Just over one month ago, at oral arguments for the same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court, President Obama left no doubt as to his legal strategy to marginalize and punish people for their belief in natural marriage.

At those arguments, the man responsible for advancing the Administration’s legal positions before the Court, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, stated “it is going to be an issue” if a college or university wanted to retain its tax-exempt status and at the same time hold on to its view that marriage is between a man and a woman.

This admission alone demonstrates the need to protect those whose views put them in the crosshairs of an Administration seeking to enforce its own morality on the culture.

Yet many others have already been targeted at the state level for their beliefs about marriage. Religious associations have been forced to open their facilities. Judges have been barred from joining nonprofit organizations. State officials have shut down longstanding adoption and foster care providers, and have severed partnerships with Catholic Charities as it tries to serve needy children. States have used their power to punish counselors seeking to follow their consciences. In one case, a social worker had his job threatened and was forced to defend his license before a state board because he said that he believed kids should have a mom and a dad.

In the face of the Obama Administration’s strategy to marginalize those with “unacceptable” beliefs—which we now know by its own admission before the Supreme Court—the need for federal protections to prevent the government from discriminating against schools and other organizations because of their beliefs about marriage is all the more urgent.

That is why numerous university presidents are calling for such protections today—protections like those contained in the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, introduced in the 113th Congress with over 103 cosponsors in the House and 17 in the Senate. This legislation prevents the government from discriminating in the areas of tax exempt status, grants, contracts, licensing, certification, or accreditation—among other areas—against individuals and entities simply because of their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Source: Travis Weber, http://www.frc.org/