Religious liberty law languishes past Obergefell anniversary

WASHINGTON—A bill that would prohibit government discrimination based on a belief in the Bible’s definition of marriage has stalled in the halls Congress for more than a year—losing momentum now even among some conservative lawmakers.

“Conservatives love to say they strongly support religious liberty,” said Jamison Coppola, legislative director for American Association of Christian Schools (AACS). “But for [this] there seems to be no political will.”

Republicans introduced the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) in June 2015, shortly before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. If signed into law, FADA would would prevent the federal government from discriminating against individuals and institutions that promote traditional marriage—including in tax treatment, accreditation, and federal licensing.

Following the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, Republicans vowed to pass the bill quickly—even before the August 2015 recess. But 12 months on, FADA still awaits action from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and some are questioning whether chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has the motivation to push a religious liberty bill amid a contentious election season.

“FADA is one of the most important pieces pending before Congress, and yet despite its incredible support base, both House Leadership and Chairman Chaffetz haven’t committed to decisive action,” said Mike Needham, CEO of Heritage Action.

Chaffetz told me the Oversight Committee is working to bring FADA back into the public eye with a hearing soon, but he would not give a specific date. Neither Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, the bill’s primary House sponsor, nor Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who sponsored the Senate version, had information about an imminent hearing.

Labrador’s FADA bill has 170 cosponsors, including one Democrat. Lee’s version in the Senate has 37 cosponsors—all Republicans. The legislation is a top priority for a range of conservative groups, from Christian school associations to The Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council (FRC).

During oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Samuel Alito asked the federal government’s top lawyer whether religious schools holding to a traditional view of marriage could lose their tax-exempt status. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli responded: “[I]t’s certainly going to be an issue.”

FADA arose to counter those potential issues, preventing the federal government from discriminating against individuals and institutions that promote traditional marriage. The measure would protect schools from losing funding and nonprofits from losing their tax-exempt status, but also persons like former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran, who was fired for denouncing homosexuality in a devotional book for Christian men.

“We see this kind of government discrimination at the state and local level all the time—and we expect to see the same kind on the federal level,” said FRC’s Mandi Ancalle. “It’s important that people can work and express their beliefs without fear of retaliation from their government.”

When he announced the legislation, Labrador said FADA “ensures that the federal government does not penalize Americans for following their religious beliefs or moral convictions on traditional marriage.” Adding that in “a shifting landscape, it’s time that Congress proactively defend this sacred right.”

But as election year politics grow more tumultuous and Congress prepares to recess for almost two months, the bill’s prospects seem increasingly dim. Lawmakers are occupied with battles over mandatory appropriations bills and a renewed thrust from Democrats for gun-control legislation.

Of the 25 Republicans on the House Oversight Committee, 23 are FADA cosponsors. Despite the time constraints, Needham believes Chaffetz still has enough support to bring the bill forward.

“It’s been over a year since the Supreme Court redefined marriage and by doing so threatened religious liberty for millions of Americans,” Needham said. “Voters all across the country who have been asking for Congress to take action to protect their First Amendment rights are growing impatient and frustrated.”