An Assault on Religious Liberty with Travis Weber

recognizes same sex civil marriage. You know, no big deal, they say, But if you look under the hood, what would that do to institutions, to to people, to churches who abide by biblical teachings that marriages between a man and a woman, would that put them in the cross hairs of lawsuits or are from the federal government. Now those who oppose the legislation have expressed great concern. Learns Rabbi Akov mentioned. The founder of Project Genesis had this

to say about it. He said that so called Expect for Marriage Act is the federal government explicitly declaring the Bible is wrong. He goes on to note that the legislation allows any private actor to initiate a lawsuit if

a religious school wishes to recognize only traditional marriages. Also concerns that it goes way beyond that, that if it becomes law, it could affect employment decisions employees, spousal benefits, eligibility for grants or contracts, accreditation, tax exemptions, even put faith based foster care and adoption agencies in the cross hairs of lawsuits and potentially the federal government. Many Senators

have also expressed concern as well. Senator Mike Lee has introduced an amendment to try to actually protect religious liberty in America, but the Senate is not even allowing for it. They won't even take up Senator Mike Lee's amendment, and Senator Mike Lee has said that what this actually is, what they're back for marriage actually is this act, this legislation, is that this is a show game that ends in the destruction of religious liberty in America. Senator Lindsey Graham

had this to say. He said that the sponsors refusal to adopt Senator to Lee's amendment, which clearly protects religious institutions, says all I need to know about the potential risks of the bill. So We're going to turn to Travis Weber, who is the vice president for policy and government Affairs at the Family Research Council, to find out what the bill actually is, what would it do if this legislation was passed, and what does it mean for religious liberty

in America more broadly. I hope you will tune in for this really important conversation. I believe it's truly a really important conversation because not everything is always as it seems. I wanted to talk about the Respect for Marriage Act. Obviously, you know, Democrats are really good at giving sort of these are Wellian names to things, you know, the Inflation Reduction Act, and then they were like, l O, L

just kidding, it's a climate bill. So you know, I want to I want to get into, you know, what actually is the Respect for Marriage Act, what's the intent? But also what does it actually do? Yeah, I mean I think that their intent is to try to to take advantage of the moment politically and push something that they think will help them out, even though no, no Republicans, no one is trying to otherwise address this issue right

now legislatively at the national level. Uh, They're they're claiming this is in response to a threat from Justice Thomas Concurrence in the Job's case. But they're the ones raising, you know, making cultural war, so to speak, right now with this bill. Um the bill, the bills titles also deceiving. It's it doesn't respect marriage. I mean that the problem, you know, we were inventing something. We get into the area of same sex marriage as a society, and this

is a dangerous road to be on. Additionally, their issue that we are trying to help people understand about this bill right now is that it's implications for religious liberty would be drastic by by repealing the defense of marriage back in federal law, which is what the bill does, mandating full faith and credit based on a state's definition of same sex marriage or however otherwise the state would

define marriage. Uh and failing to protect religious liberating the bill the bills that it becomes law, it's gonna unleash attacks, let litigation, marginalization, and other social, legal, and economic consequences for those who disagree. And that's the significant point of really trying to help senders understand and right now, the builders does protect religious liberty. So you've got some senators

coming out now saying this version protects religious liberty. That version does not, because all it does is say churches and religious organizations can't be forced to perform same sex marriage ceremonies in essence on their facilities. That's not an issue right now. The issue is that all the other consequences of dissenting from the view that same sex marriage legitimate. So religious college wants to have a code of conduct and forced it on its campus would not be protected,

for example, among many other examples. So the current text fails to protect it. Even though you hear Republicans um the the compromise between Senators tell Us, Collins and Baldwin going around saying protect religious liberty. This is unfortunately, I think as hoodwinked a number of other Republicans, twelve of whom voted for this the first procedural vote, but they're just misinformed. It doesn't protect religious liberty. Senator leads of

them would protect religious liberty. We're gonna have more votes after this weekend. That's the nutshell of of the situation. But it really doesn't protect religious liberty, and you've got a lot of religious leaders who are raising concerns about what this could do. Was reading this Daily Signal article, and Rabbi Yakov Menken, the founder of Project Genesis, said that essentially what the Respect for Marriage Act would do is saying that, you know, the federal government would explicitly

declare that the Bible is wrong. Uh, you know, you go on too. You know, there's other you know, some bishops recently raised some concerns as well. And so the Respect for Marriages Acts rejection of timeless truths about marriage is evident on its face and in its purpose, it would betray our country's commitment to the fundamental right of religious liberty. That's from Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York

and Bishop Robert Baron of Winona, Rochester, Minnesota. So, you know, religious leaders here raising concerns and essentially saying declaring what they believe, what the religion teaches, what the Bible teaches, is inherently wrong. Yeah, no, that's right, you know. And and one of the things that bill would do is send a signal that the federal government are people's voice, and Congress is saying that, um, same sex marriage is legitimate,

other views of marriage are not legitimate. That's a dangerous place to be because uh, that's going to be the basis of finding a federal and national public policy um in favor of same sex marriage that will be used

to revoke tax exempt status of anyone who disagrees. Religious organizations eventually churches, synagogues, mosques, you mentually grabbed by Menkan He's represents the voice of many traditional Jews in the Jewish community who disagree with the push, the ideological push against traditional more religious values and so um the public policy finding could follow from this bill that would be disastrous for anyone who doesn't agree with what the bill

is doing. So so very much so the signal that sends against the scripture, against traditional Judaism and you know Islam, anyone who who religiously or otherwise disagrees, and especially the point it's not you know, it's not just religion. It could be if you disagree with this as a policy um, the bill could be used eventually against you. Is if we have a national public policy in favor of same

sex marriage. And so so that's you know, the signaling effect, the impact on the landscape of the litigation that's been playing out for years already. You have Jack backed small business owners like Jack Phillips Bariteld Stutsman at the sucreen Court multiple times trying to defend their rights to simply exercise their faith in their business right. So we don't

want to create a cake for same sex marriage. The her their opponents are showing up in their shops forcing them to using the course to wors than to when other shops will create that same cake. And so um, these people are going to be totally thrown under the bus by this bill if it passes. There are multiple problems with it well, and you know that's why, you know, Senator should be encouraged to take on Senator Mike Lee's

amendment because we can't. There's no there's no understanding that the Left would act in good faith because, as you just pointed out, they continued assault on Jack Phillips masterpiece shop in Colorado and the undermining of him, trying to drive him out of business, trying to target him. And

this is just one example. So the idea that somehow, you know, we should just trust that they would act in good faith has already been thrown out the window when you know, as you pointed out, what they've done to Jack Phillip and uh in Colorado. Yeah, you're you know, when we when the nation was having a discussion and various core cases on the issue of same sex marriage years ago, what we heard was, you know, we were told, you know that that others will be tolerated and we

just want marriage and will respect those who disagree. The bill doesn't do that, and behind this is a threat, as you note, to people like Jack Phillips, including um, you know, anyone who wants to sort of exercise their views in the context of the federal government, those who want to receive public money, contract with the government, UM, anyone in the marketplace, because the bill will open up invite more litigation against them, like Jack Phillips. Religious colleges,

universities be able to live out their faith. Um. And I'm aware that you know they're there schools College of the Ozarks, and other schools in Missouri, the home state of Roy Blunt who voted for this bill, who are very concerned about the impact that their own Senator UH will be helping achieve the negative adverse effect on their

own religious liberty. The Senator blood is helping usher in so you know he Joni Earns from Iowa, Todd Young from Indiana, Synthing dilemmas from Wyoming and and the others who voted for this. It's a significant problem that they would fail to see that this does not protect religious liberty. Um. I think you know, they could just be there's some messages out there that this does based on the language of the bill, but I already reviewed how it doesn't.

You know, it just it would only protect them in these these pastors and these groups who related to the solidnization of a marriage, that that is not protect your religious liberty. And you know it includes perfunctory language about this bill will not impact religious liberty. Well, as you noted, Um, that statement requires trust and no one should have it that that. You know, the people who oppose religious liberty in the area of marriage will honor a statement like that.

They will not. And the courts in the full way to the government we brought down on people's heads. You disagree. So you know, Senator, the twelve who voted for this, Senator Blunt, Burr, Capital Collins, Ernst Lumas, Rokowski, Portman, Romney, Sullivan, Tillison among those twelve Republican senators need to understand that this is not protect religious liberty. Well, and to your point, it broadens out, you know, who could get you know, suit or faith persecution for their beliefs. And the rabbi

had mentioned earlier, Rabbi Mecan. He also went on to say, any private actor to initiate a lawsuit or this legislation allows any private actor to initiate a lawsuit if religious

school wishes to recognize only traditional marriages. The National Catholic Register, Uh, you know, talked about an analysis that was done on what this said and and said that you know, it could affect, as your pointing out earlier, even more broadly, employment decisions, employees, spousal benefits, eligibility for grants or contracts, accreditation, taxi rexemptions, you know, goes on faith based foster care

and adoption agencies, housing providers. Uh, you know, goes on and on and on about the amount of people that could be impacted by this, uh, you know, simply because you know, they believe what the Bible says. Yeah, that's true. I mean basically, if you look at the last you know what seven years now since the burgen felt even ten years lest you know, decade of struggle in the society, society over people's freedom to exercise their beliefs about marriage.

You look at that landscape, and anything that we've seen in that landscape likely is fair game under this bill because again, the bill only protects the soleimnization of marriages related to certain organizations who are engaged in the practice the further insert of religion. So it's very narrow. Everything you just outlined, everything I've discussed already here I would not be protected. And uh, this is a serious problem because this is where the freedom, the disagreement, and the

struggle over freedom has played out over this issue. It's not been over the performance of marriage. No one. No one's showing up in a church and saying I want you to marry me. And if if if they did that to a pass or disagreed, that case would likely find its way into court and the path through be protected under the First Amendment. That's not something we've seen.

We've seen everything else, which is, um, we want this religious school to to house us in their dorms just like anyone else, provide the same treatment, just like in contravention of the beliefs of the one they're asking to provide that treatment. That's that's the religious freedom issue that Jack Phillips a small business cases. You mentioned adoption, that's a big one. UM. The treatment, accreditation, taxigent status of religious organizations and others with and their interaction with the

federal government, contracts, grants, um. In addition to just the ability of you know, those exercising faith to live it out in their business or local community or society in other ways. I mean this, this is a serious issue, and and the beliefs of those who dissent are going to be just pushed to a side more and more. They're not gonna be treated as legitimate. This is going to be the basis of actors in society to justify

originalizing it. So we're Congress past this bill. We don't have to give that person a voice or platform, and we can claim we're having a fair debate over the issue. We don't need to hear from that because they're beyond the balance of polite society, because they're defending marriage between a man and a woman. That's kind of what we're going to be looking at here, and that's why this is so dangerous. And if there wants to be this broad our conversation about inclusion, then why are people of

faith being excluded? There's no there's no good reason. There's no good reason for senators to not consider Sendor Leads amendment as protective of religious liberty. The fact that Schumer sunder Schumer and all you know, his allies who want to see this bill past, the fact that they don't want to consider Senator Lee's amendment to it, tells you what you need to know about their respect religious liberty

and about where this is all going. Because if they're not even consider his amendment, that tells you they don't believe the protections and his amendment deserved consideration, and those protections are common sense protections. That his amendment simply says that the people shall not be UM UH treated on the basis of UH, shall not be subject to discriminatory action because of their religious belief for moral conviction that marriage is the union of a man and a woman UH.

And it says it goes on to protect the context attacks treatment UM funding for grants, contracts and contracts, loans and other agreements with the federal government and federal benefits and use of federal property and accreditation and and so. If that's not even so, if people pushing this bill are saying we want to protect religious liberty. They're not even able to consider that. They don't want to protect

relgious liberty. And that needs to be understood by the two Republicans who voted voted for this, and everyone looking at this debate. Well, and that's what Senator Lindsey Graham said,

who voted no undability. I believe he tweeted this that the sponsors refusal to adopt Senator Lee's amendment, which clearly protects religious institutions, says all I need to know about the potential risks of this bill, Josh Holly, is that this bill could lead to coercion Senator Mike Lee, who introduced the amendment that we're talking about, so that this is a shell game that ends in the destruction of religious liberty in America. You know, I believe was it

the le amendment was already was it already voted down? No, it's not being considered, you know. And so far the Democrats have not have not have have refused to consider Senator Leaves amendment. Um, you know, if you refuse to engage that in discussion that I'm aware of, um, you know. And so a senators should vote against cloture unless sender leaves amendment is adopted at the bill, a Senator LEAs

amendment is not attached this bill. Those senators, even the ones who voted so far for this bill, should refuse to vote for Culture. We're going to see two more votes next week and the five thirty on they thirty PM, there's a vote schedule that requires sixty centator, so they need they need ten of those twelve to um uh to vote for for the that on that on that

procedural vote. On the twenty two days after that, there's going to be another sixty vote threshold vote I think, to proceed to quote final, the final culture vote, and then they'll be final passage requiring fifty votes. So so they but senator leaves amendment's not even been in the mix. And so you know, our our our position is that you know, senator should not vote for Culture on this unless Senator leads amend it is actually adopted at the bail.

If it's not, the discussion over the over good faith and religious freedom is over. They don't want to protect religious freedom. That's the end of the story. Um So, yeah, they have refused to consider it so far. Though. Let's take a quick commercial break. More on their respect for Marriage Act. On the other side, how fundamental is religious freedom to a free society really just liberty to a

free society. I mean it's yeah, it's it's totally essential, you know, and I think there's a you know, it's an interesting to reflect on this over Thanksgiving as well, right because the faunidly of our country was related to to the people fleeing, you know, across an ocean to have the freedom to live out their faith. And so it might not be equal points to everyone that everyone should recognize the value that it contributes to a society and the necessity of allowing the space for those who

want to live out their faith. No one should not be forced to violate their conscience in a free society, and that's what we're dealing with here in this in this context, but we need to provide the space for people of up their faith. Not only is it the right thing to do as a as a matter of American um a principle you know of our American constitutional

or public going back to our founding um. You know, not only is it right on that score, you know, when we look at for people who can't relate to this, maybe as much personally. Look at freedoms that they enjoy, freedom of the press or freedom of speech, free speech. These are things that have defined America since its founding. So they're foundational and that in that score because they produce the full even flourishing, allow people to research full potential.

But they also add value. Right, there's millions and millions of dollars of value added to our society by the contributions of religious foster adoption provide ters for example, um, those caring for for for the poor and needy, those providing housing housing for the poor and needy, educational institutions, and those contributing to the education of our society. These

are these are massive inputs from religious community. So if you don't allow the freedom of the religious committees to do to live those areas out as they got to their faith, and force them to violate their conscience in them, there's compably gonna drop out, They're gonna cease and doing then they're gonna withdraw. That not only stamp stomps on the freedom of people that America should be ashamed to be stomping on, but but it actually it causes a

degradation of our society's well being. Uh, you know, we're taking the institutions society, tearing them apart. A big part of those are religious institutions. What is this administration, the Biden administration's record on religious liberty. Yeah, I mean it's

it's it's not good. You know. The Biden administration has made a point to undo virtually all of the previous administration's accomplishments on religious liberty, which include the protection of conscience for um, those in the healthcare community with regard to their they're they're forcing them to participate in abortions or other medical procedures against their conscience. Um. The administration is undone. The other federal actions and tax are executive

orders that that that President Trump had put into place. Um. The administration, you know, it does not supporting for instance, in this context they want to sign this bill into law, they don't. They don't want religious freedom protections in it. Um.

They they've failed to prioritize the issue internationally. As Secretary State, like Pompeo, Investador at Large, Sam brown Back, you've done in the State Department under under the previous administration, We've made a point to send the signal and that we will protect those around the world according to their faith and um and actually do it. You know, we we pressured Turkey when they detained Pastor Andrew Brunson, put economic sanctions on them, forcing his return, them to release him

to come back to the United States. That matters, you know. Now this administration is instead is dropping it's its promotion of religious freedom worldwide, instead going around and pressuring governments to modify their cultural stance on crazy gender ideology issues. I mean, this is the priority of the Biden administration Internationally.

It's casting a shameful shadow over the US. You know, I've talked to people internationally and they think, they're like, this is you know, this is this is shameful what we We're looking to the US for help and we're feeling pressured by the US on our on our social views and our countries. And they think everyone in the US believes these things. And I'm I'm telling them though, you have a big segment of the US population that is not agree with Biden's heavy hand pushing these issues

around the world. And so yeah, overall, the the the rectord has been pretty bad and it needs to be better. I mean, we've you still got u the issue China's treatment of weakers in its concentration camp system, and treatment of Christians across the Middle East, treatment of the believers in Iran, and we need to be highlighting these situations internationally and not neglecting them. And unfortunately Biden needs to

give them more attention. Why do you think this administration has so much hostility towards religion or towards people of faith as it seems, Yeah, I think you know, it's

it's um. I think they they failed to understand that religious freedom is the right thing to protect, and they fail to see the value that there's it's almost like this worldview and this outlook that we can get by without without this whole religion thing, without these these Christians who who are increasingly being um uh you know, the subject of of lea goals and having labels put on them domestically in the United States, and and uh, you know, being framed in a way is almost a problem to

society instead of a value added and the contribution. And so we really need to cut through the false of the narratives. I mean, misinformation is a term that's used a lot these days, right, Well, there actually is misinformation out there about Christian beliefs, um, other religious communities beliefs,

the way in which these are interacting society. So I think there's a failure to really grasp the truth about Christianity and specific religion in general that that helps people, you know, for instance, in high levels of the Bide administration, understand that this is a value added society and we actually shouldn't be wanting to marginalize Christians. We should be

welcoming them in for their contributions. So I think there's a dangerous shift under way that that that's you know, sort of the reason, Uh, the answer to your question is there's a danger shift that that is leading um a worldview shift among among officials, members of the Biden administration and other you know, seats of power in our society. That this shift is leading them to to not see the value and even say well this is a horss

for me to exclude it. Well, that's a dangerous place to be when I you know, the light of sort of what I held outlined earlier, which is the contributions of religious communities, we should not be We've got a lot of problems as in society. We need everyone at the table seeking to help solve them. Religious communities want to do that, so we need to be welcoming that, not marginalizing it. Quick commercial brank more on religious liberty

in America. But I honestly think you can draw a direct correlation between the client of religion in the country and the increased societal fall that we are as a country. You know, there's there's this high fashion brand Balanciaga, and they're facing backlash as they could or as they should, for this disgusting ad campaign featuring child models holding teddy bears.

The teddy bears are dressed in bondage gear. In one of the the ads, there's an image of the Supreme Court opinion case in a child pornography case as a prop promoting the handbag. It's just I don't know. I don't think that, you know, a decade ago, that this would be anywhere near acceptable, and the idea that if a fashion house like Blendsiago could think that there's anything okay with this. It's just it's just outrageous and it's disgusting.

But I think it's sort of underscores where we are today as a society and how depraved and disgusting our society is, to be honest, yeah, I mean, you know, children have really been in the crosshairs of the the the sexual the sexualization of society. Children have been the focus of so much of of this push to sexualized society, and I mean this has been going on for some time, but we are seeing an increasing focus on children. And that's I think, in part why this is so horrific.

I mean, I think there'd be problems with it even if it had an adults in the ad. But but you've got a little child in it in the act um. It tells us where we are. And I think, you know, people behind stuff like this just failed to have a frame of reference for where anyone else in society is at.

Sometimes their own worldview that they don't have a component which enables them to say, well, there could be a problem with this in my you know, from the perspective of the person behind this, they probably are thinking, well, I don't see any problem with this. You know, this is the way I've I've lived and the world I've been in, and it's about me what I want to do sexually. Well, that's a very dangerous spot to be in as a society, and we have a lot of

people thinking that way. I think we've been sort of on that road. This is a data point. Thankfully, it's getting attention. You know, children. I think more people need to wake up about the targeting of children this area. I think they are and I think this is behind the front of rights pushed back against the sexualization of children in schools that we saw in Louden County, Virginia several years ago, leading to um, you have no youngin's election.

You're seeing this. We've seen this, this issue arise around the country, seen a rise in Florida, the push of curricula, the sexualization of children in schools, and otherwise jack the drag creen story our issue. Um, thankfully people are waking up. But I think more people need to wake up to the dangers of the road we're walking down, you know, the the the push for children to receive puberty blockers,

frouss sex harmon's gender transition surgeries. Thankfully, The York Times even called attention of the problems with the East the other week. UM, more and more people are in parents are waking up to this. But as you know, um, these are these are this is a dangerous data point. Um. But so we just need to work and pray for more to see what society is doing to its children. And you know, if we can, if we can increase that concern, we can address these problems. Travis Weber, thanks

so much for joining the show. I appreciate the work you're doing at Family Research Council, and I hope people who are listening, you know, get active. Tell your senator to vote no on their Respect for Marriage Act. It's not as it seems, and it could undermine religious liberty in America. So Travis, I appreciate you taking the time. Thank you, And let me just say too real quick, um, if they want to contact their senators, they can go

to f r C action dot org slash marriage. That's f RC action dot org slash marriage and find information there to reach out to their senators, sellers, travels, whether or the Family Research Council on what I think is a really important issue, protecting religious liberty in America. That's what America is about. So if we lose that, I think we lose the country. So I appreciate his time.

I want to thank you for listening. I want to thank John Cassio as well for putting together this show every Monday and Thursday, but you can listen throughout the week. Please leave us a review, give us a reading on Apple podcast. I love reading those and saying that thanks so much for listening.