Willie R. Tubbs, FISM News

[elfsight_social_share_buttons id=”1″]

When the Senate voted to end cloture on the bill that will grant federal protection to same-sex marriages, some senators touted a recently added religious freedom amendment as sufficient to protect people who hold a traditional view of marriage from harassment at the hands of those who do not. However, not everyone is convinced the amendment will afford religious groups as much protection as advertised.

Earlier in the week, five senators — Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) — announced they had negotiated the creation of an amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act that would prevent activists and governmental agents from using the new law as a means of punishing people who object to marriage between anyone other than a man and a woman.

“Through bipartisan collaboration, we’ve crafted commonsense language to confirm that this legislation fully respects and protects Americans’ religious liberties and diverse beliefs, while leaving intact the core mission of the legislation to protect marriage equality,” the senators said in a joint statement.

But religious leaders say the amendment doesn’t go far enough.

“This bill, even as amended, does not provide meaningful protection for those that maintain a traditional view of marriage,” writes Hannah Daniel, policy manager for the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission.

Some of the big-ticket worries Christian observers might have could be assuaged by the amendment.

For example, the amendment contains language that prevents Christian businesses from being forced to create products celebrating same-sex marriage as well as a different provision that forbids government entities from threatening the charitable or non-profit status of Christian organizations that do not support same-sex marriage.

The amendment also confirms that polygamy is not recognized as a valid form of marriage.

Opponents complain the amendment’s language is imprecise and does not, strictly speaking, create or strengthen any protections for opponents of gay marriage.

Tillis, in his release, wrote that the amendment broadly “Protects all religious liberty and conscience protections available under the Constitution or Federal law, including but not limited to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and forbids this bill from being used to diminish or repeal any such protection.”

But, as Daniel pointed out, this doesn’t actually add anything to the law. It only clarifies that the new law is not meant to supersede existing religious liberty law.

“Through reiterating the protections that already exist in the law and using unhelpfully vague language, the amendment appears to offer people and institutions of faith more additional protection than it actually does,” Daniel wrote.

Evangelist Dr. Franklin Graham said that, ultimately, the bill is objectionable because it not only redefines marriage but also makes traditionalists into an out-group.

“The bill strikes a blow at religious freedom for individuals and ministries and is really the ‘Destruction of Marriage Act,’” Graham wrote on Facebook Tuesday. “Its sponsors remarkably claim it protects religious freedom. It does not. This disastrous bill sends a message to America that if you don’t agree with the left’s definition of marriage, you are a bigot.”

Daniel and Graham both indicated that, while they would continue to fight against the bill, it was likely to pass.

“It is disappointing to see a majority of our U.S. Senators vote in support of a bill that goes directly against God’s design for our most foundational institution — the family,” Daniel told the Baptist Press. “The ERLC will continue to oppose the Respect for Marriage Act as it moves ahead and, if signed into law, will work to address the serious religious liberty ramifications from it.”

The bill, though, is all but guaranteed to pass. It is unlikely that all 12 Republicans who voted to end cloture plus an additional Democrat would then vote no on the bill.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was already taking a victory lap on the bill Wednesday evening.

“Passing this bill is as personal as it gets for so many of us,” Schumer tweeted. “My daughter and her wife — my daughter-in-law — are expecting a baby next spring[.] I want them — and everyone in a loving relationship — to live without the fear that their rights could be stripped away.”