How Conservatives Plan to Gut Marriage Equality

Religious conservatives know they are losing the marriage equality fight, but they have a plan so they can keep discriminating against gay couples and it involves our old friend “religious freedom.”

The Religious Right is still in a spin after judges looking at both the Utah and Oklahoma gay marriage bans ruled those voter enacted bans unconstitutional. Should these cases reach the Supreme Court of the United States, it appears there’s at least a fighting chance that the Supreme Court could strike down all bans on same-sex marriage. In short, the anti-gay crowd is starting to get the idea that when it comes to banning gay marriage they’ve lost the battle. Yet, by exploiting religious freedom and building on religious privilege, they may still have some victories on the horizon that could set back marriage equality progress dramatically by giving the religious license to discriminate.

How? Well, we’re seeing a number of so-called religious freedom bills being introduced in state legislatures across the United States. Recently, Maine saw the introduction of L.D. 1428, sponsored by Sen. David Burns, R-Whiting, a bill that would essentially stack the deck in favor of religious freedom over other civil rights by enshrining that the government must have a “compelling interest” in overriding the so-called religious freedoms of citizens.

Of particular interest is the following definition in the bill:

Exercise of religion.  ”Exercise of religion” means the practice or observance of religion under the United States Constitution, Amendment I and the Constitution of Maine and includes acting or refusing to act in a manner substantially motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not the practice or observance is compulsory or a central part or central requirement of the person’s religious belief.

Those opposed to this change point out that the “compelling” interest is vague and would most likely preclude any kind of discrimination claim if, say, a couple were to be denied goods or services from a secular business.

To be clear, the bill is broader than same-sex marriage. For instance, testimony on the bill included a woman who, while working at a health clinic, had placed her job in jeopardy by refusing to give a patient the morning after pill. Yes, the bill’s supporters say, under this legislation the woman would have been spared having to give out the pill. Clearly, these religious exemptions are geared at more than just same-sex marriage, but it is marriage equality and the threat that religious groups may not have license to discriminate in public services in particular, that seems to be spawning more and more of these bills.

In essence, the ACLU argues, the bill would serve to nullify large parts of Maine’s Human Rights Act and allow broad religious-based discrimination. Similar legislation has now once again been proposed in Arizona and is advancing at a swift pace. Several other states have similar bills either filed or in the works.

This effort to forestall progress is going on at the federal level as well. We’ve seen a number of so-called religious freedom bills introduced into Congress over the past few years, in particular over the issue of same-sex marriages on military bases.

Now, Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX 14) has introduced a bill into Congress to shore up those efforts while they evolve at the state level. Essentially his bill, the State Marriage Defense Act or H.R. 3829, would bar the federal government from recognizing gay marriages from states where there is no state level gay marriage recognition.

The legislation would, for instance, be an answer to the federal government’s cheeky yet entirely correct decision to recognize the more than 1,000 same-sex marriages that were carried out in Utah prior to the Supreme Court of the United States issuing a stay and the state government saying it would not recognize those marriages.

“I drafted the ‘State Marriage Defense Act of 2014′ to help restore the 10th Amendment, affirm the authority of states to define and regulate marriage, [and] provide clarity to federal agencies seeking to determine who qualifies as a spouse for the purpose of federal law,” Weber is quoted as saying. “By requiring that the Federal Government defer to the laws of a person’s state of legal residence in determining marital status, we can protect states’ constitutionally established powers from the arbitrary overreach of unelected bureaucrats.”

To be clear, this bill probably isn’t even lawful and it’s highly unlikely that the bill will make it beyond the Republican controlled House. Yet, if you detect a hint of desperation in this move, you would be correct. The federal government played the game well in undermining Utah state’s position on same-sex marriage — but, per the Supreme Court DOMA ruling of last year, the Obama administration probably could not have acted differently even if it had wanted to.

We know that some religious conservative groups, including the legal group the Alliance Defending Freedom, do not want to throw in the towel on fighting marriage equality and preserving gay marriage bans, but in a recent statement to the Christian Times on just this topic, they’ve said they are interested in carving out protections in states where gay marriage is an inevitability.

The game is changing now and the marriage equality movement will have to change with it. Religious freedom is guaranteed at the federal level so this kind of legislation is motivated by an appetite for ensuring greater religious privilege. The marriage equality movement will need to fight this attempt to preserve inequality with both strength but also a keen ear to ensure that at no point can the Religious Right get away with playing the victim. Whatever happens, it also seems clear this new effort to discriminate cannot be ignored.

Photo credit: Thinkstock.


Lucy B.
Past Member 1 years ago

I am Lucy Brown from USA,my boyfriend left me for the past 3 years,i try all my best to get him,my effort was in vine.we both love our best friend Vivian was very jealous because we both love each other.she contacted a white witch.and she make me to be very seek.during the period that i was sick,she snatch my loving boy friend from me,when i had that she have snatch my lovely boy i became more sick and i almost lost my life,not knowing that she also bewitch my lovely guy(Micheal)so i read a magazine on how Dr ATIAFO help people to cure their sickness and help to unite relationship as well,i contacted him immediately,and told him my sickness and about my boyfriend,shortly he right to me and told me my girlfriend was behind all my problems,that she contacted a black magic .to snatch my guy and make me to be sick,he cure my sickness within a week and he also cast a spell that bring back my lovely boyfriend.and broke away the black magic .The only thing he as me to do is to share my testimony to the i am so comfortable with my relationship.Dr ATIAFO was godsend to me and he also make my dreams comes true,we are happily married with a bouncing baby boy.thinks to the great Dr ATIAFO, his email is: .he is 100% real and ready to solve any problem you encounter.magic is real,believe it.

Paul D.
Paul D.3 years ago

Well it is now March 3rd. Hows that working out for you Conservatives? Not looking good for ya! HA!

Karen H.
Karen H3 years ago

“Gay people who want to marry have no desire to redefine marriage in any way. When women got the right to vote, they did not redefine voting. When African-Americans got the right to sit at a lunch counter, alongside white people, they did not redefine eating out. They were simply invited to the table.” – Cynthia Nixon

Max Pappas
Max Pappas3 years ago

The more I look at this religious infringement of rights, the more I am convinced we are moving closer to civil war. I see no sound reason I or anyone else should have to put up with religion striping my rights of separation of church and state.

I guest I really need to make sure not one single penny goes to support anything that is of religious nature. Anyone no of a list of businesses that claim to be religious, because the buck stops here.

Max Pappas
Max Pappas3 years ago

Here is what is really going on, the religious want the non-religious to keep paying for them. By this I mean they want to keep having the non-religious pay for their tax exempt properties/businesses, giving them money to run religious non-profits groups, and in many states pay for their religious schools. Just look a the catholic hospitals and the tons of profits the taxpayers is giving to the catholic church and all the time the catholic hospital pays no taxes on the profit and the government is handing them piles of taxpayer dollars. What a racket. Bush hand the religious groups pile after pile of money. Now look at what is happening religion wants more and more and more piles of money from the taxpayer. What happened to their god taking care of their every need?

Karen H.
Karen H3 years ago

Consider that the Conservs can't deal with interracial marriage, which has been around a lot longer. Their comments about the Cheerios ad with the interracial couple and adorable little girl were cruel and included words like “sinister”, “an abomination”, “disgusting propaganda” and even worse. One definition of Conservative is "cautiously moderate", which is about as far from what they really are as the North Pole is from the South Pole. They're a bunch of closed-minded bigots who want to deny others the rights they enjoy.

Mercedes Lackey
Mercedes Lackey3 years ago

If this goes through, I am going to invent a religion that requires anyone who opposes same-sex marriage to be punched in the nose.

Louise D.
Louise D3 years ago

Conservatives seem to justify their opposition to gay marriage is based on religious grounds, allowing gay marriage or prohibiting discrimination against gays is somehow infringing upon their religious liberty. Still describing hatred or discrimination as religiously-motivated does not make it any less evil. The Constitution states that every citizen has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", any such activity that could interfere with those basic rights is prohibited. The legal answer is that, regardless of religion, when a discriminatory action is identified, Congress has the power by the Fourteenth Amendment to eradicate that evil. So religious freedom is unharmed, so long as it does not infringe upon anyone's freedom.
So rather than waste everyone's time with the increasingly stupid arguments they really should give up being dicks.

Dianne T.
Dianne T3 years ago

There are always many views on such a contraversial subject and due to free speech we are able to voice them all - thank goodness.

Amanda M.
Amanda M3 years ago

These mental furballs MUST have come in from Stupidsville on last night's bus, because once again they completely fail to realize that marriage is first and foremost a LEGAL contract between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. The religious ceremony, if any, is STRICTLY OPTIONAL. What's next, twisting this around so that non-Christian or non-religious weddings between ANY couples are on the chopping block? (Let's not put it past them-Joel Osteen once said that in his ideal world, the ONLY "legal" marriages would be those hetero marriages that were performed in a Christian church!) Furthermore, they also don't get the fact that their religious freedom STOPS when it starts to infringe on the freedoms of others. Freedom of religion not only means ANY religion (and NOT just Christianity, Religious Reich!) but also freedom FROM religion, including the right NOT to have someone else's religion imposed on you. This is especially true where gay rights and a woman's reproductive rights are concerned!