Steve Heap, AdobeStock <\/p>\n
Facade of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. <\/p>\n
The Supreme Courts Trinity decision, in which it decided Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri deserved equal treatment when it came to federal money for playground surfacing materials, was significant. <\/p>\n
For one thing, it was a 7-2 decision, giving it a heft that goes beyond the courts normal 5-4 ideological shift. For another, new justice Neil Gorsuch used the words free exercise of religion in his response to the opinion, noting this as a key part of the First Amendment. It was refreshing to hear such language at a time when the establishment clause, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion, seems to take precedence over the freedom to actually act on ones beliefs. <\/p>\n
But when it comes to expert guesses about what this portends for continuing religious-freedom decisions, such as the pending case involving a Colorado baker who refused to serve a gay couple for their wedding, one thing becomes clear: Many of these sorts of cutting-edge culture-war disputes might be more appropriately handled through legislative compromise. <\/p>\n
Unfortunately, lawmakers in statehouses and in Washington seem skittish to even attempt such a thing. The result often is that a decision pleases only one side of the debate, leaving the other determined to continue the battle until a more sympathetic court is in place. <\/p>\n
We often tout the so-called Utah Compromise, enacted two years ago, as the gold standard in such disputes. Thats because this remarkable effort brought together Republicans, Democrats, religious leaders and leaders of the LGBT community to find a workable balance between the need to preserve religious freedom and to protect people from discrimination. It was a significant step toward peace in the culture war. <\/p>\n
No side in that effort got entirely what it wanted, but the agreement brought all sides together and has proved effective. As a result, Utah has largely escaped the kinds of contentious legal disputes that separate these factions elsewhere. <\/p>\n
At the time the compromise was made law, we hoped it would serve as a template for other states to follow. Legislative compromises calm angry public rhetoric and can help keep Supreme Court justices from having to make all-or-nothing decisions or parse matters in less-than-perfect ways. Unfortunately, few states have followed this lead. <\/p>\n
The Trinity decision weakened the so-called Blaine Amendment in Missouri. James G. Blaine was a prominent Republican lawmaker in the 19th century who tried to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of public funds for parochial schools. His efforts were seen as targeting the Catholic Church and going along with anti-Catholic sentiments of the day. <\/p>\n
He failed in Washington, but several states included such amendments in their own constitutions. Since then, these have come to be regarded by some as emblematic of the intent of the First Amendment, which is a mistake. <\/p>\n
The courts Trinity decision was narrowly cast, so the broader effects on prohibitions against taxpayer support for religious schools is unclear. So, too, are guesses about how the court might rule in its next session in the Colorado wedding-cake case. Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy is seen as a swing vote there, and he authored the decision legalizing gay marriage. <\/p>\n
So the nation watches and waits; it prognosticates and wrings its collective hands. Think how much more effective it might be for states to actively settle such issues by brokering meaningful compromises that give each side a stake in the outcome and that protect the rights for all involved. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Excerpt from: <\/p>\n
In our opinion: Religious freedom requires both legislative and judicial solutions - Deseret News<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Steve Heap, AdobeStock Facade of the U.S. Continue reading