WASHINGTON (ABP) — When the 110th Congress convenes Jan. 4, the culture wars could move to a different battleground.
The shift in the House from a significant Republican majority to a significant Democratic majority probably won't reduce legislation controversial for religious voters, according to experts. But the kind of legislation that raises controversy could be different — shifting from arguments over church-state issues and abortion rights to battles over gay rights, embryonic stem-cell research and federal judges.
“When the new Congress convenes here in just two weeks, we expect a growing assault on pro-family and pro-life values,” Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, wrote in a Dec. 19 fund-raising note to the group's supporters. The council is one of the most influential conservative Christian advocacy groups in Washington.
“The people spoke on Election Day and put a liberal majority in power,” Perkins continued. “We don't believe for a minute, however, that our fellow Americans were sending a message that they want things like higher taxes on families, publicly funded embryo-killing, the end of abstinence programs, national health care, and the weakening of man-woman marriage. Unfortunately, the new leaders in Congress and their radical allies may see it differently.”
From the perspective of religious moderates and progressives, however, the new Congress is simply less likely to spend time debating old-but-divisive subjects, like the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Instead, it is more likely to consider measures that could prove controversial to some religious conservatives but inspire support among religious centrists and liberals.
In previous sessions of Congress, since Republicans took control of both chambers in 1994, legislation on issues important to the Religious Right has repeatedly come to the House floor for votes. Much of that legislation — such as bills aimed at preventing federal courts' ability to hear cases dealing with government endorsement of religion — never made it through the Senate.
But a handful of bills have made it through, like a ban on “partial-birth” abortions. President Bush signed the ban into law, although the Supreme Court is currently reviewing its constitutionality.
Meanwhile, several bills advocated by social moderates and liberals failed to make it to the House floor.
Preetmohan Singh, deputy director for public policy at the Interfaith Alliance, said his group is hoping for advances on legislation that would protect the rights of minority groups.
First, he said, he hopes both chambers of Congress pass the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, commonly referred to as the Hate Crimes Bill. The bill would expand the federal government's ability to aid local law-enforcement officials on crimes that appear to be motivated or aggravated by the victim's race, religious background or gender. The bill would also add real or perceived sexual orientation to the categories of citizens it protects.
Some religious conservatives have opposed the bill and similar legislation in the past, claiming it offers “special rights” to minorities.
But Singh said religious people should support a bill that singles out crimes aggravated by racism, xenophobia, religious intolerance and homophobia. “We think for hate crimes that target places of worship and individuals for their faith, there are a couple of very good reasons to support this bill, and it's inaccurate to characterize it solely as a gay-rights bill,” he said.
Singh said his group also hopes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) will end up on President Bush's desk. The bill would ban workplace discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation.
“Again, that's going to be seen [by some religious conservatives] as special protections, and for the Interfaith Alliance, this is bringing all American citizens to be full citizens in American public life,” he said. “And we don't believe that companies, organizations, the government should be discriminating against individuals for sexual orientation.”
While 14 states already have similar bills on the books, federal civil-rights laws do not ban harassment or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. ENDA, despite bipartisan support, has not made it through both houses of Congress.
But the new House will be led by a speaker — Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — who is a longtime supporter of gay rights. Singh said that fact, combined with advances homosexuals have made in public visibility and esteem since ENDA was first introduced in the late 1990s make its passage more likely.
“I think there has been a sea change, and I think what a lot of our fellow Americans have seen over the last several years is the humanization of the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] community,” he said.
Passage of either ENDA or the Hate Crimes Bill may put President Bush in a delicate situation. While Bush supported a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, Singh noted, he has shown more openness to gays than previous Republican administrations.
“I think that he has expressed … through the Federal Marriage Amendment and other places [that] while he's for the Federal Marriage Amendment, he still says that all Americans should be treated with dignity and respect,” Singh said. “I think many of us hope that if these bills reach his desk, he will act upon that notion.”
But the legislative director for one gay-rights group cautioned that such bills aren't necessarily a shoo-in. Allison Herwitt of the Human Rights Campaign noted one of the ironies of Democrats re-taking control of the House: Many of the seats Democrats picked up came at the expense of the handful of Republican House members who are supportive of gay rights.
“Unfortunately, a good number of the moderate Republicans, you know, are not coming back. And so we do need to look at some of our other friends on Capitol Hill,” she said.
Herwitt also said her organization does not have assurance from new House leadership that such bills will be legislative priorities.
“We're certainly having conversations with our allies and friends on the Hill, but it's so early,” she said. “But it's a much different conversation with this leadership than not having conversation with the leadership in the previous Congress.”
Patrick Sammon, newly named president of the Log Cabin Republicans, declined to speculate on whether Bush might veto the hate-crimes or employment-discrimination bills. But he said his organization — for gay GOPers and their allies — is enthusiastic that they appeal to mainstream conservative values.
“When you are talking about issues other than marriage equality, I think it is a lot easier to make the case to Republicans as to why they should support the legislation,” he said. “Polling shows overwhelming support for both the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and [the] hate crimes [bill]. It really is providing basic protection that in no way infringes upon people's religious liberty and their moral concerns …. And that's all we're asking for with these pieces of legislation. We're saying that gay people shouldn't be assaulted and that gay people shouldn't be fired if they're doing their job.”
The change in control of the House will also likely mean much less time devoted to controversies over church-state relations, according to a Baptist religious-freedom advocate. Holly Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, said the new majority in that chamber will not be nearly as likely to bring many of the same religion-related bills to the floor that the previous House leadership did.
“We expect to see many fewer challenges to basic establishment clause religious freedom principles,” Hollman said, referring to the part of the First Amendment that bans government support for religion. For instance, she noted, Republican leaders in recent Congresses have repeatedly introduced measures to limit courts' ability to correct violations of the establishment clause, bills that would allow churches to get involved in partisan politics while retaining their tax-exempt status.
“We are looking forward to a fresh start” with the new leadership, she noted.
Hollman also said the House's attitude toward the government's ability to fund social services directly through religious groups may change. Previous House leaders have repeatedly tried to expand that ability — something President Bush has advocated through his “faith-based initiative.”
“I'm hopeful that in the area of the faith-based initiative, we will see fewer and less controversial proposals,” she said, adding: “We would like to see Congress turn its attention to its oversight responsibilities in that area.”
Hollman also said the new Congress may have to deal with issues related to religious freedom in the military. She added that she expects Congress will continue interest in Internal Revenue Service rules related to churches and partisan political activity, as well as interest in federal voucher programs for religious schools.
And both Hollman and Singh cautioned that a Democratic Congress won't necessarily mean an end to legislative efforts to reduce church-state separation.
Singh pointed out that many Democratic candidates in the last election cycle spoke regularly about faith issues and made appearances in churches. And potential Democratic candidates for the party's 2008 presidential nomination have hired religion gurus.
“I think the other place where we are going to be very vigilant is the use of religion in political campaigns,” Singh said. “We see in both political parties a danger in overcorrecting…saying, 'We need to frame our messages so they pertain to ‘religious voters.'' We want politicians to be authentic when they talk about religion and not to use religion to divide Americans.”
Hollman said politicians of any party can abuse religion. “We always will have to be watchful and guard against attempts to misuse religion and infringe on religious freedom,” she said.
-30-