I ran across an article on Breitbart, and I think I need someone to explain this to me, because it just doesn’t make any sense.
Here is the headline:
The article explains that the deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union wrote an op-ed in the Washington Times, wherein he explained that in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage, the ACLU can no longer defend anyone under America’s RFRA laws.
You see, RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) laws, both at the federal and state levels, are designed to protect Americans’ 1st Amendment religious rights.
According to the ACLU’s website:
“For almost 100 years, the ACLU has worked to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
The First Amendment guarantees religious liberty, but the Constitution says nothing about marriage…so when it comes to protecting Americans’ rights, wouldn’t it make more sense to protect the rights that are codified in America’s highest law, rather than something that was tacked on after the fact? After all, the federally-required recognition of gay marriage is still contingent on one minor factor: the government recognizing marriage, which not required of any state in the Union.
But, as usual, the ACLU is choosing ideology over liberty. It doesn’t make sense, but no one should be surprised. With the Left, the Constitution isn’t worth the parchment it’s printed on.