September 19, 2013 at 6:39 pm EDT | by Chris Johnson
Anti-gay marriage bill draws ire of LGBT advocates
Raúl Rafael Labrador, Raul Labrador, Idaho, United States House of Representatives, Republican Party, gay news, Washington Blade

Rep. Raúl Rafael Labrador (R-Idaho) has introduced the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key).

A new bill that aims to protect organizations that oppose same-sex marriage is invoking the ire of LGBT advocates, who call it subterfuge to undermine advances in marriage equality made in the past year.

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), a Tea Party Republican, on Thursday introduced the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, which is purportedly aimed to prohibit discrimination in the tax code against organizations that exercise “religious conscience” against same-sex marriage.

“Regardless of your ideology, we can all agree about the importance of religious liberty in America,” Labrador said. “Our bill will protect freedom of conscience for those who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue.”

The legislation enjoys bipartisan support right off the bat. Among the 60 original co-sponsors are Reps. Steve Scalise, chair of the Republican Study Committee as well as conservative Democrats Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.).

Others co-sponsors are Republicans well-known for their anti-gay views: Reps. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.).

According to the Labrador statement, most religious institutions fall within the 501(c) portion of the U.S. tax code, which allows for tax exemption. Further, the statement contends if the bill were passed, no individual or institution that opposes marriage equality would lose that exemption for purposes of federal taxes.

An array of conservative organizations and religious groups have endorsed the legislation, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Organization for Marriage, Family Research Council, and the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The bill is introduced following the controversy that ensued after the Internal Revenue Service apologized for targeting political groups with closer scrutiny based on names or political themes if they applied for tax-exempt status.

LGBT advocates responded to the introduction of the bill by saying it would rescind protections that married same-sex couples have received in the wake of the Supreme Court decision against the Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, called the bill “a sweeping Trojan Horse proposal” that would undermine constitutional protections.

“Decades of civil rights struggle, and long experience with both federal and state non-discrimination statutes, have made clear that we don’t need to gut non-discrimination laws to protect true religious freedom, and neither private religious views nor prejudice should get a special license to discriminate in the public sphere,” Wolfson said.

Freedom to Marry identified repercussions of the bill that it says are particularly “egregious”:

* Allowing businesses to refuse to provide Family & Medical Leave Act leave for the same-sex spouse of an employee to care for a sick loved one and to deny pension protections to married same-sex couples.

* Allowing federal employees to refuse to process the tax returns or Social Security claims of married same-sex couples.

* Allowing individuals to pick and choose whether they want to comply with federal laws, simply by invoking religious views.

Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, a lesbian and the Third Way’s director of social policy and politics, also said the bill presents more problems than simply protecting the tax status of religious organizations.

“The sponsors and press clips so far have focused on the idea of protecting churches and religious organizations from losing their tax status due to their views on marriage for gay couples (something that hasn’t ever been an issue), but the effect of the bill would actually be much broader and incredibly problematic,” Erickson Hatalsky said.

Among the problems with the bill that Erickson Hatalsky identified are a potential violation of the Establishment Clause under the First Amendment as well as contravening the Bush-established policy of “Charitable Choice”, which says that when a program is federally funded, a religious organization may not turn people away.

Further, Erickson Hatalsky said the bill as written isn’t just limited to married same-sex couples, but would allow federal beneficiaries to discriminate against anyone who’s had sexual relations outside of an opposite-sex marriage.

“That means a government-funded health clinic could be able to refuse to provide prenatal care to an at-risk pregnant woman because she is unmarried,” Erickson Hatalsky said. “Again, that goes against our longstanding principle that when taxpayer funds are involved, an organization must serve all comers.”

Chris Johnson is Chief Political & White House Reporter for the Washington Blade. Johnson is a member of the White House Correspondents' Association. Follow Chris

  • Just for the record: Religious persecution is when you're prevented from exercising your beliefs not when you're prevented from imposing your beliefs.

  • can you say that any louder, susan? many people seem bereft of that fundamental distinction.

  • It's one of my favorite sound-bites!

  • Churches should have lost their tax free status a long time ago. Especially when they start using monies and members to lobby political issues like Prop 8 in California. I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state but, since most churches are no longer a "charity" I don't see why they should have tax free status. They are all "BUSINESSES". They invest in property, most people in the churches receive salaries, the build churches on prime property or buy buildings on prime property and convert them to churches, they sell items for profit, they print up propaganda and sell, books, tapes, cd's and etc in commercial settings, there are just too many people who's pockets are getting lined to continue to give churches and religious organizations a tax free status any more.

  • No, bigots of business, you shall not receive special taxes to discriminate. Your synagogues of bigotry are free to behave that way, while freeloading on my dime, but your business may not, and we’ll sue you in court, and then win. Middle finger in your face.

  • Since this proposed law does not require anyone to prove that their religious group requires them to treat gay people badly, it is really a personal opinion exemption disguised as religious freedom. It has the effect of nullifying anti-discrimination laws.

  • To become a conscientious objector, you have to prove that you are a long-standing member of a church that forbids its members from combat. This law requires no such proof. A person simply has to have a feeling that complying with the law conflicts with their personal religious beliefs, so the "religious freedom" angle is a ruse.

  • These Republican idiots will never give up. With gay rights' issues winning more and more these jokers are losing their prime target in order to stir up their bigot base.

  • Wow, so since the Klan is an explicitly Christian organization, this bill would "protect" all those ignorant bigots who believe in the so-called "curse of Ham"?

  • At some point, there must begin a grass roots movement to rid our Congress of the tea party destruction of our constitution!

  • It's true. You can see how desperate they're getting. It's humorous almost… but in a sad way. Some people's children… tut tut, they never learn.

  • They’d better pass this fast, as most of the gay-haters will be dead soon of old age.

    These are the last gasps of a dying breed. Dinosaurs!

  • i see obamas gonna shoot it down. that's why i voted for him

  • Thank you Susan for your excellent comment that is totally lacking from all the religious maniacs.

  • Let's get Labrador off his Homophobic soapbox, seems to me that he is another Joseph McCarthy. Just wait, his dirty laundry will be aired in public, should he pursue his current course of tactics.

  • There is a difference between a non-profit that is exempt from paying taxes and a non-profit that receives public funds. If public tax dollars are going to any organization, then that organization better be prevented from discriminating against ANYONE. If they are not getting public funds, then it is still distasteful that they can discriminate and be tax-exempt, but that will be tougher to challenge.


  • sorry folks! you know these freaks make me go crazy!! Don't mean to be offensive to anyone connected to my page… all I want to do is live my live the best way I can, but sad to say people like this are my enemies!

  • talk about a bill going nowhere! silly-what next? no service for blacks because i believe "dey bear the mark of Cain?"

© Copyright Brown, Naff, Pitts Omnimedia, Inc. 2021. All rights reserved. Protected with CloudFlare, hosted by Keynetik.