Publication Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Board of Contributors: Shining the light on Christian conservatives
Board of Contributors: Shining the light on Christian conservatives
(January 14, 2004) by Jeff Blum
I don't spend much free time following legal cases. I read articles on interesting cases discussed in the newspaper and I like reading books like "A Civil Action."
However, although I am an attorney, unlike the Doonesbury character who loves the law it most assuredly is not my entire life.
Every once in awhile, though, a case comes along that grabs my attention. I am currently following a lawsuit in Florida: The battle over "Terry's Law" is nearly as interesting and troubling as the Bush-versus-Gore election case.
Terry's Law is named after Terry Shiavo, the woman lying in a vegetative state. Terry's husband obtained a court order allowing doctors to remove the feeding tube keeping her alive. Then Christian conservatives became involved. They persuaded the Florida legislature and Governor Jeb Bush to pass a law requiring the feeding tube to be reinstalled. The court battle over the validity of this law pits the legislature against the judiciary.
Randall Terry, a long-time anti-abortion activist, says Christian conservatives learned a valuable lesson from their success so far with Terry's law. They realized that state legislatures may be used to stop "judicial tyranny."
Christian conservatives are furious about judges who supposedly thwart public opinion. They do not want judges to determine whether someone should have a feeding tube removed, whether our children can recite the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, order the Ten Commandments removed from a public building, determine when life begins or define marriage.
Many state legislatures are now being inundated with proposed laws barring judges from addressing social issues. Included are laws that would prevent judges from defining marriage -- an attempt to undo decisions like the Massachusetts case that favors same-sex civil unions and requires the legislature to adopt laws promoting equal rights for same-sex couples.
Other proposed laws would prevent judges from banning the Pledge of Allegiance. Several similar laws have been introduced in Congress.
I think it is good that judges decide social issues because judges often nudge a reluctant society in the right direction. Where would race relations be if the U.S. Supreme Court had not outlawed racial desegregation 50 years ago?
I am especially uncomfortable with the Christian-conservative notion that judges must follow popular public opinion. Judges often favor equality and individual rights over the will of the majority.
If I'm in the minority someday, I want the protections our courts offer.
The fact that judges can decide important social issues is the reason we regularly see fierce fights in Congress over proposed federal judicial appointments.
Even Chief Justice William Rehnquist, about as conservative as they get, is upset with proposed or enacted laws impeding on the power of the judiciary. He and classic-liberal Ted Kennedy, an unlikely pairing, criticized Congress for passing a law that places federal judges under special scrutiny for criminal sentences falling short of those called for by federal sentencing guidelines.
I also wonder how we, the public, will react to the new tactics of Christian conservatives. They are very good at playing on people's fears, and will certainly use that as a weapon.
They recently succeeded in turning public opinion around about civil unions between same-sex couples. The New York Times and CBS found in a recent poll that the percentage of people favoring such civil unions dropped dramatically in just a few months. I suspect that Christian conservatives successfully played on people's fears that the institution of marriage somehow is threatened by the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and Massachusetts court decision supporting same-sex unions.
What this new approach of Christian conservatives means to me in Palo Alto is also hard to define. I will be thinking more about why it is important to have an independent and powerful judiciary, reading more articles about the new tactics of the Christian conservatives and speaking to others about the wrongheadedness of the approach they are taking.
I hope my friends step in to pull the plug if I start acting like Doonesbury's lover of the law, consumed by it to the point where my eyes grow huge and my voice becomes fever pitched when anything related to law comes up in conversation.
Jeff Blum is a family law attorney in Redwood City. He is a Palo Alto resident, and a member of the city's Human Relations Commission and of the Weekly's Board of Contributors. He can be e-mailed at Blumesq@aol.com.
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
