It seems that a war on right order and Christianity in general will proceed. You can bet large money that the lawsuits against the churches are already being prepared.
The Senate passed the Respect for Marriage Act on Tuesday, with 12 Republicans joining all 50 Democrats in supporting the legislation.
The legislation, negotiated in the Senate by Maine Republican Susan Collins and Democrats Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Dianne Feinstein of California, will go back to the House of Representatives. There, it is likely to pass. The lower chamber approved the legislation in July, with 47 Republicans joining all 220 Democrats in support. If signed into law, the Respect for Marriage Act would affirm that states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, in accordance with the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause....
Since SCOTUS declared that same-sex "marriage" is OK, intelligent citizens wonder why this law is necessary.
Here's the answer:
...Heritage Foundation Vice President of Domestic Policy Roger Severino told the Daily Caller that a religious liberty amendment negotiated by Collins and Baldwin is “not enough.” The amendment declares that the legislation may not be used 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.”...
...Severino pointed to the 1983 case Bob Jones University v. U.S., in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could revoke a segregated university’s tax-exempt status based off of the agency’s reading of the Civil Rights Act. He argued that the Baldwin-Collins amendment would not prevent such a move for organizations that refuse to recognize same-sex marriage.
“Giving it the most generous interpretation, it’s not enough. It doesn’t provide the defenses needed. This bill will set a chain of events in motion, and this construction won’t stop it,” Severino said. “Unless there’s an affirmative defense, it will not prevent the IRS or DOJ from taking away tax-exempt status.”...
That's the reason it was pushed.
More succinct:
...“Nowhere in [the Collins-Baldwin amendment] is a statement prohibiting the federal government from taking adverse action against an individual or an entity based on a sincere religious belief interest same-sex marriage, whether that religious belief is one that embraces or does not embrace same-sex marriage. It does not do that. It instead says that nothing in this act shall be construed to alter or deny any status or benefit of any group. Those are two very different things. That language does not do what my amendment does. You see, the threat is not and never was based on what the act itself would do,” Lee said...
Be prepared. Prayer and fasting.
No comments:
Post a Comment