Dear Editor,
In politics, all decisions do not reach the same level of importance. Some decisions matter very much in the moment but will be forgotten within a decade. Others will be viewed by future generations as a turning point that causes generational harm.
Public Servants who understand the importance of those moments, and vote with future generations in mind, define the very word, “Statesman.” Senator John Barrasso made such a decision this week. In voting against a bill with a name right out of an Orwellian novel (the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act”), Senator Barrasso recognized a bill that could be used in the near future to drive people of faith who hold to the historic principles of their faiths out of the public square and out of business all-together.
One of the proponents of the bill argued that the bill doesn’t “embrace or validate ... devoutly held views, but simply tolerates them.” The problem is that tolerance only works when it flows both ways. The RMA only flows in one direction. It demands tolerance for one side while at the same time removing protections from the opposing side. It is not neutral so, the argument falls apart. That is the reason so many people with an eye toward history argued against the bill. If the aim of the bill was true toleration, it would have at least included the words from the Obergefell decision that created same-sex marriage in the first place. That 2015 decision stated that the belief in traditional marriage is held “in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world. Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged.” The RMA does not say that, instead it sets up lawyers everywhere to sue anyone who believes today what almost everyone believed a decade ago.
Often, we as citizens will speak out against a Public Servant when they vote opposite the way we want them to. I want to stand up and applaud a courageous and statesmanlike vote from our Senior Senator on a bill that will be revisited for generations to come. Sadly, Wyoming’s junior Senator did not follow suit.
My sincere hope is that Wyoming will learn and strengthen itself with intellectually muscular conservatism that understands the beautiful and hard-won history of religious toleration in America. Sincere conservatism that sees the right to freely exercise one’s faith as the wellspring of freedom itself.
It is all too rare to write a letter of thanks to the people we elect but I urge you to write Senator Barrasso a simple note of gratitude for standing up for freedom.
Nathan Winters
President of Wyoming Family Alliance & Wyoming Family Foundation
Reader Comments(0)