The Epoch Times
The Epoch Times
AD
The Epoch Times
Support Us
SHARE
USUS PoliticsCongress

Newly Enacted ‘Respect for Marriage’ Act May Threaten Religious Liberty: Experts

Copy
Facebook
X
Truth
Gettr
LinkedIn
Telegram
Email
Save
Newly Enacted ‘Respect for Marriage’ Act May Threaten Religious Liberty: Experts
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) participates in a bill enrollment ceremony alongside Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and a bipartisan group of senators and representatives for the "Respect For Marriage" Act at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington on Dec. 8, 2022. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
By Jackson Elliott
12/11/2022Updated: 12/15/2022
0:00

President Joe Biden, in a White House ceremony on Dec. 13, signed the Respect for Marriage Act, codifying federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriage.

The measure replaces provisions that legally define marriage as solely between a man and a woman with provisions that recognize any marriage “between two individuals that is valid under state law.” The bill also effectively requires states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

That’s a reason to celebrate for the LGBT community, which had expressed concerns that their ability to marry needed safeguards.

However, the new federal law creates concerns for others, some experts say, as it could encroach on the freedoms of individuals who refuse to participate in same-sex marriages by making them vulnerable to lawsuits.

Two Republican House members noted those concerns before the chamber’s Dec. 8 vote. The bill had been sent back to the House after a change of wording by the U.S. Senate.

The new version included amendments regarding religious liberty and a section describing the importance of marriage and perspectives on it. The bill also protects interracial marriage.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) gives a thumbs up after speaking on the phone with his daughter Alison and Alison’s wife from his office after the Senate voted on the Respect for Marriage Act at the Capitol Building in Washington, on Nov. 29, 2022. The Senate voted 61–36 in favor of the measure providing federal recognition and protection for same-sex and interracial marriages. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) gives a thumbs up after speaking on the phone with his daughter Alison and Alison’s wife from his office after the Senate voted on the Respect for Marriage Act at the Capitol Building in Washington, on Nov. 29, 2022. The Senate voted 61–36 in favor of the measure providing federal recognition and protection for same-sex and interracial marriages. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The bill’s opponents said they were concerned about some provisions in the measure.

Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and Scott Perry (R-Pa.) rescinded their support of the bill on its second pass through the House, saying they didn’t think it sufficiently protects the religious liberty of those who feel it would be wrong to participate in ceremonies of same-sex couples. One other Republican changed to a “no” vote. Another voted present, signaling neither support or opposition. Four other Republicans didn’t vote.

The Act passed by a wide margin in the House, with 39 Republicans joining with all members of the Democratic caucus to support the bill, after the Senate passed it, 61–36.
Afterward, LGBT groups expressed relief and joy.

“Today’s vote in the House of Representatives sends a clear message: love is winning,” Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a written statement following passage by the chamber.

“The fact that this bill passed with strong bipartisan support in both chambers proves that marriage equality is supported by a wide swath of the American people.”

Following Senate approval of the measure on Nov. 29, Biden expressed his satisfaction that bipartisan support had helped underscore “the essential right of LGBTQI+ and interracial couples to marry.”

He said that if it was approved by the House, he'd “promptly and proudly sign it into law.”

Seven years after the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, debate over same-sex marriage and its effects on religious liberty continues. Photo of the Supreme Court in Washington, on Aug. 20, 2014. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Seven years after the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, debate over same-sex marriage and its effects on religious liberty continues. Photo of the Supreme Court in Washington, on Aug. 20, 2014. Mark Wilson/Getty Images

The vote affirms the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized the ability of same-sex couples to marry as a fundamental right.

There had been concern that the Court’s ruling could be challenged, putting same-sex marriage in danger, when the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson decided to pass abortion regulation back to states. The June ruling overturned the 49-year-old Roe v. Wade case that had made abortion legal nationwide.

Immediately after that, pundits wondered aloud whether the Court might overturn Obergefell v. Hodges as well.

They blamed their concern on Justice Clarence Thomas’s written Dobbs v. Jackson opinion, in which he argued that the high court had decided Obergefell v. Hodges and Roe v. Wade on similar logic.
Overturning one might lead to overturning both, he wrote in his opinion.

Religious Liberty

The Respect for Marriage Act does carve out some protections for religious liberty.

The bill’s text states that any nonprofit religious organization “shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.”

But experts say it leaves gaps.

For example, it could force wedding vendors to help with a same-sex marriage ceremony, even if doing so goes against their deeply held religious beliefs, experts said.

The Respect for Marriage Act damages religious freedom by forcing people of faith to participate in some elements of same-sex marriage, The Heritage Foundation’s Emma Waters said.

Emma Waters, a research associate of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family. (Courtesy of the Heritage Foundation)
Emma Waters, a research associate of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family. Courtesy of the Heritage Foundation

“The bill only protects the solemnization of the marriage, not the other factors surrounding it,” Waters told The Epoch Times.

Waters argued that the bill’s phrasing has major gaps.

For instance, the government can’t force a pastor to marry a same-sex couple. But if he rents his church out for weddings, he could be forced to let them marry there, she said.

Also, the bill still makes it possible to sue a religious institution for discrimination against same-sex couples, she said.

“The way the bill is worded, while it doesn’t require anti-discrimination litigation, it doesn’t prohibit it either,” she said.

Waters said the IRS could potentially use the bill to remove tax-exempt status, take away government grants, and revoke licenses from religious organizations.

Furthermore, the bill’s wording offers no protections for religious people who run private businesses and oppose same-sex marriage for moral reasons.

Under the Respect for Marriage Act, a Christian baker who refuses to use his artistic skills for a same-sex wedding cake could face a lawsuit, Waters said.

The Senate rejected an amendment offered by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). Lee’s amendment would have forbidden the federal government from taking “discriminatory action” against someone because of their belief that marriage is between only one man and one woman.

Without the Lee amendment, the Respect for Marriage Act will leave anyone who doesn’t support same-sex marriage vulnerable, Waters said.

“Anyone who wants to hold a traditional view of marriage is going to come under fire for this.”

In a statement, Diaz-Balart said America has a long history of respecting state decisions on what constitutes marriage. He said he supports “sacred and vulnerable” religious liberties.
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.). (Courtesy of Mario Diaz-Balart's office)
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.). Courtesy of Mario Diaz-Balart's office

“My record shows that I am a long-standing advocate against discrimination of all types. I, however, cannot support any effort that undermines religious liberties by failing to provide legitimate safeguards for Faith-Based organizations that object based on their deeply-held religious beliefs,” Diaz-Balart said.

He voted against the bill, he said, because Senate Democrats rejected amendments that protected religious liberty.

Traditional Values

Christian Americans involved in wedding-related businesses could soon find they’re forced to choose between business and conscience.

Daniel, a Florida resident, is a Christian who opposes same-sex marriage and owns a wedding venue with his wife. He chose to remain anonymous to protect his business.

Marriage between a man and woman builds society, creates children, and provides far-reaching benefits, he said.

He doesn’t see the same good effects springing from same-sex marriage.

“I believe that a mother and a father are both essential. Without a mother and a father, creating a family, our society ceases to exist,” he said. “Study after study confirms that children do best when they have an intact nuclear family, their mother and father, raising them.”

Daniel said his wedding venue isn’t explicitly religious. But he sees his work as a moral endeavor.

“We both feel very strongly about the importance of family. And if we can help families create a great memory of their start, then what better business can you be in than that?” he said.

Because of his beliefs, Daniel wants to promote and celebrate heterosexual marriage through his business. However, he worries he now could face a lawsuit if he refuses to rent his venue to a same-sex couple.

“If somebody sued me for $100,000, I'd be out of business,” he said. “But I mean, these suits nowadays are in the millions.”

Daniel also refuses to host drinking parties for local fraternities or sororities on his property, because he doesn’t want any share of responsibility if a drunk student does something destructive to others. He said he refuses to facilitate underage or irresponsible drinking.

“I don’t think I should have to be a part of something that I don’t think is good overall for our society,” he said.

Daniel hasn’t yet had a same-sex couple marry on his property. Same-sex couples have toured it but didn’t ask to book his venue. He has hosted many events attended by “same-sex attracted” people without an issue.

“If we were somehow forced to legally [host a same-sex wedding,] we wouldn’t feel good about that payment,” he said. “So we might just turn that money over to our church or some other organization that helps people who struggle with same-sex attraction.”

Jackson Elliott
Jackson Elliott
Author
Jackson Elliott is a former reporter for The Epoch Times.
Author’s Selected Articles

DeSantis Criticizes California Homelessness, Proposes Legislation to Curb It in Florida

Feb 07, 2024
DeSantis Criticizes California Homelessness, Proposes Legislation to Curb It in Florida

BLM Activist Group Holds Nationwide ‘Week of Action’ In Schools

Feb 04, 2024
BLM Activist Group Holds Nationwide ‘Week of Action’ In Schools

Maine Child Transgender Bill Killed In Committee

Feb 04, 2024
Maine Child Transgender Bill Killed In Committee

South Carolina Bills Aim to Block Child Gender Surgeries, ESG-Based Investing

Feb 01, 2024
South Carolina Bills Aim to Block Child Gender Surgeries, ESG-Based Investing
Related Topics
Florida
gay marriage
U.S. House of Representatives
Save
The Epoch Times
Copyright © 2000 - 2025 The Epoch Times Association Inc. All Rights Reserved.