Church hot topic of council flare-up

Deirdre Newman

A fight involving the demonstration of gay rights evolved into a

battle over the separation of church and state Monday night when

council members finally approved a special-events law.

Tempers flared when two council members suggested changing the

wording of the law, which the council first approved on June 7, to

include churches among those that need special-event permits.

The law, designed to update the city’s existing procedure for

obtaining special-event permits, was crafted in response to a lawsuit

filed last summer involving a gay-pride parade in the city. The

lawsuit called demonstration requirements set up by the city

“unreasonable” and “unconstitutional” and criticized the entire

permit process.

The new law, which passed 3 to 2 Monday, is “content-neutral,”

meaning permits will no longer be issued based on the type of speech

involved with the event.

The attorney representing the city in the lawsuit, Magdalena

Lona-Wiant, said she’s hopeful it will be dropped as a result of the

vote. “We know that a newly adopted ordinance can withstand any

constitutional challenge, and we hope that once the [American Civil

Liberties Union] has an opportunity to take a really good look at it,

they will agree to dismiss it,” Lona-Wiant said.

But the law also exempted churches and other groups from having to

get special permits, which caused concern among two council members

and several residents.

Councilwoman Libby Cowan and Councilman Chris Steel dissented

because they felt churches should not be exempt. They also

recommended on Monday that the law be changed in regards to churches.

Councilman Allan Mansoor was especially resistant to changes in

the law and verbally attacked Councilman Chris Steel, who voted for

the law the first time, when Steel said he had second thoughts about

exempting churches.

“I know it’s a late hour, but it’s way too important of an issue

to flip-flop on and show indecision on,” said Mansoor, who then

blamed Steel’s mixed votes on the 1901 Newport Blvd. condominium

project for single-handedly causing the developer’s lawsuit against

the city.

Mansoor resisted residents’ concerns and made a motion to approve

the law before any public comment had been taken. When a resident

brought up the separation of church and state, Mansoor said that was

not in the Constitution.

One of the reasons City Council members exempted churches during

the first consideration of the law is because they didn’t think they

had enough authority over churches to include them. On Monday Deputy

City Atty. Marianne Milligan said she felt confident the city could

require churches to get special-event permits in the new law, and

that it would hold up legally.

When Cowan tried to make a change to include churches in the new

law, Mansoor thwarted her effort as well, arguing that because

churches never had to apply for special-event permits before, they

shouldn’t have to now.

The majority of residents who spoke agreed with Cowan and Steel.

“Now, it looks like we’re promoting religion,” resident Beth

Refakes said.

Although it doesn’t explicitly use the words “separation of church

and state,” the establishment clause of the Constitution has been

used as the basis for the separation of church and state in multiple

Supreme Court rulings, UC Irvine political science professor Mark

Petracca said.

“That language is not in the Constitution, but it comes from

[Thomas] Jefferson and it appears in a letter that he wrote to

somebody talking about a statute in Virginia that Jefferson authored

that he was very proud of regarding religious freedom,” Petracca

said, adding that he saw no reason why it was necessary to exclude

churches from the requirement of event permits.

Steel was not the only one who changed his mind on this law.

Scheafer approved the law Monday after voting against it the first

time. He said he changed his vote because he did more research this

time.

“I probably should have voted for it the first time,” Scheafer

said. “I did more diligence the second time around.”

Mayor Gary Monahan attributed the rancor on the dais to Mansoor

trying to distance himself from Steel.

“There’s a lot of disappointment, and that’s probably a very mild

word with Steel, and his flip-flopping and not studying the issues

and not really bringing anything to the table,” Monahan said.

* DEIRDRE NEWMAN covers Costa Mesa. She may be reached at (949)

574-4221 or by e-mail at [email protected].