The First Amendment Defense Act proposed Senator Mike Lee and Rep. Raul Labrador prior to the Supreme Court ruling upholding homosexual marriage under the 14th Amendment right to equal protection reveals that the United States no longer functions as a constitutional republic.
The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) would bar the federal government from imposing penalties on individuals, businesses, groups, and especially religious organizations for refusing to participate in same-sex weddings.
In particular, the bill would not allow the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of non-profit organizations that believe same sex marriage is inappropriate.
If the Constitution prevailed in America, the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience would nullify any attempt by the government to punish individuals who oppose homosexual marriage on moral and religious grounds.
Last week, however, the Highest Court ruled that the First Amendment is subservient to the Fourteenth under its equal protection clause. The amendment was initially proposed to protect the rights of freed slaves during Reconstruction, but since that time the federal government has used the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause as a pretext for regulating private citizens and businesses.
“The Fourteenth Amendment, which was intended to reduce discrimination, has even been used, ironically, to uphold affirmative-action programs that discriminate against certain classes of people,” writes Allen Mendenhall.
“The Fourteenth Amendment is not itself a positive good but a dangerous animal to be handled with care.”
The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling is a sign that the court is now fully activist and will continue to rule in favor of the social agenda of the left.
More than a decade before the SCOTUS ruling last week, Ron Paul wrote:
The practice of judicial activism – legislating from the bench – is now standard procedure for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than on upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by judges they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Republicans in Congress believe the ruling will be used against Americans who disagree with same-sex marriage and business owners who refuse to provide services to same-sex couples.
“There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in dissent. “Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”
This will be particularly true of people of faith who own and operate a business.
“Same-sex couples exercising their constitutional freedom to marry should not be shunned by commercial businesses for any reason,” Susan Sommer, the director of constitutional litigation for Lambda Legal, a homosexual rights organization, told The New York Times last week.
If enacted, First Amendment Defense Act will prevent government from punishing individuals, businesses, charities or schools for actions based on a conviction that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The court will undoubtedly take up the act if it makes it through Congress and becomes law. It will stand in the way of the gay rights agenda that is modeled on the civil rights struggle of the 1950s and 1960s.