Trojan Horse, Respect for Marriage Act Doesn’t Respect the Church


Update: The marriage act passed with 12 Republican votes.

The media will mislead you on the Respect for Marriage Act that was just advanced in the Senate with the help of 12 Republicans. According to Diana Mee (Lady Di) on Bo Snerdley’s Rush Hour today, Susan Collins told the Senate they needed to hold off until after the election. Collins is one of the “Republicans” who voted to advance the bill.

The House has its own version, and it’s not good. Once the Senate passes its bill, they will reconcile the two, and the “good Catholic” in the Oval Office will sign it.

It is a Trojan Horse to take away the tax-exempt status of the churches.


It repeals the Defense of Marriage Act completely. That is something Democrats wanted since it was passed. It redefines marriage as between a man and woman and takes out the definition of “spouse” as a person of the opposite sex.

The bill codifies gay marriage and mandates all states consider it as a marriage.

RFMA would repeal the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act and would require the federal government to recognize any marriage that was “valid in the place where entered into.” The bill would also require every state to recognize every same-sex marriage that “is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into.”

There is a severability clause that the liberal Republicans had added that can work either way.

It would allow “any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (b)…[to] bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States against the person who violated such a subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.” The law would also allow an attorney general to bring civil action against any person who violates the law.

With all the leftist judges who rule from the bench, anyone can see the many lawsuits that would be brought against churches for so-called “discrimination.” Certainly, the tax exemption for churches will be thrown into the mixer.

Leftists don’t like churches or Christians. They take away from the power of the State.

An amendment to the original law states:

That amendment states that nothing in the law “shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.” The amendment also states that:

Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.

That is supposed to protect churches. There is nothing in there that protects traditional marriage from lawsuits.

We don’t even need it. Gay people are getting married.


The Heritage Foundation’s Roger Severino wrote that the so-called religious liberty amendment would “provide nothing that is not already guaranteed.” He wrote:

And it doesn’t cover areas where forced participation in same-sex celebrations still occur, such as with private bakers, florists, photographers, and other wedding vendors. …The drafters of these amendments are conjuring the illusion of religious freedom while undercutting it at every turn.

One of the biggest problems is it puts the State in control of marriage and takes away State’s Rights. The State should have NOTHING to do with marriage. It’s none of their business.

Suzanne Bowdey at The Washington Stand says it affects parents’ rights.

Like free speech, conscience rights, tax-exempt statuses, religious freedom, and every other fundamental value on the chopping block with this bill, the right of parents to have a say in their children’s education would vanish. The second Joe Biden’s pen hits the paper to sign H.R. 8404 into law, the microphones across the country’s local school boards meetings — the same ones that thousands of moms and dads have used to speak their peace — would be turned off.

Under this proposal, which some Republicans have the audacity to support, natural marriage is considered a bigoted view — discrimination, in fact…

Some legal experts, including Family Research Council’s Mary Beth Waddell, believe the text actually makes a correlation between natural marriage and racism.

The bill itself threatens, “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.” In other words, if you hold the belief that marriage is the union of a man and woman — the mainstream view for all of human history — and stand in the way of the Left’s redefinition in any way, the full weight of the Justice Department will be brought to bear. As if that weren’t enough, a private right of action — meaning everyday citizens can sue based on some perceived violation of their rights — is encouraged for anyone “harmed” by your biblical beliefs.

Carrying that out to its logical conclusion, parents who object to graphic or inappropriate curriculum in the classroom would be targets.

We have Republicans supporting it. This is business as usual, and there is appears to be a lack of respect for religion.

4.5 2 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments