Local Religious Freedom Restoration Act

905 WordsMay 1, 20154 Pages
Local Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) are controversial in nature, because while they pretend to use the excuse to protect the free exercise of religion, intrinsically it is an avenue to attack same sex marriages which have been ruled constitutional by most circuit appellate courts in the United States. Currently the Supreme Court is hearing the cases that might ultimately decide the faith of marriage equality. United States v. Windsor opened the door for most federal appellate jurisdictions and some states to rule that prohibiting same-sex marriage was constitutional, on the basis of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. Despite this decision, the right to marriage is not an explicit protection addressed by the Constitution, and is often seen as a right delegated to the States under the 10th Amendment. On the other hand the free exercise clause is part of the First Amendment, and protects people from doing things that violate their religious principle, for example a Christian doctor from performing an abortion. The article from New York Times in which Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is an attempt to legitimize that RFRA plays an important place in protecting the free exercise of religion of people and the power to authorize or prohibit same sex marriage rest on the states police powers under the 10th Amendment. While a majority of Americans nowadays sympathize with gay people and equality marriage it is a more difficult questions to address in the context
Open Document