House Republicans Propose Nationwide Religious Based "‘License To Discriminate"

Proving once again that today's Republican Party is caught in the stranglehold of the Christofascists and hate groups like Family Research Council, etc., Republicans in the House of Representatives led by Raul Labrador (pictured above) have introduced a bill that would allow far right Christians to discriminate at will against those they deem offensive to their narrow, hate and fear based religious beliefs.  Naturally gays and also unmarried heterosexual couples "living in sin" are targets.  It's a recipe for chaos and arguably seeks to set up conservative Christianity as America's established religion.  So much for the U. S. Constitution and non-discrimination laws.  As I have repeated over and over again, the Christofascists are nasty, selfish, self-centered people who do not give a damn about the rights of others.  The rest of society needs to see them for the foul force in society that they are.  Think Progress looks at this dangerous batshitery.  Here are highlights:

A group of House Republicans, led by Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-ID), has proposed a new bill that would provide a nationwide “license to discriminate” against married same-sex couples. Though Labrador claims the bill protects “religious liberty,” it is nothing less than a blanket invitation to deny benefits to same-sex couples that they are entitled to under law.

According to the draft of the bill (HR 3133), there would be no consequences for any organization or individual that chooses not to recognize a same-sex marriage:

The Federal Government shall not take an adverse action against a person, on the basis that such person acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

Under the guise of “religious freedom,” this bill specifically endorses one particular set of religious beliefs without concern for any others, a pretty clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The consequences of this legislation would be immense, such that a few individuals could short-circuit the rights of gay and lesbian couples across the country. Given its prudish inclusion of opposition to premarital sex, these consequences could likely apply to many straight couples as well. Here are a few possible examples of the potential for abuse:

• Businesses could refuse to provide leave for an employee to take care of a sick same-sex spouse.
• Federal workers processing tax returns, visa applications, or Social Security filings could refuse to do their job if it meant providing benefits to a same-sex couple.
• Federally funded programs like homeless shelters and substance abuse programs could turn away LGBT people.
• A church-run hospital could refuse to provide visitation privileges to a married same-sex couple without fear of endangering their tax-exempt status.

[T]he National Organization for Marriage has enthusiastically endorsed the legislation and the Heritage Foundation claimed it will “encourage tolerance.”

As for Rep. Labrador, one can only wonder how long it will be before we learn that he's been busted in a sting for soliciting a blow job in a rest room somewhere.

Real Anthropologists Disagree With Christianist Definition of Family

Not that any of us in the LGBT community should be surprised, but the disingenuous windbags at Focus on the Family ("FOF") and the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM") have been running their mouths again marking statements to the effect that anthropologists agree on FOF's traditional definition of family: a man, a woman, and their immediate children. The problem is that these statements are not true. Not that the truth has ever gotten in the way such organizations saying what furthers their anti-gay agenda. Particularly their claims that the family has existed per the FOF and NOM definition for the last 5,000 years and in all cultures. As I have noted many times before, few groups lie more than the self-styled pro-family Christian organizations. Box Turtle Bulletin (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/) fortunately has statements from real anthropologists that state the REAL truth. I can only ask yet again, why are supposed Christians such deliberate liars? Here are some highlights from Box Turtle Bulletin:

A recent article from Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink suggests that “anthropologists agree on traditional definition of marriage.” This statement is true only if they reference what anthropologists consider traditional, not the Focus on the Family opinion that marriage is solely between one man and one woman.

The article also states “There are two definitions of marriage in today’s culture – one of them has been around for centuries; the other is brand new.” Once again, this statement is true. However, Focus on the Family is confused as to which definition has been around for centuries and which is new. Anthropologists, historians and sociologists all recognize the “one man with one woman” definition of marriage to be very recent and not representative of how marriage is or has been expressed throughout the world.

Anthropologists often define marriage as a social, political, or economic contract between two individuals and their families – this does not imply monogamy, as a man with five wives has five separate marriage contracts. In fact, approximately 75 percent of the world’s cultures view polygamy as the preferred form of marriage. Furthermore, anthropologists document that cultures on every continent, excluding Antarctica, have accepted and recognized same-sex marriages.

In 2004 the American Anthropological Association, the largest association of anthropologists in the United States, issued an official statement opposing the proposed federal marriage amendment, indicating:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. Suggesting anthropologists support Focus on the Family’s “traditional definition of marriage” is patently, unequivocally wrong.