With SJR 39, the topic of religious liberty and the rights of individuals and their sincerely held religious beliefs became a topic of conversation in the halls of the legislature. If the resolution had passed and approved by the voters, the next attorney general would have been responsible for defending the law.
We asked both Republican candidates for attorney general for their views of religious liberty and the rights of individuals, in light of advancing gay and lesbian rights and gay marriage. We gave them both a written set of questions, below are their unedited responses.
Why did you or did you not support SJR 39?
JOSH HAWLEY: I supported SJR 39 and I am deeply disappointed that our legislature failed to stand up for religious liberty. The people of Missouri deserved a chance to further protect their First Amendment rights in our state Constitution.
SEN. KURT SCHAEFER: I was actively involved in drafting and passing SJR 39 with Sen. Onder. After the US Supreme Court created a new right of gay marriage and struck down state same sex marriage laws on June 26, 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, it became apparent that this new law created by the federal government was on a direct collision course with religious liberty rights guaranteed to Missourians by the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the 10th Amendment’s guarantee that Missourians choose the morals and values reflected in their laws, not the federal government. I was proud to work with many others prior to the start of the legislative session in January of 2016, to put together what would become SJR 39 and to secure its passage through the Missouri Senate.
If SJR 39 were to pass and were challenged in court, how would you defend it?
HAWLEY: I would defend it on this most basic of First Amendment principles: the government cannot pick religious winners and losers. Government is supposed to stay out of religious belief and exercise, and it does that by protecting the rights of churches and religious ministries and people of faith in the workplace to follow their sincerely held beliefs. No more, no less.
SCHAEFER: As is the case with most federal overreach through the courts, there is virtually no legal reasoning behind the US Supreme Court’s creation of the new right of gay marriage and its assertion that states may no longer define marriage. That is in stark contrast to the founding principle of religious liberty specifically stated in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the Tenth Amendment’s guarantee that those powers not specifically given to the Federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the people through their state government. I have personally fought and won constitutional cases in state and federal courts for over twenty years. The key to successfully defending SJR 39 would be to directly pit the specifically enumerated Constitutional right and founding principle of individual religious liberty against the vague and foundationless right of gay marriage created by the Court out of thin air just one year ago.
What do you see as the biggest threat to religious freedom on the state level going forward?
HAWLEY: Even now state bureaucrats are attempting to deny churches equal opportunity to participate in public grant programs in a case that has gone all the way to the US Supreme Court. State bureaucrats and municipalities are also working to undermine religious liberty by punishing churches for following traditional teachings on marriage, by punishing business people of faith who seek to follow their sincerely held beliefs in the workplace, and by threatening religious groups on our public university campuses. I have fought this government overreach before — and won. I will continue to do so as Missouri’s next Attorney General.
SCHAEFER: During my eight years in the Missouri Senate, Missouri has been at the forefront of protecting innocent life and guaranteeing the right of religious liberty. The biggest threat that could come from the State is not fighting hard enough and at every turn against the Federal government’s attempt to erase this right and the rights of Missourians to set the morals and values of our State.
What experience do you have regarding religious liberty?
HAWLEY: Defense of religious liberty is not a campaign talking point or a political position for me – it is a core principle that has defined my professional career and personal life. I have spent years as a religious liberty litigator. I served as co-counsel on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby at the US Supreme Court, a landmark case that affirmed the principle that Americans do not lose their religious liberties when they open a business. I served as co-counsel on the other most significant religious liberty case in decades at the Supreme Court, Hosanna-Tabor v EEOC, which protected the right of churches to choose their own ministers. As senior counsel to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, I have fought for religious freedom in the Supreme Court, in federal courts, and state courts, right up to the time I started this campaign. I will continue that fight as Attorney General.
SCHAEFER: I have fought for eight years in the Missouri Senate to protect religious liberty through numerous bills, including SJR 39, the seventy-two hour waiting period for abortion, and the protection of Houses of Worship.
What will you do as attorney general to defend religious liberty?
HAWLEY: I will do what I have done for years as a constitutional lawyer: stand up in every court necessary to protect our First Amendment rights. That begins with vigorously enforcing Missouri’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act to protect churches, faith-based ministries, and religious believers from being forced by state officials or state regulations to violate their religious creeds. And it should go without saying that I will stand against the federal government’s efforts to deny our religious freedoms, just as I have been doing for years. I believe the next Attorney General must be an individual who is ready and willing to defend our most basic freedoms even when it’s unpopular with the establishment, all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Missourians know I will do so because I have done so.
SCHAEFER: Continue to use my relationships with the majorities in the Missouri Senate and House to craft legislation recognizing and upholding the right of individual religious liberty against federal overreach and the right of the people through their elected state government to define the morals and values under which they choose to live. I will use my twenty years of litigating constitutional cases to defend those efforts in state and federal court when they are attacked by the federal government.
What do you say to critics that view some religious freedom measures as narrowly focused on homosexuals?
HAWLEY: Missourians have a constitutional right to exercise their religious beliefs peaceably without undue interference from government. Religious liberty is the right of all people, not one particular faith or set of citizens. I believe everyone must be treated with tolerance and respect, including the millions of Americans who have deeply held religious convictions they wish to exercise.
SCHAEFER: While the federal overreach and attempted dilution of religious liberty at issue in the Obergefell case may be gay marriage, it is only the latest of such assaults by the federal government. The bigger picture issues which must be defended are the right of individual religious liberty and the ability of Missourians to define in their laws the morals and values under which they choose to live.
