Since the Republicans took control of the House in 2010, they have proclaimed their fervor for ensuring each and every bill’s need to meet constitutional muster.  That was well and good until their fears of “Sharia Law” somehow working our way into our legal or governmental processes reached a fever pitch.  Then add to that the end of Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell,  the onerous Hobby Lobby decision and two same sex marriage decisions handed down by SCOTUS and the Republican-led Congress has apparently gone totally bug-f#*k crazy.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 in last year’s Hobby Lobby  case held, and made it clear, for the first time, that closely held corporations, as well as individuals, can assert religious rights over others. In a 5-4 ideological decision, five conservative Justices ruled that RFRA gives some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage in their health insurance plans.

In my book, that decision is the equivalent of throwing our U.S. Constitution in the trash can and imposing the Republican Party’s own version of Religious law.  If they had taken the time to read the Constitution, they would know that the The First Amendment guarantees each and every one of us, freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.  It prohibits Congress from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” In other words, this clause not only forbids the government from establishing an “official religion,”  but it also prohibits government actions that would unduly favor one religion over another, or from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

The Hobby Lobby decision clearly preferences one religious belief (the employer corporation) over other’s religious beliefs (the female employees seeking contraceptive coverage).  Government (SCOTUS) just devised a religious test that women will fail each and every time their most like male employer claims a such coverage is against the “corporate” religion.  Excuse me, but a corporation is NOT flesh and blood, it does not bleed blood, it does not give birth, and it does not sit in the pews on Sunday mornings. A CEO might, but granting a CEO to exercise “superior” religious rights over others is well outside the bounds of our nation’s constitution.

But despite that bad ruling, we got two good rulings affecting marriage equality.  Republican minds across our vast nation began exploding. Incapable of reading their own Holy Bible to realize there is no definition of “marriage” as only between ONE man and ONE woman, they vowed to introduce legislation to assure those who believe as they do, they could exert their religious beliefs with impunity.  (King David had multiple wives; Moses also had more than one wife, not serially, but simultaneously)

Introduced now in Congress are two bills HR2802 (introduced in the House by Rep. Raúl Labrador [R-ID]) and S1598 (introduced in the Senate by Sen. Mike Lee [R-UT]), titled the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA).  Not to be outdone by SCOTUS, these bills are masterful works of “doublespeak” that would make it legal for the government to literally look the other way while leaders of for-profit or not-for-profit entities deny access to services merely because they don’t approve of same-sex marriage or sex outside of wedlock and want to hide their bigotry behind the cloak of religious freedom.

The first amendment to our U.S. Constitution needs no defending, plain and simple.  They’re not “defending” religious liberty, they’re devising a means to impose ONE person’s beliefs, claimed to be religious in nature, over another’s.  The “doublespeak” begins in the very first statement defining the purpose of the bill.

“To prevent discriminatory treatment of ANY person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage.” (emphasis mine)

But the doublespeak doesn’t stop there.  In “finding” number five, it declares:

“Laws that protect the free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions about marriage will encourage private citizens and institutions to demonstrate tolerance for those beliefs and convictions and therefore contribute to a more respectful, diverse, and peaceful society.”

Excuse me?  Allowing one person to impose their religious beliefs over those of another does NOT demonstrate tolerance, it breed rampant discrimination.  If a woman whose religious beliefs do not preclude sex outside of wedlock and is fully capable of performing her job, but is none the less fired by her boss because his religious beliefs preclude just because she became pregnant out of wedlock, that is discrimination based on a preference to the boss’ religion.  If a shelter turns away an abused spouse in a same-sex union because the shelter claims a “religious” exemption to providing services for a member of a same-sex marriage, that’s discrimination based on a preference to the shelter/manager’s religion.  If a pediatrician refuses to treat a child of a same-sex couple, that’s discrimination based on preferential treatment of the physician’s religion.  In each of these example cases, under FADA, the Government would be prohibited from taking any action to say, strip an entity of their non-exempt tax status, or hold the firm or an individual accountable for discriminatory actions.  In other words, our government would be supporting preferential treatment of certain people’s or corporate citizen’s religious beliefs while simultaneously denying support/relief to same-sex couples and unwed mothers whose religious beliefs were clearly trampled and negated.

FADA is nothing more than a means to codify religious bigotry and selective favoritism for folks who and entities with their brand of “moral convictions and beliefs” into Federal Law. By definition, that’s the equivalent of imposing Sharia Law or putting a Taliban style form of government in place. When will they reinstitute witch trials and pillories?  And just exactly from where would they draw their preferences upon which to base this new code of laws? The “New Republican Bible” and its perversion of the teachings of Jesus?  As I read the bill, it’s like the equivalent of taking the Indiana RFRA and dosing it up on steroids.  After all, the act is to be “construed in favor of a broad protection of free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions”  (as long  that “free exercise” complies with their adulterated brand of “Christian” beliefs), plus it broadly allows claims to be brought under this act for “actual” or “threatened” violations(?):

SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND MORAL CONVICTIONS.

(a) In General.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

(b) Discriminatory Action Defined.—As used in subsection (a), a discriminatory action means any action taken by the Federal Government to—

(1) alter in any way the Federal tax treatment of, or cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of, any person referred to in subsection (a);

(2) disallow a deduction for Federal tax purposes of any charitable contribution made to or by such person;

(3) withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any Federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or other similar position or status from or to such person;

(4) withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit under a Federal benefit program from or to such person; or

(5) otherwise discriminate against such person.

(c) Accreditation; Licensure; Certification.—The Federal Government shall consider accredited, licensed, or certified for purposes of Federal law any person that would be accredited, licensed, or certified, respectively, for such purposes but for a determination against such person wholly or partially on the basis that the person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

This bill, if passed by both the Republican-led House and the Republican-led Senate, rightfully deserves a huge red-inked VETO!