It sounded reasonable, at least at first.
“1. Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty,” began the proposed Amendment 51.
“2. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act . . . and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.”
Fair enough, it seemed. Until you noticed the last paragraph:
“3. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.”
There was craftiness to the measure. Who’s for burdens, after all? And who’s against religious liberties?
As campaign rhetoric goes, it was especially slick. Supporters — political arms of Focus on the Family and the Catholic Church, mainly — fretted about prayer banned in public buildings, Christian colleges denied state scholarships and kids thwarted from Bible study. They appealed to the faithful as victims.
The initiative was on its way to making November’s ballot until civil libertarians and religious leaders stood up and called it deceptive. The coalition was seeking to block the measure in the state Supreme Court, arguing it would have given a free pass to discriminate under the guise of religious freedom.
Any apartment manager could have refused to rent to a same-sex couple; any employer could have declined hiring single moms; and any public school teacher could have skipped over sex ed or evolution — all by claiming their beliefs are sincerely held.
“We disagree with the idea that our state government would have to interpret who holds sincerely held beliefs. It’s very unclear what that even means,” said Jeremy Shaver, chief of the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado.
The amendment that seemed like a shield against discrimination “instead was intended as a sword by religious groups who want to force their own beliefs into the public square or to discriminate against their neighbors in the name of religions,” said the Anti-Defamation League’s Bruce DeBoskey.
The ACLU and gay and lesbian activists also joined the fight.
For their part, backers say public opinion was in their favor.
“We’ve done a lot of talking with Colorado residents. We’ve got the people behind us,” said Jessica Langfeldt of Colorado Family Action, an offshoot of Focus on the Family.
Given the rise of the Tea Party, the buzz around Rand Paul and the racism and homophobia I’m getting lately in my inbox, I would be tempted to believe her. But support wasn’t so strong to withstand the legal battle and the fact that backers had only three weeks between the Supreme Court hearing and their deadline to collect 76,047 signatures to qualify for the ballot.
They dropped the measure late last week.
“There are so many amendments and candidates out there collecting signatures this year,” Langfeldt said. “It’s a matter of the clock ticking.”
Supporters vow they will try again in two years. By then, they will have added to the list of all the ways their freedoms are eroding. Voters, too, will have had time to weigh the burdens of their faith against the many burdens of the amendment. Coloradans, when informed, will not be snookered. At least that’s my own sincerely held belief.
Susan Greene writes Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. Reach her at 303-954-1989 or greene@denverpost.com.
