[jwplayer Rsj6ZSqq]
WASHINGTON – While the mainstream media have focused on what the upcoming Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage will mean to the LGBT community, U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, is calling attention to what it could mean for much of the rest of America, especially schools and religious institutions.
The senator told WND, if the justices legalize “gay” marriage, it could lead to the closing of numerous schools and possibly churches, although he certainly hoped it would not come that. But the prospect is why he will introduce legislation to guarantee religious liberties.
At issue is a statement that many find chilling, made by President Obama’s representative at the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.
During oral arguments on Obergfell v. Hodges in April, Solicitor Verrilli conceded to Justice Samuel Alito that, should same-sex marriage be legalized, religious schools that do not accept a new definition of marriage would be in danger of losing their tax-exempt non-profit status.
“It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that,” were Verrilli’s exact words. “I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue.”
Lee will introduce legislation to protect the First Amendment rights of those institutions and individuals who would not accept a definition of marriage other than one of a union between a man and a woman.
The bill was called the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act in the last session of Congress, and Lee said it is undergoing a few minor tweaks before it is reintroduced.
The senator said it is needed to protect people from discrimination by the federal government and told WND he is getting solid support from his colleagues in Congress.
He will release a list of co-sponsors when the bill is submitted.
Lee told WND he hopes it will get widespread support because protecting First Amendment rights should be a nonpartisan issue.
He said when people began becoming aware of the potential problem, and that such religious discrimination could really happen with far-reaching effects, his colleagues realized it was an issue they would have to address.
The senator told those gathered in his office for a news conference that he would hope President Obama would keep his promise to not force churches to perform same-sex marriages.
But much of the focus of the news conference was on the possible effect on schools.
President of Union University Dr. Samuel Oliver got right to the point, declaring, “We will not jettison our beliefs for any tax benefits.”
Oliver said legalizing same-sex marriage could threaten the financial viability of 29,000 K-12 schools and 1,700 colleges and universities with religious affiliations.
Travis Weber, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, told WND the closing of those schools was a real possibility.
He said the solicitor general’s comment was a strong indication the Obama administration will take action against religious schools, if the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage.
[jwplayer inwGVAvf]
Dr. Jerry Johnson, president of the National Religious Broadcasters and former president of Criswell College, expressed concern that schools might not be the only groups to lose the tax-exempt status, but religious broadcasters and 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations might be targeted, too.
He also noted that religious liberties, unlike sexual liberties, or even marriage, were specifically guaranteed by the Constitution.
And, he called forcing students to attend secular schools “a form of mind control,” should their religious schools be forced to close.
Lee was asked if his bill would resemble Indiana’s religious liberty law, which critics claimed harmed homosexuals.
The senator said no, his bill was narrowly targeted and would simply prevent the government from taking action against any individual or institution based on their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
He was asked if the White House had indicated if the president would sign the bill if it passed, and replied, “No.”
Less said discrimination by individuals was bad enough, but it was totally unacceptable for the government to practice discrimination.
“That’s why we need this law to protect people against government discrimination.”
Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth
