As of this writing, 85 national and state organizations—including the Illinois Family Institute (IFI)—have signed a letter written by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and sent to U. S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell denouncing the ironically named “Respect for Marriage Act” (H.R. 8404)” and urging him and U.S. Senate colleagues to reject it.

H.R. 8404, which repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, is an attack on the religious liberty of people of faith and will inevitably lead to a further degradation of marriage and the nuclear family. America will not be able to survive further degradation of liberty, marriage, and the nuclear family.

The bill has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives aided and abetted by 47 GOP turncoats who are either too cowardly or too ignorant to oppose the Dis-Respect for Marriage Act. Those U.S. House turncoats include Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, Rodney Davis, Tom Emmer (chair of National Republican Congressional Committee), Darrell Issa, Elise Stefanik (U.S. House Republican Conference chair), and Lee Zeldin (New York gubernatorial candidate).

In the U.S. Senate, H.R. 8404 will need 10 GOP turncoats, and U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)—always a reliable turncoat—has said, “I think we’re very close.”

As IFI has historically warned, citizens must pay more attention to how the language of a proposed law could be interpreted and applied than how the bill’s sponsors claim it will be applied. For example, H. R. 8404’s supporters claim that the Dis-Respect for Marriage Act will merely codify federal protections for existing same-sex marriages in the event that the right to define marriage (rightfully) returns to the states.

Turncoat Collins deceitfully claims that “this bill is very straightforward. … All it does is put into federal law the protection for the million same-sex marriages that are out there today.”

Well, that is decidedly not all that the Dis-Respect for Marriage Act will do if it becomes law.

As I recently wrote,

[T]he Disrespect for Marriage Act recognizes in federal law “any marriage that is valid under state law.”

This means that once Utah, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, or any other nutty state recognizes plural unions as marriages, the federal government will be forced to recognize plural unions as marriages.

While there is a provision requiring states to recognize marriages from other states, that provision specifically limits the type of marriages that must be recognized to those composed of two people. No such limit is placed on the federal government in the Disrespect for Marriage Act.

The Dis-Respect for Marriage Act requires the federal government to recognize any type of union legally recognized as a “marriage” in any state, and if leftists can redefine “woman” to include men, imagine the bizarre ways they will redefine “marriage.”

If one state were to recognize plural relationships, incestuous relationships, platonic friendships, or adult-minor relationships as legal “marriages,” the federal government would be required to do so also.

Further, the Dis-Respect for Marriage Act states the following:

No person acting under color of State law may deny full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex … of those individuals; or a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex … of those individuals.

ADF explains that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the term “under color of State law” “might apply where an organization participates in a joint activity with a state, is performing a function traditionally performed by the government, or when its operations are entwined with government policies.”

ADF clarifies how leftists will use the Dis-Respect for Marriage Act to erode the liberty of people of faith and faith-based organizations:

• “Faith-based foster care providers who are alleged to be performing a state function through child placement services” could be sued if they adhere to their belief that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman.

• “Religious social service organizations that are heavily funded by and work jointly with the government to serve their communities” could be sued if they adhere to their belief that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman.

• “[R]eligious organizations and businesses that provide services under contract with the government” could be sued if they adhere to their belief that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman.

• “The Internal Revenue Service could rely on this congressional declaration requiring full recognition of same-sex marriage to strip 501(c)(3) organizations [like IFI] of their tax-exempt status if they continue to adhere to their belief that marriage is only between one man and one woman.”

The passage of the corrosive H.R. 8404 would be a disaster for children, families, religious liberty, and the nation. The arc of the moral universe in America is being bent backwards toward evil, and the only political party that has been standing for truth is bending too.

Take ACTION: H.R. 8404 may be taken up in the U.S. Senate soon**. Please take a moment to speak out to our two U.S. Senators to urge them to vote to protect the Defense of Marriage Act and vote NO to H.R. 8404. Remind them, “The government has no interest in inherently non-reproductive types of relationships. The government has no more interest in inherently non-reproductive erotic relationships than it does in platonic friendships.”

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin
https://www.durbin.senate.gov/contact/email
Phone: (202) 224-2152

U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth
https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/connect/email-tammy
Phone: (202) 224-2854

Please send a message and then follow up with a phone.

**UPDATE: According to various news sources, the U.S. Senate vote on H.R. 8404 has been pushed back to September.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Letter-to-Leader-McConnell-on-marriage.mp3

Read More:

Disney Signs Open Letter Supporting Respect for Marriage Act (Yahoo News)

Same-Sex Marriage Bill Aims ‘to Crush Anyone Who Opposes Belief in Gay Marriage’ (The Washington Stand)

Susan Collins Signals Manchin-Schumer Deal Could Thwart Gay Marriage Bill (MSN)

Respect for Marriage Act Will Usher In ‘New Era of Oppression’ for Christians (The Washington Stand)

Because the Republican platforms over the years have been much closer to my values than the Democratic platforms, I have voted Republican for as long as I can remember. But when it comes to bringing about moral and cultural change in America, I do not look to a political party. Not a chance. There is moral compromise in both major parties, and the battle we are fighting for the soul of the nation is a spiritual battle long before it is a political battle. The recent U.S. House vote to codify same-sex “marriage” was yet another reminder for us.

As reported by Fox News on July 19, “A vote to codify same-sex marriage into federal law split U.S. House Republicans on Tuesday, with roughly a third of the GOP conference voting with Democrats in favor and the rest opposing.

“In a 267-157 vote, the House passed legislation repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and enshrining protections for gay marriage into federal law. Overall, 47 House Republicans voted with nearly every single Democrat to back the measure, dubbed the Respect for Marriage Act.”

Let that sink in for a moment.

It is bad enough that this bill is called the “Respect for Marriage Act,” seeing that the “marriage” of which it speaks represents a radical and fundamental redefining of the institution of marriage.

And it is to the shame of the Democratic Party that “nearly every single Democrat” voted in favor of the measure.

But it is no surprise that the Democrats voted this way, seeing that they are overtly and proudly pro-LGBTQ+. Perhaps the only surprise is that there were any who did not toe the line.

But for 47 Republicans to vote this way, representing almost 25 percent of all Republicans in the House, is both surprising and shameful.

That’s because the Republican Party is supposed to be the pro-life, pro-family party, the party that upholds traditional Judeo-Christian values. Why else do so many conservative Christians vote Republican if not for these core moral and social values?

The fact is that the redefining of marriage by the Supreme Court in 2015 represents one of the most radical social developments in our nation’s history, fundamentally changing the meaning and purpose of marriage.

In fact, the same Barack Obama who lit up the White House in rainbow colors to celebrate the 2015 ruling is the same person who said while campaigning in 2008 that, as a Christian, he believed marriage was the union of one man and one woman.

Not only so, but Proposition 8, which was on the ballot in 2008 in California and which upheld the historic definition of marriage, was passed with the help of the large turnout of African American voters. They voted for Barack Obama, but in keeping with their largely conservative family values, they voted for Proposition 8. In their mind, the man they were voting for shared their views.

That’s how dramatically and quickly the tide changed in our nation, from candidate Obama affirming male-female marriage to President Obama shifting his views already in his first term.

That’s part of the reason we find ourselves in the midst of such cultural madness today, where the very meaning of “woman” is hotly debated, where medical websites use acronyms such as AFAB and AMAB (meaning, assigned female at birth and assigned male at birth) rather than “female” and “male,” and where even the Merriam-Webster dictionary has expanded its definition of “female.”

The normalizing of same-sex “marriage” simply represented the proverbial camel’s nose entering the tent, to be followed by: 1) the amping up of radical trans activism in the schools, in the workplace, on TV and social media, and in sports; 2) the rise of drag queens, to the point that the American Library Association endorses drag queens reading stories to little children in libraries; 3) the increasing marginalization of those holding to conservative Christian values on both grass roots and legal levels.

In fact, if I provided links just to my relevant articles on these subjects over the last 7 years (since Obergefell), this entire page (literally) would be filled with “see here and here and here . . . .” The list is almost endless. (For the moment, if you want devastating proof of #3 in the list, above, go here.)

Really now, redefining marriage was not even on the radar for leading gay activists just a few decades ago, since under no circumstances was a cultural shift of this enormity even envisioned. Yet here we stand today, when 47 Republicans voted to codify this radical redefinition of our most fundamental social institution.

Again, as I have said many times, by saying this, I do not mean that gay couples do not love each other deeply. And I do not deny that many of them are incredibly devoted parents. I simply mean that marriage throughout history, with the rarest and slightest exceptions (like Nero marrying a man who took on female characteristics), has always been the union of a male and female. And from a biblical perspective, the idea of two men or two women marrying would be utterly abhorrent.

For 47 House Republicans to vote to protect this new version of “marriage” is deplorable (in the worst sense of the word), regardless of what Republican Senators decide to do.

And it is another reminder that, while I continue to prefer Republican policies to Democrat policies, by and large, I absolutely do not look to either party to be major agents of righteous moral and cultural change. That remains the calling of the Church and the role of the gospel.

As I argue in my forthcoming book, The Political Seduction of the Church, to confuse the role of politics with the role of the gospel is a fatal mistake. We cannot afford to make it again.

Read more:

Two Lame Duck Republicans from Illinois Vote Against Marriage (Illinois Family Action)

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Since the unconstitutional Roe was overturned, leftists have been roiling in rage at the thought that states are now free to enact the will of the people with regard to killing humans in the womb. In his concurrence, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued that three other Supreme Court cases should be revisited in that they too lacked constitutional grounding—an argument made also by the esteemed Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork.

One of the decisions Thomas believes should be revisited is the Obergefell decision that imposed same-sex “marriage” on the entire country, robbing states—that is, the people—of their right to decide if intrinsically non-marital relationships should be legally recognized as marriages. And so, leftists livid at the prospect of diverse states one day being free to enact marriage laws in accordance with the will of the people, are trying to take that right away preemptively through federal legislation.

This week the U.S. House of Representatives passed the laughably named “Respect for Marriage Act” (H.R. 8404)—a bill that doesn’t merely disrespect marriage; it is hostile to marriage. The bill, which would overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, now goes to the U.S. Senate.

Forty-seven Republicans voted for it, including Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, Rodney Davis, Tom Emmer (chair of National Republican Congressional Committee), Darrell Issa, Elise Stefanik (U.S. House Republican Conference chair), and Lee Zeldin. Any Republican who doesn’t understand the essential role of the nuclear family—that is, mother, father, and children—to the health and future of any society doesn’t deserve to serve in government.

The Defense of Marriage Act—which all U.S. House Democrats and 47 “Republicans” detest—defines marriage in federal law “as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex.” In contrast, the Disrespect for Marriage Act recognizes in federal law “any marriage that is valid under state law.”

Note that this means that once Utah, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, or any other nutty state recognizes plural unions as marriages, the federal government will be forced to recognize plural unions as marriages.

While there is a provision requiring states to recognize marriages from other states, that provision specifically limits the type of marriages that must be recognized to those composed of two people. No such limit is placed on the federal government in the Disrespect for Marriage Act.

While some naïfs among us may view this as an oversight, others see it as intentional—an interim step to the legal recognition of plural unions from sea to darkening sea.

Marriage is something. It has a nature. And words have meanings.

As I wrote four years ago, let’s try a little thought experiment. Let’s imagine that now, after legally recognizing intrinsically non-marital same-sex unions as “marriages,” society notices that there remains a unique type of relationship that is identified by the following features: it is composed of two people of major age who are not closely related by blood, are of opposite sexes, and engage in the only kind of sexual act that is naturally procreative. We decide that as language-users there must be a term to identify this particular, commonplace, and cross-cultural type of relationship. Let’s call it “huwelijk.”

In this thought experiment in which the term “marriage” would denote the union of two people of the same sex and “huwelijk” would denote the union of two people of opposite sexes—both of which provide the same legal protections, benefits, and obligations—does anyone believe that homosexuals would accept such a distinction?

Homosexuals would not accept such a linguistic distinction. They would not accept it even if they enjoyed all the practical benefits society historically accorded to sexually complementary couples and even if their unions were legally recognized as marriages.

Homosexuals would not tolerate such a legal distinction because their tyrannical quest for universal approval of homoerotic relationships cannot be achieved unless they obliterate all distinctions—including linguistic distinctions—between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions. Homosexuals—whose unions are naturally sterile—would not tolerate any term that signifies the naturally procreative union between one man and one woman.

Severing marriage from both biological sex and reproductive potential renders marriage irrelevant as a public institution. The most salient aspects of marriage as an institution sanctioned by the government are not subjective feelings of affection and sexual attraction. The government has no vested interest in the private subjective feelings of marriage partners.

The government has a vested interest in the public good. What serves the public good is the welfare of future generations. And what best serves future generations is providing for the needs and protecting the rights of children, which includes their right to be raised by a mother and father, preferably their own biological parents.

If marriage were solely a private institution concerned only with emotional attachments and sexual desire, as homosexuals claim it is, then there would be no reason for the government to be involved. There would be no more justification for government regulation of marriage than there is for government regulation of platonic friendships. And there would be no legitimate reason to prohibit plural marriages.

If the claim of homosexuals that marriage has no intrinsic, necessary, and rational connection to the biological sex of partners or to reproductive potential are true, then there remains no rational basis for the belief that marriage has anything to do with romantic or erotic feelings.

Why is marriage any longer conceived of as a romantic and erotic union? If marriage is severed from biological sex and from reproductive potential and if love is love, then why can’t a loving platonic relationship between three BFF’s be recognized as a marriage? Why can’t the platonic relationship between a 40-year-old soccer coach and his 13-year-old soccer star be deemed a marriage? If “progressives” can jettison the single most enduring and cross-cultural feature of marriage—sexual differentiation—then on what basis can they conceptually retain any other feature, including the notion that marriage is a romantic/erotic union? While eroticism may be important to intimate partners, of what relevance is naturally sterile erotic activity to the government’s interest in marriage as now construed?

When Leftists assert that “love is love,” they really mean that the moral status of erotic activity between two men or two women is no different from the moral status of sexual activity between a man and a woman. If the claim that “love is love,” is true, then there is no rational basis for thinking that there exist types of relationships in which eroticism has no legitimate place. If that’s the case, then why isn’t it morally permissible for all types of relationships to include erotic activity? If all loving relationships are identical (i.e., “love is love”), then why can’t all loving relationships include erotic activity? And if love is love, and marriage has no intrinsic nature, then it’s anything. And if it’s anything, it’s nothing.

If, however, there are different forms of love, some of which ought not include erotic activity, how do leftists determine when love ought not be eroticized?

Marriage is in tatters, but leftists want those tatters torched. Next up from “progressive” pyros: “eliminating the binary”—of marriage. Polyamorists are on the move. “Progressives” just love the smell of napalm all day long.

Take ACTION: H.R. 8404 may be taken up in the U.S. Senate soon**. Please take a moment to speak out to our two U.S. Senators to ask them to vote to protect the Defense of Marriage Act and vote NO to H.R. 8404. Remind them, “The government has no interest in inherently non-reproductive types of relationships. The government has no more interest in inherently non-reproductive erotic relationships than it does in platonic friendships.”

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin
https://www.durbin.senate.gov/contact/email
Phone: (202) 224-2152

U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth
https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/connect/email-tammy
Phone: (202) 224-2854

Please send a message and then follow up with a phone call early next week.

**UPDATE: According to various news sources, the U.S. Senate vote on H.R. 8404 has been pushed back to September.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Unprincipled-Republicans-Vote-for-the-Disrespect-for-Marriage-Act.mp3