All three of these columns sprang from the Senate’s consideration of a bill codifying the recognition of same-sex unions into federal law. The first is the most important, as it explains that the constitutional objection isn’t about the same-sex unions themselves. A simple amendment, that the Senate rejected, could have solved most of the problem.

For the full version of each column, please follow the link embedded in each headline.

A political theory primer: The main problem is government compulsion (Dec. 1 and 4, DC Examiner and NOLA.COM): 

It’s not about homosexuality. It’s about the government’s compulsion to serve weddings.

It’s not about abortion. It’s about the government’s compulsion that nuns must finance it.

It’s not about the importance of “diversity and inclusion.” It’s about the government’s compulsion for public university professors to pledge fealty to it.

And as liberals have said, it isn’t about the content of the Pledge of Allegiance. It’s about the government’s compulsion to recite it.

When constitutional conservatives argue in favor of protections for religious liberty, far too many people focus right away on the substance of the immediate issue, as if the argument is about whether the conservative approves or disapproves of, for example, homosexual unions. Too many people miss the point entirely, as if completely oblivious to certain essentials of the political-theory framework of most of America’s founders…..

Congress should [have] accept[ed] Senator Lee’s amendment (Nov. 28, before the vote): In offering an amendment to protect religious liberty, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) is asking his colleagues for what should be one of the easiest votes of their tenures in office.

Frankly, a vote against Lee’s amendment would be an abomination, making legislators unworthy of service in the Senate. Period….

Bill absolutely should not have passed without the amendment (Nov. 30):  Twelve Republican senators and every Democratic senator will forever be to blame when the BidenJustice Department weaponizes the new “ Respect for Marriage Act ” to harass, threaten, and punish people merely for following their long-established faith convictions….