This week, in four days of testimony, the Idaho House State Affairs Committee has been considering House Bill 2 (HB2), that would add anti-discrimination protections for Idahoans based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Advocates have been promoting the “Add the Words” bill for nine years and this is the first year that the Legislature has held hearings.
By Michael Peabody – Parties to these kinds of disputes should be well-served if they cooperatively seek solutions by identifying and respecting those specific personal areas which are non-negotiable and cordoning them off, while respecting the freedom of the areas in between where both sides must intersect. Identifying and preserving these areas of respect and finding opportunities for accommodation is not an easy process in today’s ideologically divided world, but the results will be much more profitable for both sides than engaging in perpetual conflict in the public arena. At the same time, the religious rights of the participants on both sides to belief and practice would be honored and protected.
On September 19, a bipartisan group introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would prevent the federal government from discriminating through the tax code against individual religious believers who hold the principle that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. According to bill author, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID)H.R. 3133, the “Marriage and Religious Freedom Act,” “will ensure tolerance for individuals and organizations that affirm traditional marriage, protecting them from adverse federal action.” The bill is co-sponsored by Rep. Steve Scalise, Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC), and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL).
This week, two members of the North Carolina House of Representatives submitted a resolution which would declare that “the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.” In other words, the legislation declared that that the state could make its own laws about religion and the federal government would not be able to stop them. Although the resolution is not likely to be approved, it does deserve some serious examination as it reflects a common argument arising in the religious right that the Establishment Clause does not apply to the states.
In response to a state Supreme Court decision upholding incarceration of an Amish group for refusing for religious reasons to install orange triangles on their buggies, the Kentucky Legislature has, by a veto proof margin, passed a measure (HB 279) which is designed to prevent the government from substantially burdening an individual’s freedom of religion.
Legislative Roundup This year a number of state bills are being introduced that involve religious liberty. Here are a few highlights with more to come in following weeks. Alabama On February 19, by a margin of 67 to 28, the Alabama House of Representatives passed the Religious Liberty Act, HB 108, sponsored by Lynn Greer (R…
On December 17, 2012 Senator John Kerry (D-MA) introduced “The Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2013” (S.3686) which would Amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of religion specifically in the areas of “garb, grooming, and scheduling.”
On June 26, 2012 the California Senate Judiciary passed AB 1964, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2012.
Many conservatives have eviscerated Obamacare, arguing that it would “raise premiums, unconstitutionally force people to buy health care, cause the deficit to skyrocket, slash Medicare spending to create a new entitlement, cause rationing, cause a significant number of doctors to leave the practice, and destroy the quality of American healthcare. Although I am a lifelong Republican, I must respectfully disagree with my conservative brethren on many of these points.
It was wholly unnecessary for President Obama to complete his admirable health care initiative by disregarding the doctrinal or institutional teaching of the Catholic church, that is being defended, however hyperbolically, by the bishops, or the moral concerns of those individual Catholics – whether or not in a minority (minorities being the usual subject of human rights) — who still see or accept the teaching that artificial means of contraception degrades the marital estate.