Speaker 1: What is the Respect for Marriage Act? The United States
Speaker 1: Senate is going to be considering this legislation this week,
Speaker 1: But what does it really do? Innocuous on its face
Speaker 1: and entitle it seems like it's no big deal. Remember
Speaker 1: how they told us that the Inflation Reduction Act would
Speaker 1: actually reduce inflation, and then after it was passed, they said,
Speaker 1: l L, just kidding. It's a climate bill. So what
Speaker 1: is the Respect for Marriage Act? Now? Supporters of it
Speaker 1: would say that all it does is that it federally
Speaker 1: recognizes same sex civil marriage. You know, no big deal,
Speaker 1: they say, But if you look under the hood, what
Speaker 1: would that do to institutions, to to people, to churches
Speaker 1: who abide by biblical teachings that marriages between a man
Speaker 1: and a woman, would that put them in the cross
Speaker 1: hairs of lawsuits or are from the federal government. Now
Speaker 1: those who oppose the legislation have expressed great concern. Learns
Speaker 1: Rabbi Akov mentioned. The founder of Project Genesis had this
Speaker 1: to say about it. He said that so called Expect
Speaker 1: for Marriage Act is the federal government explicitly declaring the
Speaker 1: Bible is wrong. He goes on to note that the
Speaker 1: legislation allows any private actor to initiate a lawsuit if
Speaker 1: a religious school wishes to recognize only traditional marriages. Also
Speaker 1: concerns that it goes way beyond that, that if it
Speaker 1: becomes law, it could affect employment decisions employees, spousal benefits,
Speaker 1: eligibility for grants or contracts, accreditation, tax exemptions, even put
Speaker 1: faith based foster care and adoption agencies in the cross
Speaker 1: hairs of lawsuits and potentially the federal government. Many Senators
Speaker 1: have also expressed concern as well. Senator Mike Lee has
Speaker 1: introduced an amendment to try to actually protect religious liberty
Speaker 1: in America, but the Senate is not even allowing for it.
Speaker 1: They won't even take up Senator Mike Lee's amendment, and
Speaker 1: Senator Mike Lee has said that what this actually is,
Speaker 1: what they're back for marriage actually is this act, this legislation,
Speaker 1: is that this is a show game that ends in
Speaker 1: the destruction of religious liberty in America. Senator Lindsey Graham
Speaker 1: had this to say. He said that the sponsors refusal
Speaker 1: to adopt Senator to Lee's amendment, which clearly protects religious institutions,
Speaker 1: says all I need to know about the potential risks
Speaker 1: of the bill. So We're going to turn to Travis Weber,
Speaker 1: who is the vice president for policy and government Affairs
Speaker 1: at the Family Research Council, to find out what the
Speaker 1: bill actually is, what would it do if this legislation
Speaker 1: was passed, and what does it mean for religious liberty
Speaker 1: in America more broadly. I hope you will tune in
Speaker 1: for this really important conversation. I believe it's truly a
Speaker 1: really important conversation because not everything is always as it seems.
Speaker 1: I wanted to talk about the Respect for Marriage Act. Obviously,
Speaker 1: you know, Democrats are really good at giving sort of
Speaker 1: these are Wellian names to things, you know, the Inflation
Speaker 1: Reduction Act, and then they were like, l O, L
Speaker 1: just kidding, it's a climate bill. So you know, I
Speaker 1: want to I want to get into, you know, what
Speaker 1: actually is the Respect for Marriage Act, what's the intent?
Speaker 1: But also what does it actually do? Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: I think that their intent is to try to to
Speaker 1: take advantage of the moment politically and push something that
Speaker 1: they think will help them out, even though no, no Republicans,
Speaker 1: no one is trying to otherwise address this issue right
Speaker 1: now legislatively at the national level. Uh, They're they're claiming
Speaker 1: this is in response to a threat from Justice Thomas
Speaker 1: Concurrence in the Job's case. But they're the ones raising,
Speaker 1: you know, making cultural war, so to speak, right now
Speaker 1: with this bill. Um the bill, the bills titles also deceiving.
Speaker 1: It's it doesn't respect marriage. I mean that the problem,
Speaker 1: you know, we were inventing something. We get into the
Speaker 1: area of same sex marriage as a society, and this
Speaker 1: is a dangerous road to be on. Additionally, their issue
Speaker 1: that we are trying to help people understand about this
Speaker 1: bill right now is that it's implications for religious liberty
Speaker 1: would be drastic by by repealing the defense of marriage
Speaker 1: back in federal law, which is what the bill does,
Speaker 1: mandating full faith and credit based on a state's definition
Speaker 1: of same sex marriage or however otherwise the state would
Speaker 1: define marriage. Uh and failing to protect religious liberating the
Speaker 1: bill the bills that it becomes law, it's gonna unleash attacks,
Speaker 1: let litigation, marginalization, and other social, legal, and economic consequences
Speaker 1: for those who disagree. And that's the significant point of
Speaker 1: really trying to help senders understand and right now, the
Speaker 1: builders does protect religious liberty. So you've got some senators
Speaker 1: coming out now saying this version protects religious liberty. That
Speaker 1: version does not, because all it does is say churches
Speaker 1: and religious organizations can't be forced to perform same sex
Speaker 1: marriage ceremonies in essence on their facilities. That's not an
Speaker 1: issue right now. The issue is that all the other
Speaker 1: consequences of dissenting from the view that same sex marriage legitimate.
Speaker 1: So religious college wants to have a code of conduct
Speaker 1: and forced it on its campus would not be protected,
Speaker 1: for example, among many other examples. So the current text
Speaker 1: fails to protect it. Even though you hear Republicans um
Speaker 1: the the compromise between Senators tell Us, Collins and Baldwin
Speaker 1: going around saying protect religious liberty. This is unfortunately, I
Speaker 1: think as hoodwinked a number of other Republicans, twelve of
Speaker 1: whom voted for this the first procedural vote, but they're
Speaker 1: just misinformed. It doesn't protect religious liberty. Senator leads of
Speaker 1: them would protect religious liberty. We're gonna have more votes
Speaker 1: after this weekend. That's the nutshell of of the situation.
Speaker 1: But it really doesn't protect religious liberty, and you've got
Speaker 1: a lot of religious leaders who are raising concerns about
Speaker 1: what this could do. Was reading this Daily Signal article,
Speaker 1: and Rabbi Yakov Menken, the founder of Project Genesis, said
Speaker 1: that essentially what the Respect for Marriage Act would do
Speaker 1: is saying that, you know, the federal government would explicitly
Speaker 1: declare that the Bible is wrong. Uh, you know, you
Speaker 1: go on too. You know, there's other you know, some
Speaker 1: bishops recently raised some concerns as well. And so the
Speaker 1: Respect for Marriages Acts rejection of timeless truths about marriage
Speaker 1: is evident on its face and in its purpose, it
Speaker 1: would betray our country's commitment to the fundamental right of
Speaker 1: religious liberty. That's from Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York
Speaker 1: and Bishop Robert Baron of Winona, Rochester, Minnesota. So, you know,
Speaker 1: religious leaders here raising concerns and essentially saying declaring what
Speaker 1: they believe, what the religion teaches, what the Bible teaches,
Speaker 1: is inherently wrong. Yeah, no, that's right, you know. And
Speaker 1: and one of the things that bill would do is
Speaker 1: send a signal that the federal government are people's voice,
Speaker 1: and Congress is saying that, um, same sex marriage is legitimate,
Speaker 1: other views of marriage are not legitimate. That's a dangerous
Speaker 1: place to be because uh, that's going to be the
Speaker 1: basis of finding a federal and national public policy um
Speaker 1: in favor of same sex marriage that will be used
Speaker 1: to revoke tax exempt status of anyone who disagrees. Religious
Speaker 1: organizations eventually churches, synagogues, mosques, you mentually grabbed by Menkan
Speaker 1: He's represents the voice of many traditional Jews in the
Speaker 1: Jewish community who disagree with the push, the ideological push
Speaker 1: against traditional more religious values and so um the public
Speaker 1: policy finding could follow from this bill that would be
Speaker 1: disastrous for anyone who doesn't agree with what the bill
Speaker 1: is doing. So so very much so the signal that
Speaker 1: sends against the scripture, against traditional Judaism and you know Islam,
Speaker 1: anyone who who religiously or otherwise disagrees, and especially the
Speaker 1: point it's not you know, it's not just religion. It
Speaker 1: could be if you disagree with this as a policy um,
Speaker 1: the bill could be used eventually against you. Is if
Speaker 1: we have a national public policy in favor of same
Speaker 1: sex marriage. And so so that's you know, the signaling effect,
Speaker 1: the impact on the landscape of the litigation that's been
Speaker 1: playing out for years already. You have Jack backed small
Speaker 1: business owners like Jack Phillips Bariteld Stutsman at the sucreen
Speaker 1: Court multiple times trying to defend their rights to simply
Speaker 1: exercise their faith in their business right. So we don't
Speaker 1: want to create a cake for same sex marriage. The
Speaker 1: her their opponents are showing up in their shops forcing
Speaker 1: them to using the course to wors than to when
Speaker 1: other shops will create that same cake. And so um,
Speaker 1: these people are going to be totally thrown under the
Speaker 1: bus by this bill if it passes. There are multiple
Speaker 1: problems with it well, and you know that's why, you know,
Speaker 1: Senator should be encouraged to take on Senator Mike Lee's
Speaker 1: amendment because we can't. There's no there's no understanding that
Speaker 1: the Left would act in good faith because, as you
Speaker 1: just pointed out, they continued assault on Jack Phillips masterpiece
Speaker 1: shop in Colorado and the undermining of him, trying to
Speaker 1: drive him out of business, trying to target him. And
Speaker 1: this is just one example. So the idea that somehow,
Speaker 1: you know, we should just trust that they would act
Speaker 1: in good faith has already been thrown out the window
Speaker 1: when you know, as you pointed out, what they've done
Speaker 1: to Jack Phillip and uh in Colorado. Yeah, you're you know,
Speaker 1: when we when the nation was having a discussion and
Speaker 1: various core cases on the issue of same sex marriage
Speaker 1: years ago, what we heard was, you know, we were told,
Speaker 1: you know that that others will be tolerated and we
Speaker 1: just want marriage and will respect those who disagree. The
Speaker 1: bill doesn't do that, and behind this is a threat,
Speaker 1: as you note, to people like Jack Phillips, including um,
Speaker 1: you know, anyone who wants to sort of exercise their
Speaker 1: views in the context of the federal government, those who
Speaker 1: want to receive public money, contract with the government, UM,
Speaker 1: anyone in the marketplace, because the bill will open up
Speaker 1: invite more litigation against them, like Jack Phillips. Religious colleges,
Speaker 1: universities be able to live out their faith. Um. And
Speaker 1: I'm aware that you know they're there schools College of
Speaker 1: the Ozarks, and other schools in Missouri, the home state
Speaker 1: of Roy Blunt who voted for this bill, who are
Speaker 1: very concerned about the impact that their own Senator UH
Speaker 1: will be helping achieve the negative adverse effect on their
Speaker 1: own religious liberty. The Senator blood is helping usher in
Speaker 1: so you know he Joni Earns from Iowa, Todd Young
Speaker 1: from Indiana, Synthing dilemmas from Wyoming and and the others
Speaker 1: who voted for this. It's a significant problem that they
Speaker 1: would fail to see that this does not protect religious liberty. Um.
Speaker 1: I think you know, they could just be there's some
Speaker 1: messages out there that this does based on the language
Speaker 1: of the bill, but I already reviewed how it doesn't.
Speaker 1: You know, it just it would only protect them in
Speaker 1: these these pastors and these groups who related to the
Speaker 1: solidnization of a marriage, that that is not protect your
Speaker 1: religious liberty. And you know it includes perfunctory language about
Speaker 1: this bill will not impact religious liberty. Well, as you noted, Um,
Speaker 1: that statement requires trust and no one should have it
Speaker 1: that that. You know, the people who oppose religious liberty
Speaker 1: in the area of marriage will honor a statement like that.
Speaker 1: They will not. And the courts in the full way
Speaker 1: to the government we brought down on people's heads. You disagree.
Speaker 1: So you know, Senator, the twelve who voted for this,
Speaker 1: Senator Blunt, Burr, Capital Collins, Ernst Lumas, Rokowski, Portman, Romney, Sullivan,
Speaker 1: Tillison among those twelve Republican senators need to understand that
Speaker 1: this is not protect religious liberty. Well, and to your point,
Speaker 1: it broadens out, you know, who could get you know,
Speaker 1: suit or faith persecution for their beliefs. And the rabbi
Speaker 1: had mentioned earlier, Rabbi Mecan. He also went on to say,
Speaker 1: any private actor to initiate a lawsuit or this legislation
Speaker 1: allows any private actor to initiate a lawsuit if religious
Speaker 1: school wishes to recognize only traditional marriages. The National Catholic Register, Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, talked about an analysis that was done on
Speaker 1: what this said and and said that you know, it
Speaker 1: could affect, as your pointing out earlier, even more broadly,
Speaker 1: employment decisions, employees, spousal benefits, eligibility for grants or contracts, accreditation,
Speaker 1: taxi rexemptions, you know, goes on faith based foster care
Speaker 1: and adoption agencies, housing providers. Uh, you know, goes on
Speaker 1: and on and on about the amount of people that
Speaker 1: could be impacted by this, uh, you know, simply because
Speaker 1: you know, they believe what the Bible says. Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 1: I mean basically, if you look at the last you
Speaker 1: know what seven years now since the burgen felt even
Speaker 1: ten years lest you know, decade of struggle in the society,
Speaker 1: society over people's freedom to exercise their beliefs about marriage.
Speaker 1: You look at that landscape, and anything that we've seen
Speaker 1: in that landscape likely is fair game under this bill
Speaker 1: because again, the bill only protects the soleimnization of marriages
Speaker 1: related to certain organizations who are engaged in the practice
Speaker 1: the further insert of religion. So it's very narrow. Everything
Speaker 1: you just outlined, everything I've discussed already here I would
Speaker 1: not be protected. And uh, this is a serious problem
Speaker 1: because this is where the freedom, the disagreement, and the
Speaker 1: struggle over freedom has played out over this issue. It's
Speaker 1: not been over the performance of marriage. No one. No
Speaker 1: one's showing up in a church and saying I want
Speaker 1: you to marry me. And if if if they did
Speaker 1: that to a pass or disagreed, that case would likely
Speaker 1: find its way into court and the path through be
Speaker 1: protected under the First Amendment. That's not something we've seen.
Speaker 1: We've seen everything else, which is, um, we want this
Speaker 1: religious school to to house us in their dorms just
Speaker 1: like anyone else, provide the same treatment, just like in
Speaker 1: contravention of the beliefs of the one they're asking to
Speaker 1: provide that treatment. That's that's the religious freedom issue that
Speaker 1: Jack Phillips a small business cases. You mentioned adoption, that's
Speaker 1: a big one. UM. The treatment, accreditation, taxigent status of
Speaker 1: religious organizations and others with and their interaction with the
Speaker 1: federal government, contracts, grants, um. In addition to just the
Speaker 1: ability of you know, those exercising faith to live it
Speaker 1: out in their business or local community or society in
Speaker 1: other ways. I mean this, this is a serious issue,
Speaker 1: and and the beliefs of those who dissent are going
Speaker 1: to be just pushed to a side more and more.
Speaker 1: They're not gonna be treated as legitimate. This is going
Speaker 1: to be the basis of actors in society to justify
Speaker 1: originalizing it. So we're Congress past this bill. We don't
Speaker 1: have to give that person a voice or platform, and
Speaker 1: we can claim we're having a fair debate over the issue.
Speaker 1: We don't need to hear from that because they're beyond
Speaker 1: the balance of polite society, because they're defending marriage between
Speaker 1: a man and a woman. That's kind of what we're
Speaker 1: going to be looking at here, and that's why this
Speaker 1: is so dangerous. And if there wants to be this
Speaker 1: broad our conversation about inclusion, then why are people of
Speaker 1: faith being excluded? There's no there's no good reason. There's
Speaker 1: no good reason for senators to not consider Sendor Leads
Speaker 1: amendment as protective of religious liberty. The fact that Schumer
Speaker 1: sunder Schumer and all you know, his allies who want
Speaker 1: to see this bill past, the fact that they don't
Speaker 1: want to consider Senator Lee's amendment to it, tells you
Speaker 1: what you need to know about their respect religious liberty
Speaker 1: and about where this is all going. Because if they're
Speaker 1: not even consider his amendment, that tells you they don't
Speaker 1: believe the protections and his amendment deserved consideration, and those
Speaker 1: protections are common sense protections. That his amendment simply says
Speaker 1: that the people shall not be UM UH treated on
Speaker 1: the basis of UH, shall not be subject to discriminatory
Speaker 1: action because of their religious belief for moral conviction that
Speaker 1: marriage is the union of a man and a woman UH.
Speaker 1: And it says it goes on to protect the context
Speaker 1: attacks treatment UM funding for grants, contracts and contracts, loans
Speaker 1: and other agreements with the federal government and federal benefits
Speaker 1: and use of federal property and accreditation and and so.
Speaker 1: If that's not even so, if people pushing this bill
Speaker 1: are saying we want to protect religious liberty. They're not
Speaker 1: even able to consider that. They don't want to protect
Speaker 1: relgious liberty. And that needs to be understood by the
Speaker 1: two Republicans who voted voted for this, and everyone looking
Speaker 1: at this debate. Well, and that's what Senator Lindsey Graham said,
Speaker 1: who voted no undability. I believe he tweeted this that
Speaker 1: the sponsors refusal to adopt Senator Lee's amendment, which clearly
Speaker 1: protects religious institutions, says all I need to know about
Speaker 1: the potential risks of this bill, Josh Holly, is that
Speaker 1: this bill could lead to coercion Senator Mike Lee, who
Speaker 1: introduced the amendment that we're talking about, so that this
Speaker 1: is a shell game that ends in the destruction of
Speaker 1: religious liberty in America. You know, I believe was it
Speaker 1: the le amendment was already was it already voted down? No,
Speaker 1: it's not being considered, you know. And so far the
Speaker 1: Democrats have not have not have have refused to consider
Speaker 1: Senator Leaves amendment. Um, you know, if you refuse to
Speaker 1: engage that in discussion that I'm aware of, um, you know.
Speaker 1: And so a senators should vote against cloture unless sender
Speaker 1: leaves amendment is adopted at the bill, a Senator LEAs
Speaker 1: amendment is not attached this bill. Those senators, even the
Speaker 1: ones who voted so far for this bill, should refuse
Speaker 1: to vote for Culture. We're going to see two more
Speaker 1: votes next week and the five thirty on they thirty PM,
Speaker 1: there's a vote schedule that requires sixty centator, so they
Speaker 1: need they need ten of those twelve to um uh
Speaker 1: to vote for for the that on that on that
Speaker 1: procedural vote. On the twenty two days after that, there's
Speaker 1: going to be another sixty vote threshold vote I think,
Speaker 1: to proceed to quote final, the final culture vote, and
Speaker 1: then they'll be final passage requiring fifty votes. So so
Speaker 1: they but senator leaves amendment's not even been in the mix.
Speaker 1: And so you know, our our our position is that
Speaker 1: you know, senator should not vote for Culture on this
Speaker 1: unless Senator leads amend it is actually adopted at the bail.
Speaker 1: If it's not, the discussion over the over good faith
Speaker 1: and religious freedom is over. They don't want to protect
Speaker 1: religious freedom. That's the end of the story. Um So, yeah,
Speaker 1: they have refused to consider it so far. Though. Let's
Speaker 1: take a quick commercial break. More on their respect for
Speaker 1: Marriage Act. On the other side, how fundamental is religious
Speaker 1: freedom to a free society really just liberty to a
Speaker 1: free society. I mean it's yeah, it's it's totally essential,
Speaker 1: you know, and I think there's a you know, it's
Speaker 1: an interesting to reflect on this over Thanksgiving as well,
Speaker 1: right because the faunidly of our country was related to
Speaker 1: to the people fleeing, you know, across an ocean to
Speaker 1: have the freedom to live out their faith. And so
Speaker 1: it might not be equal points to everyone that everyone
Speaker 1: should recognize the value that it contributes to a society
Speaker 1: and the necessity of allowing the space for those who
Speaker 1: want to live out their faith. No one should not
Speaker 1: be forced to violate their conscience in a free society,
Speaker 1: and that's what we're dealing with here in this in
Speaker 1: this context, but we need to provide the space for
Speaker 1: people of up their faith. Not only is it the
Speaker 1: right thing to do as a as a matter of
Speaker 1: American um a principle you know of our American constitutional
Speaker 1: or public going back to our founding um. You know,
Speaker 1: not only is it right on that score, you know,
Speaker 1: when we look at for people who can't relate to this,
Speaker 1: maybe as much personally. Look at freedoms that they enjoy,
Speaker 1: freedom of the press or freedom of speech, free speech.
Speaker 1: These are things that have defined America since its founding.
Speaker 1: So they're foundational and that in that score because they
Speaker 1: produce the full even flourishing, allow people to research full potential.
Speaker 1: But they also add value. Right, there's millions and millions
Speaker 1: of dollars of value added to our society by the
Speaker 1: contributions of religious foster adoption provide ters for example, um,
Speaker 1: those caring for for for the poor and needy, those
Speaker 1: providing housing housing for the poor and needy, educational institutions,
Speaker 1: and those contributing to the education of our society. These
Speaker 1: are these are massive inputs from religious community. So if
Speaker 1: you don't allow the freedom of the religious committees to
Speaker 1: do to live those areas out as they got to
Speaker 1: their faith, and force them to violate their conscience in them,
Speaker 1: there's compably gonna drop out, They're gonna cease and doing
Speaker 1: then they're gonna withdraw. That not only stamp stomps on
Speaker 1: the freedom of people that America should be ashamed to
Speaker 1: be stomping on, but but it actually it causes a
Speaker 1: degradation of our society's well being. Uh, you know, we're
Speaker 1: taking the institutions society, tearing them apart. A big part
Speaker 1: of those are religious institutions. What is this administration, the
Speaker 1: Biden administration's record on religious liberty. Yeah, I mean it's
Speaker 1: it's it's not good. You know. The Biden administration has
Speaker 1: made a point to undo virtually all of the previous
Speaker 1: administration's accomplishments on religious liberty, which include the protection of
Speaker 1: conscience for um, those in the healthcare community with regard
Speaker 1: to their they're they're forcing them to participate in abortions
Speaker 1: or other medical procedures against their conscience. Um. The administration
Speaker 1: is undone. The other federal actions and tax are executive
Speaker 1: orders that that that President Trump had put into place. Um.
Speaker 1: The administration, you know, it does not supporting for instance,
Speaker 1: in this context they want to sign this bill into law,
Speaker 1: they don't. They don't want religious freedom protections in it. Um.
Speaker 1: They they've failed to prioritize the issue internationally. As Secretary State,
Speaker 1: like Pompeo, Investador at Large, Sam brown Back, you've done
Speaker 1: in the State Department under under the previous administration, We've
Speaker 1: made a point to send the signal and that we
Speaker 1: will protect those around the world according to their faith
Speaker 1: and um and actually do it. You know, we we
Speaker 1: pressured Turkey when they detained Pastor Andrew Brunson, put economic
Speaker 1: sanctions on them, forcing his return, them to release him
Speaker 1: to come back to the United States. That matters, you know.
Speaker 1: Now this administration is instead is dropping it's its promotion
Speaker 1: of religious freedom worldwide, instead going around and pressuring governments
Speaker 1: to modify their cultural stance on crazy gender ideology issues.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the priority of the Biden administration Internationally.
Speaker 1: It's casting a shameful shadow over the US. You know,
Speaker 1: I've talked to people internationally and they think, they're like,
Speaker 1: this is you know, this is this is shameful what
Speaker 1: we We're looking to the US for help and we're
Speaker 1: feeling pressured by the US on our on our social
Speaker 1: views and our countries. And they think everyone in the
Speaker 1: US believes these things. And I'm I'm telling them though,
Speaker 1: you have a big segment of the US population that
Speaker 1: is not agree with Biden's heavy hand pushing these issues
Speaker 1: around the world. And so yeah, overall, the the the
Speaker 1: rectord has been pretty bad and it needs to be better.
Speaker 1: I mean, we've you still got u the issue China's
Speaker 1: treatment of weakers in its concentration camp system, and treatment
Speaker 1: of Christians across the Middle East, treatment of the believers
Speaker 1: in Iran, and we need to be highlighting these situations
Speaker 1: internationally and not neglecting them. And unfortunately Biden needs to
Speaker 1: give them more attention. Why do you think this administration
Speaker 1: has so much hostility towards religion or towards people of
Speaker 1: faith as it seems, Yeah, I think you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's um. I think they they failed to understand that
Speaker 1: religious freedom is the right thing to protect, and they
Speaker 1: fail to see the value that there's it's almost like
Speaker 1: this worldview and this outlook that we can get by
Speaker 1: without without this whole religion thing, without these these Christians
Speaker 1: who who are increasingly being um uh you know, the
Speaker 1: subject of of lea goals and having labels put on
Speaker 1: them domestically in the United States, and and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: being framed in a way is almost a problem to
Speaker 1: society instead of a value added and the contribution. And
Speaker 1: so we really need to cut through the false of
Speaker 1: the narratives. I mean, misinformation is a term that's used
Speaker 1: a lot these days, right, Well, there actually is misinformation
Speaker 1: out there about Christian beliefs, um, other religious communities beliefs,
Speaker 1: the way in which these are interacting society. So I
Speaker 1: think there's a failure to really grasp the truth about
Speaker 1: Christianity and specific religion in general that that helps people,
Speaker 1: you know, for instance, in high levels of the Bide administration,
Speaker 1: understand that this is a value added society and we
Speaker 1: actually shouldn't be wanting to marginalize Christians. We should be
Speaker 1: welcoming them in for their contributions. So I think there's
Speaker 1: a dangerous shift under way that that that's you know,
Speaker 1: sort of the reason, Uh, the answer to your question
Speaker 1: is there's a danger shift that that is leading um
Speaker 1: a worldview shift among among officials, members of the Biden
Speaker 1: administration and other you know, seats of power in our society.
Speaker 1: That this shift is leading them to to not see
Speaker 1: the value and even say well this is a horss
Speaker 1: for me to exclude it. Well, that's a dangerous place
Speaker 1: to be when I you know, the light of sort
Speaker 1: of what I held outlined earlier, which is the contributions
Speaker 1: of religious communities, we should not be We've got a
Speaker 1: lot of problems as in society. We need everyone at
Speaker 1: the table seeking to help solve them. Religious communities want
Speaker 1: to do that, so we need to be welcoming that,
Speaker 1: not marginalizing it. Quick commercial brank more on religious liberty
Speaker 1: in America. But I honestly think you can draw a
Speaker 1: direct correlation between the client of religion in the country
Speaker 1: and the increased societal fall that we are as a country.
Speaker 1: You know, there's there's this high fashion brand Balanciaga, and
Speaker 1: they're facing backlash as they could or as they should,
Speaker 1: for this disgusting ad campaign featuring child models holding teddy bears.
Speaker 1: The teddy bears are dressed in bondage gear. In one
Speaker 1: of the the ads, there's an image of the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court opinion case in a child pornography case as a
Speaker 1: prop promoting the handbag. It's just I don't know. I
Speaker 1: don't think that, you know, a decade ago, that this
Speaker 1: would be anywhere near acceptable, and the idea that if
Speaker 1: a fashion house like Blendsiago could think that there's anything
Speaker 1: okay with this. It's just it's just outrageous and it's disgusting.
Speaker 1: But I think it's sort of underscores where we are
Speaker 1: today as a society and how depraved and disgusting our
Speaker 1: society is, to be honest, yeah, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: children have really been in the crosshairs of the the
Speaker 1: the sexual the sexualization of society. Children have been the
Speaker 1: focus of so much of of this push to sexualized society,
Speaker 1: and I mean this has been going on for some time,
Speaker 1: but we are seeing an increasing focus on children. And
Speaker 1: that's I think, in part why this is so horrific.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think there'd be problems with it even
Speaker 1: if it had an adults in the ad. But but
Speaker 1: you've got a little child in it in the act um.
Speaker 1: It tells us where we are. And I think, you know,
Speaker 1: people behind stuff like this just failed to have a
Speaker 1: frame of reference for where anyone else in society is at.
Speaker 1: Sometimes their own worldview that they don't have a component
Speaker 1: which enables them to say, well, there could be a
Speaker 1: problem with this in my you know, from the perspective
Speaker 1: of the person behind this, they probably are thinking, well,
Speaker 1: I don't see any problem with this. You know, this
Speaker 1: is the way I've I've lived and the world I've
Speaker 1: been in, and it's about me what I want to
Speaker 1: do sexually. Well, that's a very dangerous spot to be
Speaker 1: in as a society, and we have a lot of
Speaker 1: people thinking that way. I think we've been sort of
Speaker 1: on that road. This is a data point. Thankfully, it's
Speaker 1: getting attention. You know, children. I think more people need
Speaker 1: to wake up about the targeting of children this area.
Speaker 1: I think they are and I think this is behind
Speaker 1: the front of rights pushed back against the sexualization of
Speaker 1: children in schools that we saw in Louden County, Virginia
Speaker 1: several years ago, leading to um, you have no youngin's election.
Speaker 1: You're seeing this. We've seen this, this issue arise around
Speaker 1: the country, seen a rise in Florida, the push of curricula,
Speaker 1: the sexualization of children in schools, and otherwise jack the
Speaker 1: drag creen story our issue. Um, thankfully people are waking up.
Speaker 1: But I think more people need to wake up to
Speaker 1: the dangers of the road we're walking down, you know,
Speaker 1: the the the push for children to receive puberty blockers,
Speaker 1: frouss sex harmon's gender transition surgeries. Thankfully, The York Times
Speaker 1: even called attention of the problems with the East the
Speaker 1: other week. UM, more and more people are in parents
Speaker 1: are waking up to this. But as you know, um,
Speaker 1: these are these are this is a dangerous data point. Um.
Speaker 1: But so we just need to work and pray for
Speaker 1: more to see what society is doing to its children.
Speaker 1: And you know, if we can, if we can increase
Speaker 1: that concern, we can address these problems. Travis Weber, thanks
Speaker 1: so much for joining the show. I appreciate the work
Speaker 1: you're doing at Family Research Council, and I hope people
Speaker 1: who are listening, you know, get active. Tell your senator
Speaker 1: to vote no on their Respect for Marriage Act. It's
Speaker 1: not as it seems, and it could undermine religious liberty
Speaker 1: in America. So Travis, I appreciate you taking the time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, And let me just say too real quick, um,
Speaker 1: if they want to contact their senators, they can go
Speaker 1: to f r C action dot org slash marriage. That's
Speaker 1: f RC action dot org slash marriage and find information
Speaker 1: there to reach out to their senators, sellers, travels, whether
Speaker 1: or the Family Research Council on what I think is
Speaker 1: a really important issue, protecting religious liberty in America. That's
Speaker 1: what America is about. So if we lose that, I
Speaker 1: think we lose the country. So I appreciate his time.
Speaker 1: I want to thank you for listening. I want to
Speaker 1: thank John Cassio as well for putting together this show
Speaker 1: every Monday and Thursday, but you can listen throughout the week.
Speaker 1: Please leave us a review, give us a reading on
Speaker 1: Apple podcast. I love reading those and saying that thanks
Speaker 1: so much for listening.