An attempt to drastically change the Utah Constitution to ensure religious freedom is ending with a whimper, not a bang.
It now appears that all the long months of debate, anger and mistrust truly weren't necessary - unless one believes state and local public officials need to be reminded every now and then that Utah is indeed a unique state when it comes to questions of church and state.Last Friday, in what some lawmakers are now calling a clear, tough opinion, Utah Supreme Court Justice Michael Zimmerman, with a majority of the court agreeing, said the Salt Lake City Council can pray before meetings. Moreover, says Sen. Lyle Hillyard, an attorney in private life, Zimmerman's opinion so forcefully states the right to reasonable religious activity in government that he - Hillyard - probably won't introduce any constitutional amendment.
"If we amend the religious liberty section of the Utah Constitution, that does away with Justice Zimmerman's ruling - and that ruling is very favorable to us," said Hillyard this week.
Only Associate Justice Daniel Stewart dissented from Zimmerman's opinion. But he really took a swipe at his colleagues in so doing.
Fearing the worst, Stewart said the majority's opinion rewrote the Constitution, allowing a "serious and highly regrettable erosion of freedom of religion." Further, Stewart said: "The court's position allows public money and property to be used for religious worship, exercises and instruction for all religions." Stewart believes that all Utahns, if the Legislature agreed, could be taxed to support religious worship and religious education, "just as the citizens of Salt Lake (City) are now taxed to support prayer at city council meetings."
Democrats in the House may take solace from Zimmerman's opinion. They blocked the passage of Hillyard's proposed amendment in the 1993 Legislature, saying more time was needed for study and the Utah Supreme Court ruling - then pending - could vindicate the City Council.
House Minority Whip Kelly Atkinson, D-West Jordan, even tried to stop a meeting of the Interim Judiciary Committee this past week that discussed Hillyard's amendments. (The committee took no action on the amendments, because Zimmerman's opinion came down five days earlier.) Atkinson and other Democrats, again, worried about Utah society being further split along religious lines if Hillyard's amendments were even discussed.
But Hillyard and most Republicans weren't overly concerned about Atkinson's and the Democrats' crying wolf over changing the Constitution. In fact, Hillyard said a number of times that even if the Supreme Court overturned the district judge's ruling that the state Constitution prohibited prayer at government meetings, the Society of Separationists would just sue over something else - like the singing of Christmas carols by a school choir. The Constitution would have to be amended anyway, Hillyard argued earlier this year.
But Hillyard and others didn't expect the kind of opinion from the court that they got. Now, no change - or perhaps only minor changes - may be needed. Those decisions will come during the 1994 Legislature or may not come at all.
House Democrats took some raps for their bloc vote last February against Hillyard's amendment. Who, after all, would take a political stand against allowing prayer in public meetings? Many thought it an unwise political move.
While Democrats may be smiling now, they did take a real risk. And many of them realized this, saying during last session's debate that they would vote for a constitutional change - now not needed - in 1994.
All has apparently turned out for the best - Stewart's predictions of religious tyranny aside.
One final consideration: Zimmerman's opinion sets up a two-step standard on whether a government can allow some kind of religious activity on government property, in government meetings. All persons and beliefs must get equal access and treatment. We'll see what happens if some kind of Devil worshipers, racists, Neo Nazis or some other politically incorrect group asks to pray at a future Salt Lake City Council meeting. Will reality reflect judicial rulings?