Pirate's Cove

Right off the bat, voting for it is politically smart. Sure, you might annoy Conservatives and Conservative groups, but, come on, they’ll still vote GOP. But, as a sense of the nation, you’ll be showing those squishy Republicans, Democrats, and those in the Independent group that the GOP is not stuck in the 1940’s. However, should there even be a vote? This is not a power assigned to the federal government by the Constitution. It is up to the States. And any legislation passed by the federal Congress has the potential to force states, via the 14th Amendment

Same-sex marriage legislation divides conservatives ahead of vote next week

The Senate has advanced the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) past a key obstacle, overcoming the filibuster with 62 votes last week, including from 12 Republicans. The legislation is expected to receive a final vote next week.

There is some complaining on the left about the bill from voices with large audiences on social media. But by and large, the major LGBTQ advocacy groups back the bill.

And even among those who have criticized the RFMA, there is general agreement that they want the legislation to become law.

A big problem with the legislation is that it would allow the federal government to discriminate against those groups, such as churches and religious schools, who are against same sex marriage.

But on the right, opinions of the legislation are split. There is a coalition of religious groups that back the bill, or that back the religious liberty provisions and want the bill to pass despite their belief that their faith teachings do not allow them to support gay marriage.

This group includes the National Association of Evangelicals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, the And Campaign and the 1st Amendment Partnership.

Really, this is America, and if 2 adults want to get married, I do not care what their sexual orientation. Why do I care? Doesn’t harm my life

And in fact there is vociferous resistance to the marriage legislation from a number of prominent social conservatives, and the opposition of many is absolute. This group includes the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Franklin Graham of Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Al Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Ryan T. Anderson at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Missouri Baptist Convention and other figures who work for institutions like the Heritage Foundation, Alliance Defending Freedom and World magazine, an evangelical publication.

Anderson outlined the absolutist case against the Senate bill last week.

“Marriage is a natural and supernatural institution before it is a political institution. Human law should reflect the natural law and eternal law. No Senator should vote to allow the government to redefine what marriage is,” Anderson tweeted.

Good point. Marriage is a religious institution. Now, there is civil unions, which is a government institution, and government should allow it.

When Anderson was asked on Twitter if he would support a bill with even more expansive protections for religious freedom along the lines of an amendment proposed by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, he said he would not, even though he favored the Lee amendment and said it offered “meaningful religious liberty protections.”

The Lee amendment, actually called the First Amendment Defense Act, which notes

What is FADA?
The First Amendment Defense Act would prevent the federal government from discriminating against individuals and institutions based on their definition of marriage or beliefs about premarital sex.

Why is FADA needed?
Without FADA, federal bureaucrats are free to punish individuals or institutions that have a different definition of marriage than they do. For example, during oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges, President Obama’s Solicitor General admitted that, if the Court found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the IRS might subsequently deny tax-exempt status to any religious school that wanted to continue operating in accordance with their belief in the traditional definition of marriage. Just as Congress protected people from being punished for declining to participate in abortions after Roe v Wade, the First Amendment Defense Act prevents people from being punished for their beliefs about marriage.

In other words, it supports the federal government recognizing same sex marriage, but, will not allow the federal government to punish those who do not agree. Also, the text seems to focus on this all only applying to the federal government operations, not those of the States. Of course Democrats do not like this.

Anyhow, it is a very long piece, worth the read. It should be noted that

Polls show more than 70% of Americans now support marriage equality — an inverse from the 70% who opposed when the Defense of Marriage Act first passed.

So, should Republicans vote for this? Interestingly, Democrats were freaked out and started pushing this legislation again over what Justice Thomas wrote about revisiting the previous Court ruling on gay marriage, unwinding previous over-reaches of the 14th Amendment, and, come on, the chances of seeing it argued and overturning that ruling are slim. But, by passing the RFMA, it could lead to lawsuits that actually make it to the Court since it would violate the 1st Amendment religious beliefs of many Americans and groups.

Read: Conundrum: Should Republicans Vote In Favor Of Respect For Marriage Act? »