Despite this past year being triumphant for the LGBT community and the nation as a whole, there is still a major portion of Americans who believe anyone who does not identify as straight does not deserve the basic rights everyone is entitled to. Recently, we witnessed the proposal of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), a piece of legislation proposed by Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID) and Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). According to Newsweek, "FADA has quickly emerged as a key legislative goal of social conservative groups who have rolled up endorsements on its behalf from such GOP lawmakers as Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and, notably, the Republican National Convention in August 2015" (Olson).

The core clause of the bill states:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or the sexual relations are properly reserved to marriage."

The purpose of this legislation is to, "address conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty," and stresses the importance of, "preventing government interference," with, "the free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions about marriage" (Olson). While other news sites such as Cosmopolitan and Fusion focus on the fact that FADA would give businesses the right to fire their employees because they're having premarital sex and because of the gender of one's spouse/significant other, these aren't the only issues with the bill that need to be addressed.

The First Amendment Defense Act is Essentially State Sanctioned Discrimination

As stated by the Human Rights Campaign, "this Act would allow organizations and businesses contracting with the federal government to circumvent critical federal protections designed to protect same-sex couples and their families from harmful discrimination. It would also enable federal employees to refuse to fully perform their duties if they believe they conflict with their objection to same-sex marriage" (Human Rights Campaign.

FADA Would Eliminate Key Protections for LGBTQ+ Citizens and Their Families

Also said by the Human Rights Campaign, "FADA would allow individuals and businesses using taxpayer dollars to ignore the few federal policies that do exist to protect them if they claim the protections aren't in line with their individual beliefs about marriage" (Human Rights Campaign). Examples of such policies include Executive Order 11.246, which created requirements for non-discriminatory methods in hiring and employment on the part of US government contractors, and The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which provides money towards investigating and prosecuting those who commit violent crimes against women.

There Could be Worse to Come

According to Walter Olson of the Cato Institute, "FADA really does seem not just to lay down a marker on behalf of future Kim Davis's, but even to go much further. Relatively few government employees have marriage recordation as one of their job duties, but many of them have job duties that involve recognizing already-wed couples as married, in the handling of joint tax returns, pensions and mortgage programs, student aid programs and federal employee benefits, crime investigation and on and on. If FADA is to be taken at face value, it appears to protect a federal clerk working through a stack of survivorship benefit papers who declines to process one for a gay couple" (Olson)

According to the American Principles Project, four previous presidential candidates- Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina- pledged their support to FADA and desired to enact it into law within the first 100 days of their presidency. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush did not promise to put this bill into law during their first 100 days but have expressed support for the act. The remaining candidates- John Kasich, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Jim Gilmore- did not respond to the American Principles Projects request to support FADA (American Principles Project).

In addition, I recently emailed the two politicians who introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, Senator Mike Lee and Congressman Raul Labrador and asked them to answer a few of my questions regarding the act. Despite my request for a response and the guarantee that their staff would ensure they received the letter, I have yet to hear back from either.

Since the Stonewall Riots of June 1969, the United States has advanced tremendously in terms of granting LGBTQ+ citizens the rights they deserve. However, if we pass the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), all the progress we have made will essentially be erased.