Support the First Amendment Defense Act

Even before the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to re-define marriage in all 50 states, conservative lawmakers have been actively working to build support for the First Amendment Defense Act, S1598 and HR2802, a bill that ensures protection for those who make decisions based upon their religious beliefs and convictions.

If passed, this legislation would protect those who support natural marriage, marriage between a man and a woman, from facing retaliation from the government. This legislation says that those who live according to the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman should be protected from losing grants, contracts, the ability to do business with federal government and it protects employers from potential federal discrimination.

Senator (R-Utah) Mike Lee, one of the members who introduced the legislation stated, “Regardless of where you come down on the issue of same-sex marriage, we shouldn’t allow the federal government to punish religious institutions for their beliefs about marriage.”

If passed, this Act would work to ensure that faith-based organizations such as churches, schools, businesses, non-profits, and adoption agencies are protected from discrimination and future attacks on their organization based on their sincerely held beliefs.

Though this legislation would not change the definition of marriage, this Act would protect those who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This Act recognizes that those who believe in natural marriage should be allowed to practice their conviction in the public sphere without punishment or fear of retribution.

Family Policy Institute of Washington (FPIW) urges Washingtonians to immediately contact their Congress members, encouraging them to fully support the First Amendment Defense Act, filed under S1598 and

HR2802. For reference, you can check to see who has co-sponsored the Act in the Senate here and in the House here.

After reviewing, contact your Congress members and ask them to co-sponsor the Act or thank for co-sponsoring the Act. Congress members should be challenged to make the vote on this bill a priority. First Amendment Defense Act, also referred to as FADA, is one that will guard the land’s bedrock of freedom, religious freedom.


Print pagePDF pageEmail page
32 replies
  1. Saint John the Baptist
    Saint John the Baptist says:

    Arthur: AHA! NOW we have your true colors flying. Christians are ‘bigots’ due to their beliefs; yet you have no Biblical knowledge of their beliefs. You, sir, need to repent and find Christ. End of discussion.

    Reply
    • Arthur
      Arthur says:

      No. I find SOME Christians to be bigots. Like those who subjugate women, won’t perform same sex or interracial marriages, belive races should be segregated (keep in mind they’re absolutely entitled to those beliefs and free exercise them at home, in church, private forums, etc) Some people are very bigoted in their beliefs. A complete intolerance for something that goes so far as to publicly discriminate against it is pretty bigoted. Keep it out of public businesses.

      Reply
      • Jeremy
        Jeremy says:

        Freedom means freedom, Arthur. Freedom of speech does not imply in our homes, in our churches, but not in public. The same is said of religion. They are the same Constitutional Amendment.
        You are saying your “Freedom” to marry whoever you want overrides my freedom of religion. To force someone to go against the dictates of their conscience is tyranny, my friend.
        I’ve got to hand it to your intentionality in placing, “won’t perform same sex or interracial marriages”, in between the two authentic civil rights examples. We are not segregating nor subjugating gays. In fact, gays are subjugating those who don’t wish to perform a religious ceremony against their religion. You see, to many of us, it IS a religious ceremony… so go somewhere else. This is the precedent we are fighting, and will continue to fight.

        Reply
        • Arthur
          Arthur says:

          When segregation and interracial marriage bans were abolished, many people felt their freedom of religion was overthrown. That a tyrannical government was forcing them to be involved in and accept things that found morally wrong. Turns out they were wrong.

          A flower arranger can’t refuse service to an interracial marriage couple even if they find it sinful and against their religion. Same situation with same sex marriage.

          Reply
  2. Saint John the Baptist
    Saint John the Baptist says:

    Arthur: For the last time, show me specific verses in the Bible that support what R. Wilson claims. Otherwise bow out of the discussion at hand because you are just blowing smoke……

    Reply
    • Arthur
      Arthur says:

      Jeez, SJTB. Comprehension is tough? Please, please, slowly reread and see if you can TRY to understand. But just in case, here you go: Genesis 9 was used to claim “dark-skinned” people were inferior. It was used to justify slavery. It doesn’t matter if you have that interpretation or not. For millenia people did and some still do. There are still preachers and churches against interracial marriage. Ephesians 6:5 and Titus 2:9 (among others) were also used to support slavery. Historically speaking, procreation had been the central purpose for marriage. Genesisv1:28. However, I wouldn’t say “only” as Rick did. Do you really need verses for subjugation of women? I’d think as a Christian you’d already know all these verses.
      It all comes down to the bible doesn’t govern public businesses and if you have one, follow the law of the land. Romans 13 1-7. (Quick! Follow with Acts 5 27:29! Except they were being told to teach about Jesus and remain silent. Vastly different then rendering services.) Now you show me a verse that says to exclude services to homosexual sinners only. Because that’s the only one Christians really seem against.

      Reply
      • Jeremy
        Jeremy says:

        With all due respect, Arthur, Genesis 9 says nothing of the sort. It does mention God’s use of the rainbow as a sign. What color were the Canaanites skins? No different than the skins of those to whom they were slaves. You must be thinking of the “mark” put upon Cain for killing his brother in Genesis 4. The penalty was to wander the land and some interpretations present that “mark” as being dark skin, but that’s not necessarily correct. To be sure, the “mark” was so that people didn’t kill him. It had nothing to do with slavery. Nore did Cain’s penalty involve slavery.

        Moses married an Ethiopian woman

        Interpretations matter very much, Arthur. I think everyone here would agree the use of the Bible to support racism is wrong. Not all Christians in the past believed in enslaving black people. And yes, there are some bigoted Christians today, just as there are bigoted gays.

        Slavery existed in the Bible, as it still does in some countries, but it was not based upon color of skin. When someone was in-debted and had no means to pay, they, and sometimes their families as well, would enter slavery. The prescription for the treatment of slaves laid out in the Bible actually set Israel apart in their treatment of those servants when compared to the cultures around them.

        I don’t know how many times the point needs to be made that we are not supporting excluding services to homosexual sinners. We are talking about being forced to participate in the celebration of an act which is sinful (evil).

        I know of a girl who had a “Divorce Party,” cake and all. Using the same premise, the argument against baking of a cake for that purpose would be rightly made.

        This is not a civil rights issue and to say that is a lie.

        I’m unsure of your other Biblical references and how they pertain to this discussion. While you are googling bible verses in an attempt to support your argument, you should google this one: Romans 1 26-27. Of course, it’s truly helpful if you read the entire chapter, or even book, but I won’t expect any more of your time to be spent on this.

        Reply
        • Arthur
          Arthur says:

          The problem was the interpretation and people actually, whole heartedly believed that black people were inferior and the bible was used to support that. Just like Nehemiah 13:23-30 was used to support segregation. Doesn’t matter if there is a better understanding now, it was used, much like the bible is being used against homosexuality now.

          Please don’t try to excuse any kind of slavery. Owning a person is morally wrong. These people were not servants, they could be sold. They could be beaten. It’s terribly, morally,wrong. And saying, “be nice to your slaves” doesn’t make it okay.

          Yes, they should make the cake for the divorce party. Although that’s a terrible example as it doesn’t exclude an entire class of people.

          It’s totally civil rights. To deny that is a lie.

          As for Romans, if you read the entire chapter (as I have. The entire bible for that matter. A number of times) you’d understand Paul is saying god made those specific people gay for not glorifying him enough. God gives them reprobate minds. They disobey their patents. They gossip and boast and Paul deems them worthy of death. Doesn’t really pertain to same sex marriage among monogamous partners any more than it pertains to all disobedient children.

          Reply
          • Jeremy
            Jeremy says:

            The bible isn’t being “used” against homosexuality. The Bible is against homosexuality. It undeniably speaks against it in the both portions (“Old” and “New” Testaments).

            Nehemiah spoke of idolaters and the downfall that would come of them. You keep using these people of the past who used the bible to do this or that as your argument. Let’s keep the discussion based on what the bible actually says if that is the premise of your argument. I feel no guilt based need to explain the actions of people in this nation who claimed to be Christian in this country before me or currently.

            Sinning is Christian, by the way. Every Christian sins. Condoning and celebrating sin is, however, not Christian.

            To deconstruct your strawman, I was by no means “excus any kind of slavery.” Comparing the slavery mentioned in the Bible with the atrocities of early American slavery is comparing apples to oranges. This is akin to comparing the case of Obergefell v. Hodges to that of Loving v. Virginia (the case which set precedent for inter-racial marriage). The case against Virginia was set against a ban based on statutes having to be struck pertaining to “anti-miscegenation” (whereas miscegenation is the inter-breeding of two different races). Miscegenation cannot be applied to homosexuals since they physically cannot “breed”. Again, these are apples and oranges.

            Stating the scientific fact that homosexuals cannot breed is neither racist, nor bigoted. Websters defines a bigot as, “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.” Therefore, you have to change these very words meanings and infer words that aren’t there, like sexuality, in order to make the accusation of me as a bigot even make sense. I’ve heard an argument similar to changing and inferring these terms is evolution? Well, I suppose one could be disposed to say that if, in fact, gay-marriage worked toward propagation of the species.

            As to Romans: Turning them over to their own reprobate minds and base desires (since “He turned them over to…” predicates every instance to which you speak in Romans) is not synonomous with having, “made them gay”, though I’ve heard that argument before. As a result of not honoring, or even acknowledging God, He let them go to their own devices. As a result, women were lying with women as were men with their own kind.

          • Arthur
            Arthur says:

            Jeremy, I can’t reply to your July 21 post, so I’m doing it here.

            To keep this on track, my point is that you can’t use your interpretation of the bible to make laws that allow discrimination. If you’re an Orthodox Jew and you’re seated next to a woman on an airplane, you can’t make her move. If you’re a Jehovah’s Witness paramedic, you still have to give blood transfusions. If you’re a Christian florist, you have to arrange the flowers for the same sex wedding. If you’re a Christian county clerk, you have to issue divorce papers. If your a Christian pharmacist, you have to give the Viagra pills to the unmarried man. And on and on…

            The bible is in no way “undeniably speaks against it (homosexuality) in both portions”, that’s why there’s such division in the Christian community regarding homosexuality. There are SO MANY interpretations of those versus. Here are some:
            Leviticus 18:22
            -refers to sexual activity in idolatrous religious ceremonies.
            -“abomination” identified ritually impure practices and doesn’t have to do with homosexual relationships or homosexuality.
            1 Corinthians 6:9-10
            -“arsenokoitai” is a greek word that means “man-beds” and doesn’t apply to homosexuality. Literal translations aren’t a good way to identify a words meaning. Cyclops is also a greek word that means “round-eye” but we know it’s really a one eyed creature. Much like paperboys aren’t made of paper.
            -Paul also says “malakoi” which means “soft” so contextually, the real issue was with weak and unmanly men, not homosexuals.
            And on and on…

            I understand that as Christians you’re all sinners, but what does the bible say about condoning sin? Matthew 5:38-42 Jesus says to give freely what people you don’t approve of ask for.

            Ok, argue slavery in the bible was not as bad as antebellum slavery. Get as Doug Wilson as you want about it, it’s still morally wrong. People were owned, beaten, families split apart. Horribly disgusting and wrong.
            No one is trying to apply miscegenation to homosexuals, because that doesn’t make sense. However, comparing the fact that there were laws against interracial marriage (for any stupid reason) to laws against same sex marriage (also, only stupid reasons) does.
            It also doesn’t make sense to imply I would think someone is a bigot because you mention the fact homosexuals can’t breed. They can’t. Lots of straight people can’t (or don’t want to) breed either. Bigotry comes into the picture when some Christians try to restrict the rights of another person because they’re gay. It’s not beliefs that make the bigot, it’s actions.

            Alright, let’s change my wording regarding Romans. God let them be gay. He let them be “filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of god, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.” And they’re all worthy of death. But doesn’t god already let all of us “go to their own devises”? We have free will, right? So the implication still stands that god “made” them gay. Another interpretation of Romans is that Paul didn’t believe what he said. It’s immediately followed by “wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself”. He was using the technique of arguing against ones own beliefs. There are more interpretations too. So much for undeniable.

            Regardless of your interpretations, or those of other Christians, what anyone THINKS the bible says; it has no place in our government.

  3. Saint John the Baptist
    Saint John the Baptist says:

    Arthur: A Christian business owner DOES have the right to refuse service based on Biblical (capital ‘B’ by the way) beliefs, not what the owner feels is ‘abhorrent’. First Amendment rights trump laws. So you will have the government FORCE a Christian business owner to violate their faith? That is called slavery, amigo, and it was abolished years ago. Your train of thought is especially disturbing when your type promises that government will never tell churches what to teach or preach.

    Reply
    • Arthur
      Arthur says:

      By that rational then, a Christian who believes interracial marriage is biblically wrong could refuse services to an interracial couple? Or a prostitute? Or children born out if wedlock to non-Christians? It’s a PUBLIC business, not their own private club. You are aware bans on interracial marriages are illegal? That a woman can’t be refused a leadership position (or any position) at a company simply because of her sex? Yet churches are not forced to preform interracial marriages or allow women to have leadership positions. No one is gong to stop them from being bigots. It’s ok.

      Reply
  4. Saint John the Baptist
    Saint John the Baptist says:

    Arthur: Once again, show me the verses in the Bible that support the claims of R. Wilson. So are you going to have the government FORCE churches of different denominations into violating their religious beliefs? I thought you claimed that was never going to happen. Get your story straight.

    Reply
    • Arthur
      Arthur says:

      My point (and what I believe Rick was also pointing out) is that throughout history the bible has been used to support slavery, racism and sexism. You may have enough sense to understand that those things are morally wrong, but there are still plenty of people who don’t (and believe their interpretation of the bible supports them).

      You also say “So are you going to have the government FORCE churches of different denominations into violating their religious beliefs?” which tells me you’ve misunderstood. My point was that there are so many christian denominations with so many varying beliefs, that just because YOU don’t believe the bible says other races are inferior, doesn’t mean other Christians agree with you. So, no a church, pastor, reverend, etc., will not be obligated to participate in same sex marriages. Or interreligious, interracial, or any other combination they deem unholy.

      Reply
  5. Saint John the Baptist
    Saint John the Baptist says:

    Arthur: Since when is following Christian beliefs ‘discriminatory’? You sound like a proponent for the ‘newspeak’ from Orwell’s novel 1984.

    Reply
    • Arthur
      Arthur says:

      It’s discriminatory when you own a public business and refuse to serve a specific group of people. Gay? You need to serve them. White supremacist? You need to serve them. Divorced for reasons other than adultery, prostitutes, unwed people who have sex? Serve them. You don’t get to choose just because you find their lifestyle abhorrent.

      Reply
      • Arthur
        Arthur says:

        I should add; or because you think the bible says so. Keep in mind the bible should never determine public businesses practices.

        Reply
  6. Saint John the Baptist
    Saint John the Baptist says:

    Rick Wilson: Sorry, amigo, but your claim to the ‘truth’ is zero. When you claim the Bible teaches people of a different race are inferior, or that the Bible claims the only reason for marriage is procreation or that the present controversy has anything to do with folks who believe a different religion your credibility is zip. Nice try.

    Reply
    • Arthur
      Arthur says:

      Hey SJBT,
      You’re forgetting that there are other religions with other “sincerely held beliefs” that could do exactly what Rick Wilson is talking about. Not to mention one of the many, MANY denominations of Christianity that have a different interpretation of the bible, who could do the same.

      Reply
  7. Rick Wilson
    Rick Wilson says:

    Wow – thanks for letting us know how we can get our legislators to let our business open to the general public legally not have to serve people of a different race if our Bible says they are inferior …. oops, I mean that we do not have to serve people of a different religion if I think they are non-Christian ….. oops, I mean people who are married but have no children because the only reason for a man and a woman to marry is to procreate ….. oops, I mean people who appear to be gay 9 and I sure do not mean ‘happy!). So glad you are helping me not have to serve people with whom I disagree if my ‘sincerely held religious belief’ tells me I do not need to do so.

    Reply
  8. BeGood
    BeGood says:

    THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! The box drawn for society was “marriage-equality”. This was a brilliant piece of propaganda orchestrated by the wordsmiths for the glbt agenda. The strategy to “homo-sexualize” America consisted of diverting attention away from men having sex with men, and women having sex with women, a bi-product of marriage, and focusing media attention on terms that achieved a lot of mileage for the civil rights struggle of African-Americans.
    We have yet to be informed or educated on the so-called equality of relationships involving two same-sex individuals vs two opposite-sex individuals. The glbt agenda has succeeded in trashing the design and intent of the human body and shown a total lack of respect and disregard for the Designer of mankind. This is not a political issue. This is a humanitarian issue and the survival of mankind. It’s sad to think that when it comes to the game of life, precedent has been set to allow any group of individuals to BRING THEIR OWN GOAL POSTS. It appears that the next item on the glbt agenda is to criminalize Bible believing Christians who accept the Designer’s plan for mankind. Can a man breast-feed an infant? – Not by design. Can two men have sex? Not by design. Yet the supreme court has legalized this ill-conceived manipulation of the `DESIGN to appease the wealth represented by people who are affected by this condition made normal just 43 years ago. We, having the collective knowledge of scientists, psychiatrists, theologians, sociologists, and God respecting people are much smarter than that. Same-sex individuals whose desire is to hook up should seek their own term and leave “marriage” alone. We are now poised to re-define other long-established words or terms that are supposed to have unalterable meaning. You don’t ask for fire to put out a fire. You don’t bring a thirsty man dirt to drink. Helloooooo…is anybody home??

    Reply
  9. Jeremy McGinnis
    Jeremy McGinnis says:

    Does this include the defense of the judiciaries refusing to perform marriage services for religious reasons? Does this extend to the rights of individuals or only those of religious organizations?

    Reply
  10. Carol Eddy
    Carol Eddy says:

    Thank you so much for this information. My husband is a senior pastor of 20+ years and we are very concerned about the future of our ministry and other ministries that would be affected by the resent redefinition of marriage by our Supreme Court.
    Carol

    Reply
    • Rick Wilson
      Rick Wilson says:

      Carol, please do not tell me you get your news from someplace that has been telling you ministers will soon be told by the government what to preach or what to believe. If you are hearing that, I strongly suggest you switch news stations to one with some integrity to the truth.

      Reply
      • Arthur
        Arthur says:

        Rick is right. No religious organization will be forced to perform weddings they don’t want to. Regardless of whether it’s a same-sex marriage, an interracial marriage, a marriage involving a divorced person(s), a private organization is not a public business and they can remain as discriminatory as they’d like.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *