Why Did the Left Turn Against Religious Liberty?

Below is an excerpt from my recent piece for Organization Trends:

On June 26, the Supreme Court by 5 to 4 struck down all state-level bans on same-sex marriage. Since then, a poll found that 19 percent of Americans believe “religious institutions or clergy should be required to perform same-sex marriages.” The survey was conducted by the Barna Group, which studies attitudes toward religion in America. That percentage may seem small, but it means one in five Americans have no problem with the government violating the first freedom of the First Amendment. That number increases to more than a quarter—26 percent—among Americans under the age of 40, who believe churches and pastors should be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (bioguide.congress.gov)

Reasonable people can disagree on the issue of gay marriage as a public policy, but what should not be questioned are the basic First Amendment principles of the country, rights that were reinforced by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993 by a Democratic administration and Congress.

The majority and dissenting opinions in the same-sex marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, addressed the matter of religious freedom. Even President Barack Obama made passing reference to this fundamental liberty when he praised the ruling in the Rose Garden: “All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact; recognize different viewpoints; revere our deep commitment to religious freedom.”

For the court’s majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote:

It must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.

It’s good to know Kennedy still thinks Americans have the right to hold private religious views. Yet Chief Justice John Roberts responded that many difficult issues remain:

“Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every state that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. … Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples.”

Now congressional Republicans are considering taking action to protect the First Amendment right to practice religion, not only for clergy and their congregations, but for private businesses as well.  

Another Supreme Court decision, this one in 1990, prompted lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to fear it would be too sweeping. Fierce left-winger Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) sponsored a Senate version to complement the House bill of another hard-left Democrat, then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), whom no one ever accused of being a right-wing theocrat.  The bill passed almost unanimously through the House and Senate, and it was happily signed by another Democrat, President Bill Clinton.

Again, Schumer and Kennedy weren’t any kind of right-wingers. But neither are the 21 state laws that were modeled after the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that Kennedy, Schumer, and Clinton made into law. The legislation was so non-controversial in its time that President Bill Clinton remarked on the bipartisanship consensus on the issue when signing the bill into law, “The power of God is such that even in the legislative process miracles can happen.”
But just this past year, after a journalist hounded a mom-and-pop pizza shop in Walkerton, Indiana, that state’s version of RFRA sparked a national controversy that even the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) felt obliged to join. Charles Schumer, now a U.S. senator and apparently hoping everyone would forget his 1993 actions, tweeted:  “@NCAA if you’re looking for a new place to hold 2021 #FinalFour – NY has plenty of great venues that don’t discriminate.”

Pelosi's War on Women Against a Solider Tough Enough to Take It

Get a load of this. Rep. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat, is an American hero whether you like her politics or not.

CBS News and National Journal should get credit for covering this story, and it should shame Nancy Pelosi, or Rosa DeLauro from ever claiming to be advocates for women again.

From CBS:

House Democrats decided Thursday to deny Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois, a proxy vote in the Democratic leadership elections, which she requested because she can't be in Washington, D.C. for the vote.  ... the very pregnant 46-year-old Iraq War veteran who lost both of her legs in a 2004 helicopter crash, was told by doctor that it was unsafe for her to fly at this stage in her pregnancy.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, opposed the request, a day after she chastised reporters over what she suggested was a gender-based double standard: "You never ask Mitch McConnell, 'Aren't you getting a little old Mitch? Shouldn't you step aside?'"

And Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Connecticut, who has been a fierce advocate for issues that resonate with women, is one of the members who denied the request.  

... Duckworth said in a statement, "The Caucus chose not to allow me to vote via proxy. I respect the process and very much appreciated my colleagues who made sure my request was considered."
 
Duckworth deserves credit for being classy about this. But really? Whatever inside politics or axes to grind that led to this denial should provoke some national outrage.

To their credit, Reps. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois  and Gwen Moore, D-Wisconsin were both strong advocated for the proxy vote.  

It's all part of the absurdity of the war on women. Read about the history of the intellectually and morally bankrupt political line here.