2016 Banquet

Public Discourse on LGBT ‘Equality Act’ – HR 3185 – ‘Criminalizing Christianity Act’ Would ‘Weaponize Same-Sex Marriage’

So-called LGBT “Equality Act” will surely escalate State oppression against people of faith

As a Republican Congressman, Paul Ryan voted in 2007 for the pro-homosexual ENDA bill--the precursor to today's HR 3185 (Homosexual Superiority Act aka LGBT "Equality Act"). Contact House Speaker Ryan at 202-225-0600 and urge him to OPPOSE the radical "Equality Act" (HR 3185)

Will Speaker Ryan Back the Anti-Christian LGBT Agenda? As a Republican Congressman, Paul Ryan voted in 2007 for the pro-homosexual ENDA bill–the precursor to today’s HR 3185 (Homosexual Superiority Act aka LGBT “Equality Act”). Contact House Speaker Ryan at 202-225-0600 and urge him to OPPOSE the radical “Equality Act” (HR 3185)–which would only escalate State oppression against people of faith across America.

The following is an excellent summary by Matthew Kacsmaryk of dangerous new LGBTQ legislation, HR 3185 (S. 1858), which AFTAH is labeling the “Homosexual Superiority Act”–or perhaps the “Criminalizing Christianity Act”–but which congressional sponsors (all Democrats) propagandistically refer to as the “Equality Act.” Kacsmaryk’s analysis first appeared in the outstanding website, “Public Discourse,” which I highly recommend (sign up for their emails HERE).

NOTE: I do have one quibble with the writer: the phrase “sexual liberty” is unfortunate Newspeak and the latest semantic invention by “progressives” that perverts historic notions of ordered liberty. It does so by attaching immoral and unnatural sexual conduct condemned in the strongest terms by God Himself to “liberty.” That connection–which is now employed by the most extreme libertines in the LGBTQueer coalition–e.g., the pro-sadomasochism National Coalition For Sexual Freedom–should be avoided at all costs, especially by social conservatives. Postmodern “sexual liberty” is in reality sexual license. Also, we usually affix quote marks to the word homosexual “marriage” but did not add them in Kacsmark’s article below.

Words matter. A lot of leftist harassment, intolerance and oppression is now being carried out in the lofty name of “equality.” The bottom line: when people caught up in homosexuality and/or gender rebellion are given superior (special) rights based on their aberrant lifestyles, moral-minded people lose their free-conscience rights. We already see escalating government prosecution–read: persecution–of faith-motivated Americans–mostly people who do not want to participate in same-sex “marriage” ceremonies–under local and state “sexual orientation nondiscrimination” laws. Now try to imagine the expanded assault on citizens’ religious freedom and First Amendment liberties if the ACLU and the rest of the Homosexual-Transgender Lobby were to be given the added power of the federal bureaucracy and the U.S. Attorney General’s Office to enforce their pro-homosexual-transgender groupthink.

This “LGBTyranny” bill must be stopped if Americans are to remain free to be moral and follow God as they see fit. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera

______________________________

TAKE ACTION: 1) Contact Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (202-225-0600) and urge him to oppose HR 3185–the “Homosexual Superiority Act,” aka the LGBT “Equality Act.” (The other phone numbers for Speaker Ryan–who is now “America’s Congressman”–can be found HERE.) In 2007, as a Republican Congressman from Wisconsin, Ryan voted FOR the pro-homosexual Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the precursor bill to HR 3185. It is disturbing that Ryan, a self-styled “conservative,” would support growing federal homosexual-agenda power at the expense of faith-based Americans who defend natural marriage and Judeo-Christian morality. Ominously for Bible-believing Americans, the LGBT “Equality Act” is ENDA on steroids–and even more dangerous than ENDA to our cherished religious and First Amendment liberties. 

2) Call Your Congressman and Senators, too: and urge them to oppose HR 3185. Find your Congressman HERE.

Target-Logo-2012

Target Corporation has backed the anti-Christian homosexual activist “Equality Act”–which AFTAH has dubbed the “Homosexual Superiority Act.” Contact Target at 800-440-0680 or write them at guest.relations@target.com.

3) Contact Target Corporation [(800)440-0680; guest.relations@target.com], which just endorsed HR 3185, and urge them to reverse their support of this anti-Christian “Equality Act”; suggest to Target that they would be smarter to at least stay neutral in the Culture War over redefining marriage and civil rights rather than side with homosexual and transgender activists. The latter now openly embrace anti-Christian bigotry and make shameful comparisons between anti-women “transgender” behavior (e.g., men in dresses using Female restrooms) and racist Jim Crow persecution of Black Americans. [AFTAH will have more on this story.]

4) Support FADA! Contact all the same legislators above and urge them to SUPPORT the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), HR 2802, which would prohibit the federal government from taking any punitive action against an American who believes that marriage solely between a man and a woman.

 

______________________________

Matthew Kacsmaryk writes:

 The Inequality Act: Weaponizing Same-Sex Marriage

by  
First published September 4th, 2015 in Public Discourse

If enacted, the deceptively titled Equality Act would punish dissenters, giving no quarter to Americans who continue to believe that marriage and sexual relations are reserved to the union of one man and one woman.

On June 26, 2015, five justices of the Supreme Court found an unwritten “fundamental right” to same-sex marriage hiding in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—a secret knowledge so cleverly concealed in the nineteenth-century amendment that it took almost 150 years to find. Facebook and the White House were awash in rainbow flags proclaiming the arrival of “marriage equality.”

Just three weeks after Obergefell, congressional Democrats filed House (H.R. 3185) and Senate (S. 1858) versions of the “Equality Act,” seeking to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the protected classes listed in the federal code. Americans are on an “equality” roll. What could go wrong?

As it turns out, quite a bit. If enacted, the deceptively titled Equality Act would punish dissenters who disagree with same-sex marriage by using the enforcement tools of the amended Civil Rights Act of 1964, but with even greater force and scope. The Equality Act seeks to weaponize Obergefell, moving with lightning speed from a contentious five-to-four victory on same-sex marriage to a nationwide rule that “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are privileged classes that give no quarter to Americans who continue to believe and seek to exercise their millennia-old religious belief that marriage and sexual relations are reserved to the union of one man and one woman.

The Contents of the Law

So, in concrete terms, what would the proposed law do? Here are just a few of the potential areas of impact, given how the Equality Act would amend various provisions of the Civil Rights Act:

  • Employment: would amend Title VII to create new protected classes for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” with no countervailing exemptions for faith-based organizations that maintain internal standards of sexual conduct rooted in longstanding religious tenets.
  • Federal Programs: would amend Title VI, historically limited to race, color, and national origin, to create new protected classes for “sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,” with no countervailing protections for faith-based providers who willingly serve every program-eligible person but maintain internal standards of sexual conduct rooted in longstanding religious tenets.
  • Public Accommodation: would drastically expand the Title II definition of “public accommodation” to cover “gatherings” and facilities historically owned and operated by churches or religious organizations—“shelters,” “food banks,” and “care centers”—extending far beyond the categories at issue during the Civil Rights Movement: common carriers (freight, bus, taxi, train, and air lines), public utilities, hotels, restaurants, and entertainment venues.
  • Public Education: would amend Title IV definitions of “desegregation” to include new protected classes for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” placing in the litigation crosshairs all sex-restricted facilities like dormitories, restrooms, or locker rooms.
  • Religious Freedom Restoration Act: would omit exemptions for religious organizations contained in prior drafts of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and expressly state that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) may not be used as a defense or a basis for challenging the Equality Act.
  • Sex: would enter a congressional finding that “federal agencies and courts have correctly interpreted [] prohibitions on sex discrimination to include discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex stereotypes,” thereby adopting the EEOC’s most aggressively extra-textual recent rulings.
  • Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications: would amend Title VII exemptions for employers who have sex-based “bona fide occupational qualifications” (BFOQ) for specialized jobs—for example, male security guards in a maximum security prison or female undercover officers in a sex-trafficking sting operation—to require recognition of persons “in accordance with their gender identity.”

Unlike ENDA, the Equality Act does not even feign an equal balancing of sexual liberty and religious liberty. Like some voracious legal Pac-Man, the Obergefell-fueled Equality Act devours any preexisting constitutional rights that might impede absolute victory in the march for “marriage equality”: speech, association, assembly, and the free exercise of religion. The Equality Act boldly declares that some constitutional rights are “more equal than others.”

That ‘70s Show

We’ve been here before.

On January 22, 1973, seven justices of the Supreme Court found an unwritten “fundamental right” to abortion hiding in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the shadowy “penumbras” of the Bill of Rights, a celestial phenomenon invisible to the non-lawyer eye. In the minutes and hours that followed, the New York Times predicted that Roe represented “an historic resolution of a fiercely controversial issue.”

But Roe did not resolve the fierce controversy of abortion. Instead, sexual revolutionaries suffered loss after loss when they rammed Roe into state and municipal policies restricting public funds or forced participation in the “fundamental right” of abortion. See, for example, Beal v. Doe (1977), Maher v.Roe (1977), and Poelker v. Doe (1977). This losing streak continued into the 1980s, when the Supreme Court affirmed the federal Hyde Amendment and state laws prohibiting the use of public facilities and public employees for elective abortions. See Harris v. McRae (1980) and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989).

The Court’s underlying rationale was simple. It was also consistent with the Constitution as a “charter of negative liberties”: the right to have an abortion does not include the right to force taxpayers or conscientious objectors to participate in the process.

Moving into the twenty-first century, legislatures counterbalanced the “fundamental right” to abortion with more and more protections for conscientious objectors. These included (1) the Church Amendments prohibiting forced participation in abortion and sterilization procedures, (2) Public Health Service Act prohibitions on abortion-related discrimination in program funding, (3) Weldon Amendment protections for health providers who refuse to cover or refer for abortions, and (4) licensure and lawsuit protections for pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraceptive or abortifacient drugs.

In short, the unwritten right to abortion gradually approached equilibrium with the freedom to exercise religion—which, as Chief Justice Roberts pointed out, is “actually spelled out in the Constitution.” Today, pro-abortion and pro-life adversaries continue to litigate the points where the unwritten constitutional right to abortion collides with written constitutional rights to speech, association, assembly, and religion.

The Long War Ahead

On July 29, Catholic News Agency reported on statements made at the Out & Equal conference in San Francisco, where a speaker declared:

We are at a crossroads where the choices we make will mean we will fight religious exemptions for two to three years or have a protracted twenty-year struggle on our hands.

Despite the euphoric media reaction to “marriage equality” and the rush to enact the Equality Act before President Obama leaves office, the post-Obergefell trajectory will probably look less like a two-year dash to the finish line and more like the “protracted” timeline of post-Roe litigation and legislation. That is, the new “fundamental right” to same-sex marriage will be made to coexist alongside meaningful exceptions for religious dissenters.

I make this prediction for three reasons.  First, the vast majority of Abrahamic religious denominations in America—Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Jewish, Mormon, Muslim—continue to define marriage as the sacred union of one man and one woman, accounting for over 100 million Americans. For two millennia, Christians have based their definition of marriage on the “red letter” words of Jesus Christ, who incorporated ancient words from the Book of Genesis:

But from the beginning of creation, “God made them male and female.” “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” So they are no longer two but one flesh.

Whatever the faith-distinctive term—sacrament, covenant, kiddushinnikah—Americans in the growing Abrahamic denominations will continue to preach and seek to exercise their sincere religious belief that marriage is the sacred union of one man and one woman. Because marriage is a central tenet to all, religious liberty issues will persist and intensify in the post-Obergefell world.

Second, though politically potent in the short term, the analogy to interracial marriage is ahistorical and illogical. All of Christendom permitted interracial marriage until eighteenth-century slaveholders devised a political lie to suppress an inconvenient truth: one man and one woman can and do unite to create interracial children, so skin color is irrelevant to marriage.

Some southerners wrapped their racist politics in the rhetoric of religion, but an even larger coalition of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews brought an end to “racial purity” laws using direct appeals to shared religious principles. In fact, the very first case striking down an anti-miscegenation statute was brought by Roman Catholics who made religious liberty arguments against the state of California. Consequently, the “religious liberty equals racism” argument cannot withstand serious scrutiny.

Third, despite repeated attempts to meld the two into one “right side of history” campaign, the Sexual Revolution is not the Civil Rights Movement. Both started in the post-war boom and gained ground in the social upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s, but they share almost nothing else in common. They have different origins, different leaders, different objectives, and different legacies.

The former was rooted in the soil of the uniquely American Judeo-Christian tradition, spearheaded by Christian leaders, and was essentially “moderate” in its demands. It sought the restoration of civil rights won in the Civil War and ratified in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, with additional, necessary protections for the mediating institutions essential to the African-American community: family, home, church, school, and business. In this way, the Civil Rights Movement was like the American Revolution, seeking to restore rather than destroy.

The latter was rooted in the soil of elitist postmodern philosophy, spearheaded by secular libertines, and was essentially “radical” in its demands. It sought public affirmation of the lie that the human person is an autonomous blob of Silly Putty unconstrained by nature or biology, and that marriage, sexuality, gender identity, and even the unborn child must yield to the erotic desires of liberated adults. In this way, the Sexual Revolution was more like the French Revolution, seeking to destroy rather than restore.

The former has achieved near-absolute victory in winning over the hearts and minds of the American people. The latter is mired in a continuous culture war, pitting sexual liberty against religious liberty in fights over pornography, divorce, abortion, and HHS mandates. The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker are all forced into battle.

A Better Alternative

Polls now show that a majority of Americans favor sexual liberty and religious liberty. Because it decrees absolute victory for the sexual revolutionary without protecting the religious dissenter, the Equality Act is not a serious attempt to achieve equilibrium between the two.

In contrast, the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) does nothing to upset the holding in Obergefell but does prohibit the federal government from discriminating against persons who continue to believe in man-woman marriage. This gives real effect to the closing words of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.

FADA is a better start to the long road ahead.

_______________________

Matthew Kacsmaryk is Deputy General Counsel for the Liberty Institute in Dallas, Texas. He previously served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas.

This article was posted on Thursday, November 19th, 2015 at 3:09 pm and is filed under "Civil Unions" & "Gay Marriage", "Gay" Subversion of Institutions, "Sexual Orientation"/"Gender Identity" and the Law, Christian Persecution, Equality Act (Homosexual Superiority Act), Freedom Under Fire, News, Redefining Morality, Republican Party. You can follow any updates to this article through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Support Americans for Truth about Homosexuality

Americans for Truth
P.O. Box 5522
Naperville, IL 60567-5522


Americans for Truth Radio Hour

Americans for Truth Academy

Want to See Every New AFTAH Article?

If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.