Stu writes for freedom : Support The First Amendment Defense Act (H. R. 2802) - Sent to Rep. Peter Welch

Stu writes for freedom : Support The First Amendment Defense Act (H. R. 2802) - Sent to Rep. Peter Welch

Dear Representative Welch,

Responding to the Supreme Court ruling last month legalizing same-sex
marriage, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) has introduced the First Amendment
Defense Act (FADA, H. R. 2802). This bill is a religious-freedom bill
banning the federal government from punishing churches, charities, and
private schools for actions in opposition to same-sex marriage. For
example, under FADA the government could not legally revoke the tax
exempt status of churches that refuse to perform same-sex weddings
because of their religious beliefs, nor could it could not deny federal
grants or contracts to individuals or institutions (such as food banks
or adoption agencies) that don't believe in same-sex marriage. And it
will protect Christian radio and television stations that are licensed
by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to use the public
airwaves (already there are people urging the FCC to revoke these
licenses). Finally, it would put an end to the flagrant violation of
business owner rights by barring lawsuits and criminal charges against
individuals that refuse to endorse homosexual marriage via their work
product (e.g., wedding photographers, custom cake makers, floral
arrangers, etc.).

Many Republicans "say" they hope to pass FADA before they head home and
face constituents at August town halls, but they need to be prodded to
actually get moving. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who
controls the House floor schedule, has given no indication he'll
schedule a vote in the remaining three weeks before the House leaves
town for the long August recess. This leads me to believe that
rank-and-file Republicans are lying about their commitment to passing FADA.

The recent Supreme Court decision mandating State recognition of
homosexual "marriage" (Obergefell v. Hodges) is a violation of
federalism. Nowhere in Article 1, Section 8 does the Constitution grant
the federal government the enumerated power to promulgate domestic
social law. Since such power is not Constitutionally denied to the
States, it is the State legislatures that Constitutionally have sole
legal jurisdiction over the definition of marriage. Note that this is
absolutely not a civil rights issue calling for federal nullification of
State law - sexual orientation is neither immutable nor a birth
condition, and thus is outside the purview of federal special class law
and the Civil Rights Act.

Obergefell v. Hodges is a Constitutional abomination that I suspect many
States will nullify over time via State Sovereignty Acts. In the
interim, we need federal conscience protections from Congress to protect
individuals, businesses, churches, charities, schools, advocacy groups,
and media outlets from the inevitable resulting mass erosion of First
Amendment rights of people and organizations of faith. The radical
Homosexual Lobby wants much more than the right to marry (a privilege
which it doesn't even legally have unless the operant State legislature
grants it) - they are demanding that individuals and organizations of
faith support and implicitly endorse gay marriage, under threat of
severe civil and criminal penalties. This is a violation of First
Amendment freedom of speech and expression that as a society we cannot
tolerate.

Your position on whether or not Vermont should permit gay marriage is
not the issue here. The issue is simply this - First Amendment freedoms
of speech, expression, and religion are not confined to the home and the
church. Our Founders in fact expressly intended that all American law
comport with Biblical ethical doctrine, making the Bible higher in
American legal precedence than the Constitution and even the Declaration
of Independence. "Separation of church and State" (the Constitution's
Establishment Clause) was constructionistly intended only to protect the
church from the state - there was never any originalist intent that it
protect the state from the church. Hence modern secular humanist
arguments that religion has no place in the public squares of commerce
and government have no factual basis in Constitutional law,
constructionistly interpreted - such beliefs are merely revisionist
"hope items" of radical left wing voters and government officials.

For all the reasons above, I respectfully request that you cosponsor the
First Amendment Defense Act (H. R. 2802), as well as push as hard as you
can on Majority Leader McCarthy to bring FADA up for a House floor vote
before the August recess. FADA is a desperately needed interim measure
to protect First Amendment rights until the States have enough time to
enact nullification laws interposing against Obergefell v. Hodges.

In Liberty,