Monday, July 27, 2015

Women's Waterloo?

They're at it again.
In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision allowing gay marriage in all fifty states and the District of  Columbia, a bunch of  Republicans hope to "protect" religious freedom with new legislation that would offer exemptions for any business, organization, or person who's against same-sex marriage for faith-bases reasons. A bill called the First Amendment Defense Act, introduced in June by Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Representative Ra├║l Labrador of Idaho, both Republicans, would ban the federal government from taking "any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage." 
In other words, the bill would make the government look the other way if conservative Christian businessmen and non-profit leaders to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their views of same-sex marriage.  But it would also allow conservative Christian businessmen and non-profit leaders to discriminate against staffers for practices in their personal lives that offend the boss man's religious beliefs . . . like having a child out of wedlock.
Detractors of the bill are quick to point out that this bill's language is sweeping enough to, theoretically (or theocratically?), allow employers to fire single women for getting pregnant, a common practice in parochial and other religious schools to deal with single pregnant teachers, made permissible by, ironically, another Supreme Court ruling.  That "liberty" doesn't extend to businesses or non-profits . . . yet.
I'm sorry . . . when did we become Iran?
Did I happen to mention that Lee and Labrador are both Mormons?  This alone should be of concern, since Mormons have been known for pushing a misogynistic temporal agenda on the rest of the country; they were instrumental in sinking the Equal Rights Amendment.  
Anyway, this bill will never become law under the Obama administration.  The President will veto it, and he is more likely to be sustained by both houses of Congress that n he is on the Iran nuclear deal.  But if a Republican is elected President in 2016, and the GOP holds both houses of Congress, then 2017 will be remembered as the year the war on women ended . . . because the men will have won.  And they will have won demanding unconditional surrender.

No comments: