Comes with knowing that their valid marriages will remain legally protected under federal law. I want to thank senators collins, portman, sinema, and tillis for their leadership on this important issue, and i encourage the rest of my colleagues to please join us in supporting the passage of the bill. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield theing officer the senator from utah is recognized. Mr. Lee mr. President , the Supreme Courts decision in obergefell v. Hodges is the law of the land. A single line from a single concurring opinion does not make the case for legislation that seriously threatens religious liberty. The respect for marriage act is unnecessary. States are not denying recognition of samesex marriages and theres no serious risk of anyone losing recognition. Theres not a single piece of legislation im aware of moving through the congress or any state legislature to do the same. Look, the Supreme Court majority explicitly stated in its dobbs ruling earlier this year that the obergefell decision had no bearing on the recognition of samesex marriage. The proponents of this bill falsely claim that samesex marriage is under attack because Justice Thomas suggested, in a concurring opinion in dobbs, that the Supreme Court should take a closer look at all of its substantive due process jurisprudence. Not necessarily to strike down those rulings, but often to consider whether they should be premised on a different constitutional hook. The majority opinion is what matters, and its the one that a majority of the Supreme Court supports. Now, proponents of this bill pretend that the legislation would simply codify the status quo. I take exception to that because i dont think thats true. Even before we get to that issue, i think its important for us to think about what codifying obergefell on its own terms could mean. And why it is that we ought to look at steps to protect religious freedom in light of obergfell and in light of anything that powrts to codify obergfell purports to codify obergfell. I remember when the obergfell case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015, done verilli represented the United States government, then the obama administration, was arguing in court and justice alito, my former boss, interjected with a question, he asked if the Supreme Court of the United States recognized a right of samesex marriage throughout the United States, whether that with other precedent, read in context with other federal Service Rights protections, along with prior Supreme Court rulings. That might result in the risks of some nonprofits, including some schools and universities, being threatened with the loss of their tax exempt status. Mr. Verilli responded, yes, justice loot, thats not justice alito, that is not a problem. What he was acknowledging was that there is a real risk dealing with obergfell itself that unless we take steps to protect religious colleges, religious universities, other religious nonprofits, some of those might be threatened with the loss of their tax exempt status based solely on their religious beliefs about marriage, about what a marriage is and what it is not. Many in the immediate wake of obergfell came right out and purported to offer comfort to religious americans and religious institutions in america. Many came forward and said, this risk isnt going to materialize. As i recall, president obama said at the time im not going to force any church to perform a samesex marriage. Thats not how it happens. That isnt the risk. It never really was the risk. The risk is rather whether religious americans, whether acting individually or as a group, will be reretaliated against, denied some privilege or access under federal law to which they would otherwise have access based solely on a moral belief about the definition of marriage. That risk exists independent of this legislation. It has been enhanced by the obergfell ruling, and it would be materially enhanced if this legislation were to pass without corresponding necessary statutory protections for religious freedom. Indeed, Cardinal Timothy dolan of the United States States Conference of catholic bishops warns, as follows, quote, this bills harms would be farreaching. In any conflict with samesex civil marriage and the rights that flow from it it it will be said that Congress Took pains to codify obergfell, but not to protect the freedoms of speech and religion that obergfell harms, making them secondclass rights. In other words, this bill only makes things worse. This bill takes the preexisting risks presented by obergfell itself and enhances them, expands them especially because by protecting one set of interests, those identified in obergfell in the decision itself, but doing nothing to address the corresponding enhanced risk we presenting for religious freedom, it makes for a very, very significant concern. He continues, quote, the bill will be a new arrow in the quiver of those who wish to deny religious organizations liberty to freely exercise their religious duties. Strip them of their Tax Exemptions or seclude them from full exclude them from full participation in the public arena. Close quote. This bill, this bill that has been brought before us, will, unless modified as necessary, result in three significant problems. First, the bill will label people of faith with differing views on marriage influenced by their religious belief and moral convictions as bigots. Second, the bills private right of action will subject them with litigation. It will further deny their Constitutional Rights to live according to their religious beliefs. This is what happens when we allow for the free exercise of religion to be chilled by such action. Third, the bill will put in jeopardy the work and existence of religiously minded social agencies, occasional institutions, and other nonprofits as their tax exempt status will be threatened. Mr. President , our country was founded on the principle that government should not interfere with the ability of people of faith or of people of no or of people of no faith at all to practice their religion and to live by the tenets of their own faith in their daily lives. Of course this can and should be done without interfering with the right of other people to live their lives. Thats what we expect. In fact, every time we as americans seek to protect freedoms, liberty, whether through adoption of the First Amendment or the adoption of in the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, for example, or anywhere else, we seek to do it in a way that doesnt create a zerosum gain, enhancing the rights of some while diminishing the rights of others. Thats not who we are. Thats not how we roll. Thats not how our constitutional framework was ever intended to function. It is antithetical to who we aim to be. This bill elevates the rights of one group and it does so at the expense of another, and it does so needlessly, mr. President , as there is a way to accommodate both interests, but that way isnt pursued by the authors of this bill. Many, including some on the left, want to label people who disagree with them on marriage as bigots and force them, in this instance through endless litigation and threats, to comply with the beliefs of the left and renounce their genuine sincere religious beliefs. Proponents of this bill claim that this substitute amendment, we saw for the first time just a few days ago, somehow fixes all the krns concerns concerns raised by those with religious liberty. They are wrong. They are sadly mistaken. The amendments narrow protections for people of faith applied to only limited circumstances, for example, to the solemnization and celebration of marriages, that protection and a few others, are severely anemic when viewed against the backdrop of the threat to religious freedom presented by this bill. Indeed, these changes brought about by the most recent amendment do nothing to prohibit the already existing, already mounting threat of government discrimination against individuals and organizations who hold traditional views regarding marriage, a risk that is materially enhanced by this legislation and all that will flow from it. For example, Catholic Charities and other religious adoption agencies could be shut out of foster care and adoption ministries due to discriminatory government policies, policies that discriminate against them specifically because of their religious beliefs. The bill will only exacerbate what is already occurring in illinois, massachusetts, california, and the district of columbia, potentially making this a nationwide trend. The conference of catholic bishops, provide foster care for unaccompanied refugee minors will be even more at risk than it is right now. The amendment will put religiously affiliated schools the legislation itself will will put religiously affiliated schools and faithbased organizations and others who hold traditional views of marriage at even more risk of being compelled to hire or retain employees that contradict their beliefs. Wedding vendors will be subject to increased lawsuits, harassments based on their religious beliefs and their desires to live their lives according to their beliefs. This includes small and family owned businesses, including religious businesses like kosher indicatorrers caterers. Nonprofits face potential relocation of their taxexempt status based on their religious beliefs at a time when we added 187,000 new irs agents, we shouldnt give them an opportunity to it will form the bedrock of some of our most important institutions. The bills proponents claim that they want to protect religious liberty and that their most recent amendment does that, but they refuse to adopt my amendment or anything like it that would prohibit the federal government from discriminating against people or organizations who have traditional views on marriage based on religious beliefs and moral convictions. In many instances, they claim that the most recent amendment, in fact, does that or they at least suggests that, the language of the most recent amendment even reads as if it might be going in that direction, but a closer inspection reveals that alas it does not. It does no such thing. By suggesting it doesnt do anything to alter tax revoked status under federal law, that the bill itself doesnt do that. It ignores the fact that this bill sets in motions keeps in motions and accelerates existing threats to religious freedom and to the relocation of tax exempt status for broad categories of nonprofits based on religious beliefs. It is disingenuous to suggest that this halts government from doing what i warn here. This amendment does not do that. Which begs the question why. Why wouldnt they accept it . Importantly, my proposed amendment places no restrictions on individuals or even on state or local governments. It simply prohibits the federal government from discriminating against individuals or organizations that have beliefs that marriage is and should be a marriage between a man and a woman. Thats all. What i dont understand is why i colleagues claim to want to protect religious liberty and uphold the First Amendment and in fact claim that their amendment essentially does that while simultaneously poafg my amendment opposing my amendment so vigorously. I think we all know the answer to that question. The bill pays lip service to protecting religious liberty but does not even begin to address the serious, egregious and likely threats to religious liberty presented by this bill, those with differing views and beliefs cant exist in the United States without threatening the constitutionally protected rights of one group, rights on which our country was founded to score political points. You see, mr. President , thats the beauty of america. Our Founding Fathers believed strongly that all religious beliefs should be protected, not just those favored by those in charger of government. Its yet another reason why when we approach rights through legislation in the United States senate, and as americans more broadly, when we protect rights, we know that we have a duty, an obligation, and an ability to secure those rights that were trying to secure in a way that doesnt undermined the rights of others. The fact that one group of americans might have more Political Support for a particular right and protecting that right doesnt make it okay within our system, within our culture, within our traditions to undermine the rights of others, and that is exactly what we are facing here. The good news is we can fix it. We can fix it. It is easy to amend this thing in a way that doesnt have to be this way. I have yet to hear anymy democratic or republican colleagues who any of my democratic or republican colleagues who support the bill say that they want the federal government to be able to go out and threaten the relocation of tax exempt status in order to punish religious beliefs with i which they with which they disagree, i have yet to hear a single run or republican or senate in the house or senate or anyone else in this town, i have yet to thearm say, them say, yeah, that is what we want to do. Most say, no. Most of those said we are taken care of that with this amendment. If that is true, lets adopt my amendment. If you want to write out another version, thats fine, too. But they shouldnt be able to punish religious belief. Thats all i want, a protection saying the federal government may not punish any individual or entity based on a religious or moral convictionbased belief about marriage. That is not too much to ask. If you ask any american citizen whether that was reasonable, shoot, if you asked any member of this body in public whether thats fair and reasonable, i think theyd have to say yes because it is. Look, when legislation goes through this body and through this congress in the proper way, we have a better chance of ironing out these details, of making sure that were not expanding the zone of protecting rights and interests of some at the expense of others. We do that pretty well. Mr. President , you and i serve together on the judiciary committee. Thats the committee of jurisdiction for legislation like this. This legislation should have gone through the judiciary committee, and yet we have not held a single hearing on it. We have not marked up this bill in judiciary. We havent independently voted on this bill in the judiciary committee. In fact, it hasnt been through any Committee Process in the senate, that im a wear of that im aware of it. If it had, the kind of work we would have put into it and the kind of carefully crafted language we could have produced as a result of it, im confident we could and would have and definitely should have worked this out in committee, had we had the opportunity to do so. Now, this legislation bypasses committees. Sometimes that happens. I understand that it happens from time to time. Its usually a very unfortunate thing when it does. But when it does, it does not excuse us from the obligation to try to replicate that process by at least making sure is that were not harming other people outside the immediate zone of intended protected beneficiaries of the legislation in question. Thats all im asking for here, and it isnt too much to s to ask. States and the federal government can and surely will continue to recognize the validity of samesex marriages, and they can do so without trampling on the firstamendment rights of those who believe in traditional marriage. Thats in a means to live in a pleuralis stick society. Thats what it means to live in a society where we respect each others differences, we a how each other to be who we are, live how we choose to live. That cant be done unless we allow each other to believe as we believe and not retaliate against others simply because they believe differently than we do. Americans of good faith can continue to live by their own religion and daily life by living as they do and doing so without posing any threat to those who disagree with them. Im confident of that a but this bill, mr. President , does not strike that balance. It purports to do so, and it fails. It labels people of good faith as bigots and subjects them to legislation and threats by that same government that was founded to protect their religious liberty. Mr. President , lets do this the right way, not the wrong way. We need to protect religious freedom. This bill doesnt do that. It places it in grave jeopardy. Lets fix the problem. Thank you, mr. President
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.