Amid this heated talk, it was easy to lose sight of the fact that this was a statutory case, not a case decided under the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of religion. The statute in question, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, states that the government “shall not substantially burden” the exercise of religion without satisfying a demanding legal test.
It is worth noting that the act was championed by President Bill Clinton and passed in 1993, with near unanimity, by a Democrat-controlled Congress. The act was drafted in response to a controversial 1990 Supreme Court decision that made it easier — far too easy, according to critics of all political stripes — for the government to burden the exercise of religion.
Clinton was, as usual, pandering to the Right. A DINO to the manner born, exceptionally skilled in the Presentational Arts, Bill Clinton has bamboozled vast numbers of people into believing that he possessed a sold core of genuine beliefs, rather than mere expediencies.
The Clinton era was supposedly “a better time for this country.” And (as always) for some people it was Hence his growing retrospective popularity.
But for a great many others it wasn’t. As for Bill Clinton the only thing he has ever believed in is Bill Clinton.
As Gore Vidal has noted
And those in charge can easily navigate seemingly more treacherous waters. That’s why the “scandal” that “engulfed” Bill Clinton
didn’t end for him like this–
The decision in Hobby Lobby was no shock to anyone familiar with the heavy weight that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act places on religious accommodation. The fate of the case was sealed 21 years ago — not by a slim majority of the court, but by virtually every member of Congress.
No surprise in that they’re all professed “believers” in the Big Invisible Bi-Polar Daddy Who Lives in The Sky.
A second source of controversy is that many people view the Hobby Lobby case as concerning not just reproductive rights but also, indirectly, rights for gays and lesbians. Advocates for same-sex marriage have long insisted that their own marriages need not threaten anyone else’s, but citizens with religious objections to same-sex marriage wonder whether that is entirely true: Will a small-business owner be sued, for instance, for declining to provide services to a same-sex couple? Conversely, and understandably, gay and lesbian couples wonder why they do not deserve the same protections from discrimination granted to racial and other minorities. For both sides, Hobby Lobby was merely a prelude to this dawning conflict.
The success the LGBT communities has had in recent years shouldn’t lull us into believing that it’s gravy from now on. President Obama is a sincere ally.
President Clinton gave is “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and “The Defense of Marriage Act.”
Do we have any guarantee the Mrs. won’t throw us under the bus if “necessary”?
I think not.
Clintonian “love” is invariably an act of aggression.
And when I want aggressive love I go directly to Judy.