Conflict between Military Religious Freedom, Sexual Freedom Continues

Update: Multiple news sources now report that 11 states have sued the Federal government for its edict attempting to require public schools to let children use the bathroom of their choice, rather than the bathroom of their gender.

When the homosexual movement began in earnest to assert its lifestyle in society a few years ago, it claimed — some would say knowingly falsely — that all it wanted was the “freedom to love.” What difference did it make to you, after all, if someone wanted to love a man instead of a woman?

Those who dared to call for protection of religious liberty were shouted down as unnecessary and were accused of harboring hatred, bigotry, and being the go-to slur of “homophobe.”

Of course, as everyone now realizes, those “homophobes” were right.

Just a few years ago it would have been laughable to claim the State would force a Christian — a private citizen — to participate in and affirm a “wedding” between homosexuals.

And yet that is precisely what has happened.

Just recently it would have been unthinkable that US troops would be punished for saying “Homosexuality is a sin.”

And yet that is precisely what has happened.

It would have been unconscionable that the government would allow men and women to choose which bathroom/locker room facilities they wanted to use — irrespective of the privacy rights of every other citizen.

And not just allow, but enforce that choice — with the full force of the State.

And yet, that is precisely what has happened.

What was once evil is now not just condoned, not just celebrated, but also required.

The conflict continues.

After a few years of calm on the military religious freedom front, the US House of Representatives included an amendment to the 2017 NDAA to protect government contractors from being required to accept homosexuality/transgenderism in order to qualify for government contracts.

Known as the Russell Amendment after its author, Steve Russell of Oklahoma, the non-descript Amendment was intended to protect religious organizations from having to adhere to government-mandated sexual policies counter to their religious beliefs. (No law requires them to adhere to such policies; rather, President Obama issued an Executive Order to do so.)

As Mike Berry of the First Liberty Institute pointed out, this Amendment is absolutely necessary. Without it, military bases around the world can no longer freely hire contractors to fill empty religious support roles — because they rely on contractors who, because of their religious nature, cannot assent to the mandates of the Executive Order.

It’s also a protection that already exists in law. The only reason it wasn’t addressed in response to this latest issue is because the latest issue didn’t come about as a result of a change in law but from an Executive Order. Congress’s intent is simply to apply the same protections that are already in law to the non-legislated Executive Order.

This seems like a reasonable protection of their religious freedom, as it prevents the government from discriminating against persons based on their religious beliefs. That’s what the Constitution is supposed to do with regard to citizens and their liberties.

Homosexual activists and their supporters, though, called this taxpayer-funded discrimination.

At one point, Democrats in the House of Representatives ironically shouted “Shame!” as an amendment intended to undo the Russell Amendment failed to pass.  Shame, of course, once referred to the awareness of impropriety.  Now, shame is apparently used because what was once called impropriety isn’t being supported strongly enough.

In response to the defeat by House Republicans, Rep Steve Israel (D-NY) calmly said:

This reveals them for who they are. They are bigots. They are haters.

Choosing not to support or affirm non-monogamous non-heterosexuality in all its forms — from promiscuity to bestiality — is neither hatred nor bigotry. Choosing to protect citizens from being separated from society or discriminated against because of their religious beliefs is neither hatred nor bigotry.

Demonizing a substantial portion of the American population for having those religious beliefs, on the other hand, arguably is.

Also at the Stars and Stripes.


One comment

  • People seem to forget that the 1st Amendment was enacted to place limits on the federal government. And they also forget this line from the 1st Amendment “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Then they add a statement that is not in the Constitution “separation of church and state.” As Joseph Blau stated “Freedom of religion means the right of the individual to choose and to adhere to whichever religious beliefs he may prefer, to join with others in religious associations to express these beliefs, and to incur no civil disabilities because of his choice.” Hopefully this will be challenged in the courts. What’s next the government says the pastor cannot speak of certain things from the pulpit because the government says it’s hate speech? Bottom-line the government can and should not be able to tell a church (or a Chaplain) who they can or cannot hire. Especially if it violates the tenants of that church’s (or Chaplain’s) faith.