DN: How does SB54 contribute to the imbalance?
SR: Because now, due to SB54, a lot of Democrats who couldn’t have gotten through a convention process to be nominated can bypass the convention and become what I call signature-gathering Republicans. They’ll move out of the Democratic Party and get elected as Republicans, just as happened with me. I think you’ll see more and more of that. So it will be the death of the Democratic Party if it wasn’t already dead in Utah.
DN: Why will a larger Republican Party be a bad thing?
SR: I think it will be quite disruptive in the Legislature because you’ll have a divided caucus. Now you’ll have two factions in the Republican Party. You’ll have the caucus-convention faction and the signature-gathering faction, and they will essentially make up the two parties in the state of Utah. The signature-gatherers will be more moderate to liberal and the caucus faction much more conservative. The Democrats who are left will decide a lot of how the votes will go because theirs will be the determining votes on the major issues. I didn’t vote for SB54 because I believe it will be the liberalization of the Legislature, which some people think is a good thing. I don’t.
DN: In the past two legislative sessions you have adamantly opposed antidiscrimination laws for the LGBT community. Please explain your stand.
SR: Utah is at a crossroads. For the first time in our history the Legislature has supported extending special protections for something that has previously been held to be immoral. Historically, when something is held to be immoral we do one of three things: We ignore it. A lot of things going on are immoral that we just don’t think about. We sanction it but don’t enforce it, adultery for example, or we punish it, like prostitution. We’ve always done one of those three things. What we have never done before was to extend special protection and rights to something we think is immoral. So the big question for society: Is homosexual behavior still considered immoral?
DN: And if the answer is no?
SR: Then there will inevitably be a confrontation between the rights extended to the LGBT community and religious rights. Part of the problem, and what people don’t fully understand, is you have religious freedom that is in the constitution, it’s the first freedom, and for the LGBT community to receive fundamental rights on the same level as these religious rights is impossible. These two sets of rights can’t coexist. If the LGBT community receives fundamental rights then religion has to give up some of its rights. It’s unavoidable. That’s the discussion that is underway and that’s where the tension is.
DN: Any predictions what will happen?
SR: Going forward, this will be one of those issues that is going to shape our country in a dramatic way. I think a lot of it is the baby boomer generation not wanting to make the mistakes of the civil rights era in the '50s and '60s and they view this fight being the same. I argue that it’s not the same in any way, shape or form. We fought a civil war over rights for blacks. We passed three amendments extending fundamental rights to them. Now we have just the opposite. We have judges trying to be activists saying one of those amendments, the 14th Amendment, applies to the LGBT community when in fact there’s no justification for that. If you want fundamental rights for the LGBT community you have to go to the Constitution as well. They don’t want to do that. They want to get the courts to reinterpret the Constitution so that the 14th Amendment applies to them. I actually anticipate that in the end the nation and the courts will decide that the LGBT community will get the protections it’s seeking and that religious freedom will have to give way. I’ve tried to play a role in delaying it.
DN: What will you miss most after you leave the political arena?
SR: I’ll miss the collegiality of the Legislature, particularly the Senate. It’s a wonderful experience to see people that differ on many, many issues be so collegial, have friendships, even frankly close friendships. I think if you were to talk to (Utah Democratic Chairman) Jim Dabakis for example, when he came to the Senate he thought it was going to be a rough ride for him. People embraced him, including me, and he’s embraced others and he referred to the Senate as “Senate family” the other day. I’ll miss that most of all. I think far and away the people serving in the senate are good and honest people trying to make a difference.
DN: What do you view as your most important contribution?
SR: Over three sessions I’ve passed a number of bills that have set up a new infrastructure and will create a new model to try to help the 52,000 children in the state of Utah that are part of the intergenerational poverty and welfare dependency cycle. These children have higher school dropout rates, higher rates of alcohol use, higher rates of crime, higher rates of teen pregnancy, higher rates of suicide. When they’re in the cycle it’s very, very difficult for them to improve their lives and then it gets passed on to the next generation. Setting up an infrastructure and framing a model for intervening in their lives I think is the most important thing I’ve done while I’ve been in the Legislature.
- Idea for Burt's Bees land to become park...
- Top 7 money-saving tips for summer travel
- Herbert says Sec. Jewell offered assurances...
- Police: Body of man missing since March found
- Zion's Hidden Canyon Trail to close for...
- Nebo educator named Health Teacher of the Year
- Class experiment teaches students...
- Recreation, road improvement projects in...
- Are Utahns tiring of Mitt Romney... 101
- Utah and 10 states sue Obama... 39
- Teacher on leave after telling students... 33
- Herbert says Sec. Jewell offered... 18
- National conservative group backs... 18
- Hatch steadfast in holding up Supreme... 17
- South Jordan's FrontRunner-oriented... 10
- Utah lawsuit challenges porn filter fees 9