Anderson: Sen. Cruz’s Concerns About Religious Freedom Are Accurate


Ryan Anderson writes today in The National Review:

...if marriage is redefined, then a belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman ordered to procreation and family life — a notion once shared by virtually every human society — would increasingly be characterized as an irrational prejudice that ought to be driven to the margins of culture. The consequences for religious believers are becoming apparent.

Church steeple with American flagTed Cruz looked to other countries for examples, but he easily could have cited a growing number of incidents in the United States.

In fact, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty reports that “over 350 separate state anti-discrimination provisions would likely be triggered by recognition of same-sex marriage.”

Supporters of marriage as we’ve always understood it (a male-female union) “are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective,” Obama explained in an interview with Robin Roberts on ABC. “They’re coming at it because they care about families.” He added that “a bunch of ’em are friends of mine . . . people who I deeply respect.”

But in a growing number of incidents, government has not respected these Americans. To counter this, we must insist that government not discriminate against those who hold to the historic definition of marriage. Policy should prohibit the government or anyone who receives taxpayers’ dollars from discriminating in employment, licensing, accreditation, or contracting against those who believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.