADA, S. 1598 authored by Utah Senator Mike Lee, has 36 Senate cosponsors. The House version, HR 2802 authored by Idaho Representative Raul Labrador, currently has 142 cosponsors. That means that over 40% of the entire Congress is officially supporting this critical legislation — an impressive accomplishment!
Despite this high degree of Congressional support, enactment of FADA will take a fierce fight. NOM must raise $100,000 immediately to mount a full court blitz to pass this legislation.
Back when the US Supreme Court issued a similarly illegitimate decision when they forced abortion on the nation in their infamous Roe v Wade ruling, at least the government did not attempt to force every American to support abortion or risk punishment. In fact, Congress enacted the Hyde Amendment which for decadesprotected those who oppose abortion by preventing taxpayer money to be used to fund abortions.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the illegitimate ruling redefining marriage. Today, powerful governmental officials are prepared to wield all the levers of government to force every American, charity and religious group to support same-sex 'marriage' or risk their livelihood.
The First Amendment Defense Act is the Hyde Amendment of the marriage issue. It will protect people of faith from being forced to be involved in supporting this illegitimate attempt by the Supreme Court to redefine marriage.
