There may be a test coming up in the Kansas House for just how serious lawmakers are about protecting the vulnerable from sexual exploitation.

Kansas lawmakers have recognized for years that there are people who, because of their positions of authority, can exert undue, unfair and abusive influence over others just because of their jobs.

And, it’s not hard to figure out why it makes sense for the government to heavily circumscribe that influence when it comes to sexual relations.

Think of law enforcement officers, prison guards, parole officers, schoolteachers. Those are people with power over others because of their positions. And…those are government jobs, which adds yet another facet to the specter of power that those people can misuse in ways that we don’t like to think about.

That misuse of authority, when proven, becomes the crime of unlawful sexual relations, and it’s an admittedly low-level felony, but it is a career-ruiner.  Just as most of us, we hope, would like it to be.

But this session, the Kansas House has before it, or at least in a committee, a bill that would for the first time extend the provisions of that law to people who have influence  but absolutely no link to government.

The new group? Members of the clergy.

Hmmm…

Suddenly, the law that is so simple and straight-forward when it applies to government workers with authority over others becomes dramatically different when we think of the clergy “carrying out the clergy member’s pastoral duties,” according to the bill’s language.

Think of people seeking solace, wisdom, strength in times of personal or family tragedy who would refer to their faith, and of the people who at least on the local level represent that faith, and the concept of undue influence comes very clear.

The definition of clergy is “a currently ordained member of the clergy or religious authority of any religious denomination or society.” That’s a broad net; it moves well beyond the heavily reported and discussed scandals in the Catholic Church and even into nontraditional faith or belief groups—probably any group that can get a property tax exemption for its meeting place.

For a legislature that traditionally—and probably correctly—avoids what might be portrayed as interference in matters of religion, the bill represents a major change in government authority.

It’s also one of those bills that is likely to draw, or could draw, vocal supporters, while others will naturally fear opposing it because of the appearance of  making light or little of coercive sexual activity.

The “we’ll handle it ourselves” approach separation of church and state obviously has failed in other states.
The bill won’t be among the headline-grabbers, like balancing the state’s budget or a new comprehensive transportation plan in terms of shaking up the economy or creating jobs or reducing unemployment.

But…it’s one of those smaller bills, which now that the issue has been raised, is going to have to be dealt with somehow.