After writing to one of our “Representatives” about his support for an awful “First Amendment Defense” Act, he responded with these words,
“Thank you for contacting my office regarding traditional marriage. I appreciate having the benefit of your thoughts.
In 2015, the Supreme Court issued their decision on Obergefell v. Hodges, a court case in which a group of same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies to challenge the constitutionality of each state’s ban on same-sex marriage. The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that same-sex marriage is to be protected under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This unfortunate ruling blatantly disregards the rights of individual state legislatures to recognize or license such unions based on the will of their electorate.
On March 8, 2018, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced S. 2525, the First Amendment Defense Act. This legislation clarifies and strengthens religious liberty protections in federal law by safeguarding those individuals and institutions who promote traditional marriage from government retaliation. S. 2525 would prevent any federal agency from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification to an individual, association, or business based on their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. This legislation would ensure that the federal government does not penalize Americans for following their religious beliefs or moral convictions on traditional marriage, and creates a cause of action in federal court for individuals or institutions that have been discriminated against by the government.
America is an inclusive nation where we respect other cultures and traditions; however, as lawmakers we all have a duty to promote family values in all that we do, and to defend what is sacred in our country. I believe the institution of marriage must be protected. I look forward to the opportunity to support legislation that will reinforce family values and the traditional institution of marriage.”
Well, at least he’s clear where he stands. . .on the wrong side of history (and on the wrong side of the fence).