This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2011, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

I don't know about you, but I'm a little nervous about enshrining "Nature's God, the Creator and Supreme Judge of the World" into official Utah policy.

Rep. LaVar Christensen wants to do just that in his proposed HB270 and all in the cause of making sure the traditional family — one man, one woman, who knows how many children — are protected from "the other."

Would that be gay people, who can't legally marry in Utah?

Unwind that chain, and his proposals would trump not only the 11 municipal and county ordinances that ban housing and employment discrimination against members of the gay and transgender community, but conceivably all fair-housing and employment laws in Utah.

They also would require scrutiny of publicly funded social programs, government services, laws and regulations to make sure they "promote the family."

Who would do that scrutinizing, and at what cost to you and me and every other taxpayer in Utah?

And why, when we already have an amendment to the Utah Constitution that states "marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and woman?"

But in the trio of bills he introduced last week, there's a broader danger. If passed, HB109, "Religious Liberty Recognition," could turn principles of religious tolerance and accommodation on their head.

For some reason, Christensen finds it necessary to beef up protections for "religious liberty and freedom of conscience" that already exist in the Utah and U.S. constitutions.

But at what point does religious liberty collide with more secular protections against racial, gender or any other manner of discrimination?

Your religious principles allow you to refuse restaurant service to a person of color? You object to a woman with children working outside the home, so you won't hire her? You won't rent an apartment to two single women or men because their possible sexual orientation might be an affront to your faith?

Christensen has an answer: "The free exercise of religious liberty is a recognized exemption to otherwise generally applicable laws and a valid defense to claims of discrimination by others."

"I find [this] very dangerous," says Marina Lowe, legislative and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah. "I don't know of any states that provide this express right to discriminate."

Then there's HB182, which states: "An arrangement, agreement, or transaction that is unlawful or violates public policy is void and unenforceable."

So if a gay couple want to protect their joint assets, draft wills or create medical directives, would Christensen's protections for traditional marriage keep them from legally doing so?

Christensen says no. Even so, most of these questions remain to be answered. Bills such as his almost inevitably have unintended consequences, and it's up to his colleagues to decide whether any of them have merit in part or in whole.

Failing that, it would likely be up to the courts, which could lead this state into another legal quagmire that costs all of us money.

And going back to the "Supreme Judge" thing, everyone's already free to believe it or not.

To me, our children, who see how we treat one another, will be the best judges of us all.

Peg McEntee is a news columnist. Reach her at pegmcentee@sltrib.com.