MBC leaders opposed bill prior to vote, calling it an ‘intentional attack on religious freedom’
(EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was updated at 4:35 p.m., Nov. 16, adding additional coverage from Baptist Press below.)
WASHINGTON – United States Senators from Missouri were divided, Nov. 16, about whether the lawmaking body should move forward with the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act.” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) voted against moving forward with the bill. But Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who leaves office in January, voted to support the legislation – contrary to a letter from Missouri Baptist Convention (MBC) leaders calling him to oppose the bill.
“This bill is now designed to accomplish two things,” Blunt said prior to voting, according to the Springfield News Leader. “People who are legally married in one state have the same protections and responsibilities in any other state that are offered to and required of marriages. And, this legislation enhances the religious freedom for all Americans by protecting religious organizations from retaliation by federal agencies due to their views on marriage.
“I believe it’s better for Congress to clarify these issues than for federal judges to make these decisions.”
According to the Springfield News Leader, the Nov. 16th vote was “a key procedural hurdle for the bill,” and a final vote is expected later this week.
Blunt’s vote in support of the bill (H.R. 8408/S. 4556) came only a day after MBC leaders called him to block the legislation. “[W]e write to urge you to oppose cloture or passage of the so-called ‘Respect Marriage Act,” the Nov. 15th letter to Blunt – signed by MBC president Chris Williams (pastor of Fellowship Church, Greenwood) and MBC Executive Director John Yeats – said.
Contrary to Blunt’s claims, MBC leaders said the bill “shows great disrespect for marriage, and intolerance for those who hold a traditional or biblical worldview.” The bill “is an intentional attack on the religious freedom of millions of Americans with sincerely held beliefs about marriage, based on dictates of faith in God and His revealed Truth,” the letter added.
“The whole point of H.R. 8404/S. 4556 is to repudiate” the U.S. Supreme Court’s promise – in its 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges – of constitutional protection for people of faith who oppose same-sex marriage, the letter stated.
MBC leaders opposed the political agenda and legal movement that is trying to redefine marriage in U.S. legal code. These advocates for same-sex marriage “demand that religious dissenters pledge allegiance to the federal definition of marriage, rather than God’s definition.”
“We must obey God rather than men,” they said, citing Acts 4:19-20 and Article 17 of the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.
The letter continued: “An alliance of over 80 groups sent Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell a letter urging him to stand firm against pressures to move the bill forward, and over 2,000 churches and ministries sent a letter to the Senate specifically calling attention to the effects of the bill on their ability to serve their communities in accordance with their religious beliefs. We agree with those groups as well.”
While Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) have attempted to amend the bill, their efforts “do not adequately address the bill’s significant religious freedom issues,” MBC leaders wrote.
The letter cited three “major deficiencies” in the bill as it stands, which were listed elsewhere by Greg Baylor, counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom:
- “There are no real protections for religious individuals or organizations.” Even with the amendments suggested by senators mentioned above, the bill would not protect “faith-based non-profits such as adoption and foster care providers,” “religious schools,” “wedding vendors,” “business owners outside the wedding context, especially in expressive or creative professions” or “civil servants.”
- “The amendment leaves numerous religious social-service organizations vulnerable.” According to the letter, the bill would not force churches to celebrate same-sex marriages. But “the bill can be used to punish social-service organizations like adoption or foster placement agencies that serve their communities in accordance with their religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.”
- “The amendment fails to address concerns over nonprofits’ tax-exempt status.” If it is enacted, “the IRS could rely upon the bill to conclude that certain nonprofits” – namely, those that oppose same-sex marriage – “are not ‘charitable.’”
MBC leaders told Sen. Blunt, “We urge you to stand firm against this attempted redefinition of marriage.”
The full text of the letter can be found here.
Tom Strode of Baptist Press reported, Nov. 16:
“Senators voted 62-37 to invoke cloture, as the procedural move is known, and thereby bring up for a final vote the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA). All 50 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted in favor of the motion, which needed 60 votes to succeed. The bill would repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and require federal and state recognition of same-sex marriages considered legal in the jurisdiction where they took place.
“The Senate is expected to vote soon to approve passage of the RMA, which will require only a majority and will serve as a watershed, congressional redefinition of the institution of marriage if enacted.
“The House of Representatives approved the RMA in July, when 47 GOP members joined all Democrats in a 267-157 vote.”
Baptist Press also reported that the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission remains opposed to the bill:
“It is disappointing to see a majority of our U.S. Senators vote in support of a bill that goes directly against God’s design for our most foundational institution — the family,” ERLC Policy Manager Hannah Daniel told Baptist Press. “The ERLC will continue to oppose the Respect for Marriage Act as it moves ahead and, if signed into law, will work to address the serious religious liberty ramifications from it.
“In a time where Congress has no shortage of important concerns to tackle, our representatives should prioritize solutions for the pressing issues facing the American people rather than divisive bills that harm people of faith,” she said in written comments.
The amended bill still “does not provide adequate protections for religious liberty,” Daniel said in a post on the ERLC’s website Wednesday. “Through reiterating the protections that already exist in the law and using unhelpfully vague language, the amendment appears to offer people and institutions of faith more additional protection than it actually does.”