Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

GOP plans 'one man, one woman' law to thwart same-sex marriage ruling

Posted by on Sep. 19, 2013 at 7:10 AM
  • 79 Replies


Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) on Thursday plans to introduce the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act.

A group of Republicans in the House is set to unveil a proposal aimed at protecting conservative groups in the wake of the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage.

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) on Thursday plans to introduce the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, which he said “ensures that any religious institution, organization or church that believes that marriage should continue to remain between one man and one woman will not be discriminated against by the federal government.”

The Supreme Court in June ruled that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, paving the way for the federal government to grant marriage benefits to same-sex couples with licenses from states that have legalized same-sex marriage.

Citing examples in the states, Labrador said he and other conservatives are worried that organizations like the Boy Scouts or Catholic Charities could lose their tax-exempt status because of their official positions on the question of marriage.

“My bill does not deal with those state issues,” Labrador said in an interview, “but we have already seen the increased attack and discrimination of institutions at the state level, and we just want to ensure that it does not happen at the federal level.

“I believe the Constitution protects these institutions,” he said, “but I just want to make sure that it’s in the law, that it’s 100 percent sure, that people have no question about it.”

The bill has 60 co-sponsors, including the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, Rep. Steve Scalise (La.), and two socially conservative Democrats: Reps. Mike McIntyre (N.C.) and Dan Lipinski (Ill.).

He emphasized that the bill was not an attempt to overturn the Supreme Court decision and that it should appeal to a wide range of members concerned about government intrusion, particularly following the Internal Revenue Service scandal.

“My bill is very narrowly drafted, so this is something that conservatives, independents, moderates, Republicans, Democrats can support – just so we can protect these religious institutions from any discrimination by the federal government,” Labrador said.

The Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights advocacy group, said the proposal was unnecessary. 

“The federal government isn’t discriminating against religious groups or people of faith as it implements the Supreme Court’s decision striking down DOMA.  And there’s no reason to believe that it ever will,” spokesman Fred Sainz said. 

“This legislation’s real purpose is to let federal employees, contractors and grantees refuse to do their jobs or fulfill the terms of their taxpayer-funded contracts because they have a particular religious view about certain lawfully-married couples – and then to sue the federal government for damages if they don’t get their way.”

source



by on Sep. 19, 2013 at 7:10 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
sweet-a-kins
by Emerald Member on Sep. 19, 2013 at 7:26 AM
10 moms liked this
Why are republicans so bigoted and stupid?

This is already the law

Poor (not at all) persecuted Christians (special protected class in America)

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
KelliansMom
by Bronze Member on Sep. 19, 2013 at 8:11 AM
2 moms liked this
The GOP really needs to catch up with the times.
-Celestial-
by Pepperlynn on Sep. 19, 2013 at 8:24 AM
4 moms liked this
Lol. Many of them are too afraid to come out of the closet. Or airport bathrooms.
yourspecialkid
by Platinum Member on Sep. 19, 2013 at 9:55 AM
6 moms liked this

 Hmmm, may I suggest that anyone not wanting to see religious institutions protected are themselves guilty of religious bigotry.

 

gdiamante
by Silver Member on Sep. 19, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Any church can refuse service to a couple; heterosexual couples can be turned away for a number of reasons such as living together before marriage or not meeting Church requirements for premarital education.

Aren't there a couple of lawsuits on "refusal of service" wending their way through the courts now? Rather than adding a law to muddle things further, wouldn't it be better to get those cases fought out and decided? It would make things perfectly clear without wasting Congress' time on another law that would likely be DOA in the Senate.

garnet83
by Member on Sep. 19, 2013 at 10:19 AM
6 moms liked this

 If it's already the law, then reinforcing it shouldn't be a problem. Religious institutions shouldn't be required to compromise their doctrines. Separation of church and state should go both ways. Everyone seems to be ok with keeping church out of state, but they seem less interested in keeping state out of church.

Sisteract
by Whoopie on Sep. 19, 2013 at 10:19 AM
6 moms liked this

Citing examples in the states, Labrador said he and other conservatives are worried that organizations like the Boy Scouts or Catholic Charities could lose their tax-exempt status because of their official positions on the question of marriage.

It's always about the money...


garnet83
by Member on Sep. 19, 2013 at 10:21 AM

 When my great uncle was still pastoring, he would not marry couples who lived together or if either of them had been married before. That was his right and people knew not to even ask him to do it if either of those scenarios was the case.

Quoting gdiamante:

Any church can refuse service to a couple; heterosexual couples can be turned away for a number of reasons such as living together before marriage or not meeting Church requirements for premarital education.

Aren't there a couple of lawsuits on "refusal of service" wending their way through the courts now? Rather than adding a law to muddle things further, wouldn't it be better to get those cases fought out and decided? It would make things perfectly clear without wasting Congress' time on another law that would likely be DOA in the Senate.

 

lga1965
by on Sep. 19, 2013 at 10:23 AM
How could making same sex marriage illegal benefit ANYONE ?
It's obvious to most people that same sex marriage won't hurt anyone.
This guy is a jerk.Churches don't have to marry same sex couples . Big deal. Churches that are actually kind and humane will marry them. There is still choice.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
lizmarie1975
by Gold Member on Sep. 19, 2013 at 10:23 AM
1 mom liked this

Big ol' temper tantrum.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN