This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2015, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Gay and lesbian groups ought to get behind efforts to re-elect Rep. LaVar Christensen. They should contribute to his campaigns. They might even consider forming an LGBT for LaVar PAC.
The Draper Republican might just be their best friend.
If it weren't for Christensen, hundreds of same-sex couples who are now legally married in the Beehive State might never have had that chance had he not gone on a quest a decade ago to define marriage in the Utah Constitution as a union between a man and a woman.
Christensen, an attorney, wrote Amendment 3 and sponsored the legislative measure that put it on the ballot. It passed overwhelmingly by voters who, according to most polls, had a far different attitude toward same-sex marriage than they do today.
Had that amendment not been on the ballot, and the state constitution never been changed to define marriage in that way, there would have been no lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. There would have been no ruling from U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the amendment banning same-sex marriages violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
That ruling opened the door for Utah gay and lesbian couples to go to the altar.
Now Christensen is at it again. His House Bill 322 is a religious-liberty-protection bill that analysts say goes further than any First Amendment protection ever has. It would allow, for the first time, people of faith to sue other individuals for imposing on their religious beliefs. And it puts the burden on defendants to prove their actions were justified.
In other words, Christensen's bill is so broad, people of faith could go to court and seek damages every time they think their right to practice those beliefs has been blocked.
Could that have applied years ago, after Christensen left the Legislature to run for Congress, then sought to reclaim his seat in the Utah House after losing to then-Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah?
At the time, several colleagues of then-Rep. Sylvia Andersen, a Republican who had taken Christensen's place in the House, relayed a story that Christensen had approached his successor and urged her not to seek re-election because the Lord had told him that he needed to be back in the Legislature.
Andersen did not drop out and declined to talk about the conversation with Christensen when I asked her at the time. Christensen, in a long, rambling answer to my question, seemed to deny it.
Under Christensen's bill, however, could he have sued Andersen for denying his right to pursue his faith if the Lord indeed told him to get back into the Legislature?
Eric Weeks, a legislative attorney, warned lawmakers in a memo that the bill could raise "significant constitutional issues."
So if Christensen's long-shot bill passes and an advocacy group sues, claiming it would give religious folks the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians, and the measure ultimately meets the same fate in the courts as Amendment 3, who knows what broader protections the LGBT community could achieve?