Thread by @ekniffin

There have been a lot of misleading claims made by #ReligiousFreedom proponents in favor of the #RespectForMarriageAct. Two stand out to me as most troubling:

First, it's claimed that relig. groups should be glad that RFMA, with the Collins' Am., affirms that people who believe in traditional marriage are "reasonable and sincere" and their convictions are "based on decent and honorable religious...premises."

Good news, right?

But that's NOT what it says. The bill does not say these things about ppl who believe in "traditional marriage," but about ppl who believe "diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage." Such people are, RFMA says, "due proper respect."

But there are lots of "diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage" that are not "due proper respect." Which ones get respect, which ones don't? And what kind of respect is "proper" to these "diverse beliefs"? RFMA doesn't say.

If those behind the #RespectForMarriageAct wanted to protect those who believe in "traditional marriage," it would have been so easy to do. They could have done what they've *claimed* to do: just repeat what the Supreme Court said in Obergefell:

The Sup. Ct. said:

The belief that marriage is a “gender-differentiated union of man and woman” is held “in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.”

The Sup. Ct. said:

“Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.”

The supposedly great language in #RespectForMarriageAct does NOT say what the Sup. Ct. said in Obergefell, and that is deeply troubling. And telling.

Second, #RespectForMarriageAct *twice* places same-sex marriage and interracial marriage on par with each other:

"interracial and same-sex couples"

preventing discrimination in marriage "on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origins of those individuals."

To my knowledge, this will be the first time that same-sex marriage and interracial marriage will be set next to each other in federal law.

This is a big deal...

For more than a decade, long before Obergefell, progressives have been pressing the analogy between LGBT rights and race.

And we know where this analogy goes... race-based discrim is so noxious that govt has a compelling interest in banishing it from the public square.

And, by pressing this comparison, the left is laying the groundwork for further arguments that those "who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong" are not "decent and honorable," as the Sup Ct said, but are bigots acting contrary to public policy.

That's what the Solicitor General under Obama meant when he admitted, in the Obergefell oral argument, that the question of nonprofit tax status for religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage was “certainly going to be an issue... I don't deny that.”

Indeed, two days after Obergefell, NYT religion columnist Mark Oppenheimer called for an end to tax exemptions for religious orgs that opposed same-sex marriage.

time.com/3939143/nows-t…

The race analogy doesn't just show up in the @nytimes or @TIME. It was also employed by the Washington Sup Ct against Arlene's Flowers, which served same-sex couples but just objected to helping celebrate a same-sex wedding.

In rejecting Arlene's Flowers' relig lib claim, the Wash Sup Ct made a direct analogy to the civil rights era, asserting that “[w]e agree with [the plaintiffs] that this case is no more about access to flowers than civil rights cases in the 1960s were about access to sandwiches.”

Even if the relig lib protections in the Collins' Am to the #RespectForMarriageAct were strong (they aren't), they won't come close to offsetting the damage that will be caused by Congress making it easier for RL opponents to make the LGBT-race analogy.

I understand that the religious groups pushing #RespectForMarriageAct believe that this bill is the best they can do, and that on the whole it's a deal worth making. I don't doubt their sincerity. But in making this pitch, they shouldn't duck the harms this bill will create.

These aren't the only things wrong with #RespectForMarriageAct, but this thread's long enough already. Others and I will be keeping track of the *predictable harms* that this law will create and will hold religious groups and legislators accountable for their endorsements.