First Amendment Defense Act

Under the First Amendment Defense Act, the Federal Government would be prohibited
from discriminating against covered individuals or institutions that define marriage as a
union of one man and one woman.

In the recent Obergefell Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, the
opinion reaffirmed that the religious liberty rights of all Americans, including those who
advocate a traditional view of marriage, must be protected. As Justice Kennedy stated in
the decision, the First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are
given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so
central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family
structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex
marriage for other reasons.
Frequently Asked Questions

What would this bill do?

This bill would simply preserve the status quo, ensuring that federal bureaucrats do not take
discriminatory actions against individuals, organizations, nonprofits and other entities on the
basis of their belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. This means denying a
Federal grant, contract, license, certification, accreditation, or non-profit status.
In a pluralistic society, in which people of good faith hold more than one view of marriage, it is
possible to fully protect the rights of same-sex couples, as required by the United States Supreme
Court, without forcing religious groups and believers to conform.
Would this bill protect charities or individuals who serve their fellow citizens?
Tens of thousands of religious organizations, and tens of millions of Americans hold an
irreplaceable position in our communities. Faith-based charities and citizens provide food,
clothing, shelter, counsel, and comfort to millions of Americans in need. They offer some of the
most important and desperately needed health, educational, and social services in the country.
And, they provide billions of dollars and thousands of full-time workers for international relief
aid that serves vulnerable migrants, refugees, and persecuted minorities. The work of religious
organizations has long been and continues to be central both to religious believers lives and to
the welfare of others. Our communitiesand, indeed, communities around the globewould be
much worse off without these organizations and their faith-informed good works.
The motivation of many American charitable service organizations and individuals is rooted in
deep faith and moral convictions central to the mission they carry out. And, for many, one such
conviction includes the belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman.
A faith-based charityjust like an individualought not to have to choose between adhering to
religious belief and carrying out their mission to serve the vulnerable. Indeed, a central reason
that people of great faith and conviction serve in our communities is precisely because of their
1

faith and conviction. Examples of this include the Catholic Missionaries of Charity who serve
the homeless, the Christian adoption agencies who find permanent homes for children who
remain in foster care for years, the Jewish day school instructing the next generation in the faith,
and the Islamic food aid program that provides meals and shelter to refugees forced by violence
from their homes.
The First Amendment Defense Act affirms that individuals still have the right to act according to
their faith and deepest convictions even when they leave the four walls of their church or home.
Would religious schools benefit from the protections in this legislation?
A central aspect of academic and religious freedom means deciding how to operate, which
faculty to hire, which students to admit, including decisions on the basis of their religious beliefs.
Universities or schools with religious missions must be free to select those who will teach and
receive their beliefs because a religious groups faith and mission is shaped through its
appointments and community.
And yet, in 2015, when asked whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status for
continued belief that marriage is the union of a man and woman, the Solicitor General of the
United States represented to the United States Supreme Court that [i]ts certainly going to be an
issue.
Part of our rich tradition of academic freedom in this country includes the rich diversity that
comes about as a result of religious education. Its clear that religious schools, particularly, need
the freedom to choose who will pass on religious teachings. All this bill does is preclude
politically motivated retribution from federal bureaucrats because the school acts in accordance
with its faith tradition.
Why does the bill include moral convictions in addition to religious beliefs?
Federal statutes recognizing and protecting moral convictions are not new. Over the past forty
years, numerous federal laws and regulations have been enacted to protect, among other things,
the rights of conscientious objectors and aliens, and to prevent doctors and nurses from being
forced to assist in the performance of abortions and correctional officers from being forced to
participate in executions.
The same sincerely held standard that is used when investigating religious beliefs will be applied
to claims based on moral conviction. This means that a judge would examine the sincerity of
moral conviction of any person who seeks recourse under the First Amendment Defense Act, just
as a judge would ensure that a persons religious beliefs are genuine and honestly held.
Why does the bill also protect the belief that sexual relations are reserved for marriage?
Many religious universities and colleges maintain honor codes that reflect not only their
understanding of marriage, but also their understanding of human nature and the purpose and
proper place for sexual relations. This phrase is essential to protect the religious freedom of
universities and schools with faith-based missions to determine the identity and faith of their
communities and to select who will pass on religious teachings.

Common Misperceptions
Will this bill authorize employees of the federal government to refuse to process the tax
returns, visa applications, or Social Security checks of same-sex couples?
No. The bill expressly excludes federal employees acting within the scope of their employment
and thus does not permit government employees to refuse services or benefits in any
circumstance.
But, outside of the scope of employment, government employees should not lose their jobs
because of the beliefs they hold.
Will this bill authorize federal for-profit contractors to deny services or benefits to samesex couples and/or eliminate any anti-discrimination protections for LGBT employees of
such contractors?
No. The bill expressly excludes federal for-profit contractors and thus does not permit such
contractors to refuse services to same-sex couples.
Will this bill authorize hospitals to refuse care to same-sex couples?
No. The bill expressly excludes hospitals, clinics, hospices, nursing homes, or other medical or
residential custodial facilities with respect to visitation, recognition of a designated
representative for health care decision-making, or refusal to provide medical treatment necessary
to cure an illness or injury.
But, a hospital should not lose its tax-exempt status or have its federal benefits revoked because,
for example, a doctor does not wish to provide counseling services that contravene his or her
beliefs.
Will this bill undermine federal civil rights protections, such as those available to
employees and customers of for-profit businesses?
No. The bill does not alter or modify in any way any civil rights protections, including the Civil
Rights Act, the American Disabilities Act, the Pregnancy Non-Discrimination Act, and any other
applicable federal law. Thus, the bill does not have any effect on, and employees and customers
will still have recourse to, any applicable protections under federal or state law.
Will this bill preempt any state non-discrimination laws?
No. The bill applies to the federal government only and does not preempt any state or local nondiscrimination laws, including those relating to sexual orientation or gender identity.