In an era that celebrates certain forms of diversity under the banner of acceptance, it is ironic that large swathes of American society—those who affirm traditional sexual ethics—are increasingly unwelcome. Now, there is a movement to exclude those holding such beliefs from the legal profession, or force them into conformity to secular sexual ethics. Recently, the American Bar Association initiated a horrifying change to their ethics rules. Under the new rules, any speech or activity that could be traced to organizations that endorse traditional sexual ethics, is punishable. Former attorney general Ed Meese co-authored an article in the Washington Times summarizing the alarming situation:
Last week the American Bar Association (ABA) changed its model ethics rules for lawyers, prohibiting attorneys from engaging in speech or being a member of any organization — even churches — that holds traditional views on marriage, sexuality and other issues. It now goes to each state’s courts for consideration, which must emphatically reject Model Rule 8.4 as an unprecedented threat to religious liberty, both for attorneys and their clients.
The ABA adopted Model Rule 8.4, which makes it unethical — and thus something for which a lawyer could lose his or her license to practice law — to “discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.”
The rules then went on to state how ‘verbal conduct’ and ‘business and social activities’ were included under Rule 8.4. This basically forbids participating in any activities, conversations, and events linked to a faith which only accepts traditional marriage. For those who are caught in any violation of this rule, punishment is inevitable, including but not limited to, losing their law license.
Frighteningly, the ABA leaders’ statements verify that they understand — and intend — the ramifications of Model Rule 8.4… Committee member Drucilla Ramey insists bar authorities go “to the top of the legal profession” to “incentivize” attorneys to change their views and speech on these issues, views and speech often informed by attorneys’ religion. All this, despite committee testimony that such a rule has “little relation to concerns” arising in most lawyers’ offices, could be “used tactically against someone inappropriately,” and will “have a chilling effect on something that has always been in the best traditions of the bar: representing minority views and unpopular positions or clients.”
Each state will consider whether to imitate the ABA position, or even adopt its language outright. This new rule is an affront to the First Amendment, and should be vigorously rejected by every state bar. Its effects are so pernicious that a nationwide campaign should be launched to stop it from being passed and, if passed, to fight it in the courts. Freedom of speech, association, and religion should be protected at all costs, especially in our judicial system.
