Pass the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act

marriageThe Marriage and Religious Freedom Act was introduced in the last Congress – in the Senate by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) with 11 co-sponsors and in the House by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) with 92 co-sponsors.

This legislation will soon be re-introduced in the current session and should be given priority by Senate and House leadership and passed. It is of enormous national importance.

The bill will protect individuals from discrimination, under federal law, so that they may be free to express and conduct their business according to their religious conviction that marriage is a union between one man and one woman and that sexual relations take place within this framework.

The bill only affects federal law, not state law. But it is an important step in the right direction of establishing a federal legal regime protecting those with traditional biblical faith and convictions regarding marriage, sex, and sin.

This law would not preclude anyone from choosing alternative lifestyles. What it would do is protect those who, because of their faith, reject those lifestyles from being forced to accept them.

Why do we need a new federal law to protect those whose religious convictions see marriage as it has been understood for our whole national history?

Because a war is taking place in our country to delegitimize religion and to use every means of legal aggression to make it impossible for those with traditional biblical faith to live according to their convictions in their public lives.

Take the case of Baronelle Stutzman, a Christian florist in the state of Washington.

When a friend came to her to request a floral arrangement for a same-sex marriage, Stutzman directed that individual to another florist for whom same-sex marriage and same-sex sexual activity is not a violation of religious conviction as it is for her.

She was found guilty of discrimination in a Washington State court. According to the court, “Stutzman cannot comply with both the law and her faith if she continues to provide flowers for weddings as part of her duly-licensed business.”

The court ruling exposes Stutzman to claims for damages and attorneys’ fees from both the state and the couple, from her business and personally. She is liable to lose her business, her home, and her savings.

Or how about Kevin Cochrane?

After a 34-year career, Cochrane was fired from his position as Atlanta Fire Chief by Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed because he authored a Christian book, in his private time for his private use, in which, in one place, he condemns same-sex sexual behavior and marriage as sinful.

No charges of discriminatory behavior had ever been leveled against Cochrane. In 2009 he was nominated by President Obama, and confirmed by the Senate, as U.S. Fire Administrator. In 2010, he returned to his position with the Atlanta Fire Department and in 2012 was named Fire Chief of the Year.

Cochrane was simply fired for his Christian convictions.

Can it really be, now that homosexual activists have won victories to redefine the meaning of marriage, that anyone adhering in their public life to their traditional religious convictions breaks the law? Will one day a pastor preaching from the pulpit wind up in a lawsuit?

Can it really be that it is not enough for homosexual activists to legally do what they want? That they won’t rest until those that refuse to accept these lifestyles are destroyed?

This is not freedom and this is not America. This is a fight for the heart and soul of our country.

Politicians who give lip service to American freedom but who will not fight for the very values that make our freedom possible, the values on which our nation was built, don’t belong in positions of leadership.

The Republican controlled congress should do everything it can to pass the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay. Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine.
Star Parker
View all articles by Star Parker
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly
  • franklinb23

    I have seen signs on various businesses that say: “We reserve the right to refuse service ..” as well as “No Shoes, No Shirts, No Service”

    I used to know an elderly black man who was homeless and who had a severe bacterial infection in his foot. He kept a plastic bag over it, I suppose because he thought it would keep it from getting worse. Should McDonalds be legally permitted to deny him food because he didn’t have shoes on if he could pay for the food?

    I realize I’m presenting a rare scenario, but these scenarios nevertheless exist.

    What are the rights of business owners, and do they always trump the rights of those who they are providing services to, or does it depend on the service they’re providing?

    • Bob Ellis

      McDonald’s should be able to deny that man service (it’s their property, after all(…though I doubt very seriously they would do so under those circumstances. Such notices are intended to keep the unkempt riff raff out who deliberately don’t carry themselves in a civilized manner and thus would tend to drive away other more civilized customers.

      If you own a business, it is your property. In a free country, you have the right to do with your property what you want. Most businesses want a customer’s money bad enough that they won’t turn anyone away unless it is for a serious reason. In the case of homosexual activists attempting to force Christian business owners to participate in their fraud, the reason is serious enough (i.e. violating one’s conscience) that they are willing to forego that commerce to do what they know is right. To leverage the power of government to force a business owner to violate their conscience is quite literally unconscionable, and shouldn’t even be up for consideration in a free nation like the United States.

      Unfortunately, as this tyranny illustrates, we are no longer a free country.

    • Thisoldspouse

      Sounds to me that a plastic bag could be construed as a “shoe” of sorts. Why not, when the barest “thongs” are unarguably considered shoes?

  • Thisoldspouse

    I don’t like it, mainly because it is a weak defensive gesture. It implies that without such a law in place, religious liberty is easily jettisoned by those who don’t like it. This thinking grants the initiative to the oppressing, godless reprobates, when the exact converse should be the case - religious liberty winning in ALL cases (short human sacrifice or the rape of children/adults, obviously.)

    What is WRONG with Congress?!!! We were repeatedly lectured by RINO’s and libertarians in the early part of last decade that a federal marriage amendment wasn’t “necessary,” that we could quickly pass one if the courts eventually proved out of control and imposed counterfeit “marriage” on the unwilling states. Now, when EXACTLY this is happening, Congress is completely silent about implementing this solution.

    If they want to mount a defense, the BEST defense is to stick to the original promise and pass, as a top priority, a marriage amendment to be presented to the states. Never mind that the numbers in Congress don’t exist, there is enough arm-twisting power, and bargaining power with the non-permanent goodies, by the ones in the MAJORITY to get it done if they really want to. This process would completely BYPASS the lawless, metrosexual, Muslim reprobate occupying the White House, and I believe enough states would finally find their courage by this real solution being fleshed out to come around to approving it by three quarters.

    • Bob Ellis

      I agree that it’s weak…but I’ll take any line of defense over none at all.

      Yes, you re so right to point out and scream “See, I told you so!” to the worthless curs who claimed a federal marriage protection amendment was unnecessary. Anyone with half a brain could have told you 10-15 years ago that it was only a matter of time before they found judges corrupt enough to trample “mere law.”

      We’re like a house filled with spoiled, out-of-control children, and if you have an fine China you want to protect, you’d better get it “up high’ and out of reach of the destroyers. Unfortunately, it’s virtually too late to move marriage “up high” (where it belongs) and out of the reach of the barbarians). We could still do it (if we didn’t have a bunch of gutless “Republicans” running congress), but the damage is already being done.