NOM BLOG

Another Example of Punishment For Opposing Same-Sex 'Marriage'

 

In 2012, Utah National Guardsman Layne Wilson heard about a same-sex 'marriage' being performed in the hallowed Cadet Chapel at West Point and, like many Americans, was outraged. Wilson, a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, wrote an email and Facebook post expressing his opposition to this use of the Chapel, calling it a "mockery to God and our military core values." The enlisted man said in an email, "I have proudly served for 27 years and this is a slap in the face to us who have put our lives on the line for this country. I hope sir that you will take appropriate action so this does not happen again." Despite the constitutional protections guaranteed for freedom of religion, National Guard officials promptly disciplined the enlisted man, revoking his six year contract and substituting a one-year contract, as well as issuing a letter of reprimand. When Wilson objected, the Guard was forced to reinstate the six-year contract, but kept the reprimand in place and actually issued a second letter of reprimand.

This is another example of how the government acts to punish people of faith who object to same-sex 'marriage' and oppose governmental efforts to normalize the behavior. Wilson sued the government, relying on the protections provided under the Religious Liberty Restoration Act (RFRA) but in an unfortunate ruling yesterday from a federal judge, his claim of protection because of religious beliefs was denied. Wilson's attorney has promised an appeal.

This case is the latest in a growing chorus of examples of individuals, small businesses and charities who have been punished for exercising their first amendment rights to oppose the redefinition of marriage and instead stand for the truth of marriage as God designed it -- the union of one man and one woman. NOM calls on Congress to move expeditiously to pass the First Amendment Defense Act to protect people from governmental discrimination and retaliation due to their position on marriage.

You can read more about this case at the National Law Journal.