If nothing else, you got to love the Tracy City Council’s moxie. In a rare unanimous vote Sept. 18, all five members of the council dared to have someone sue them for continuing their support of sectarian invocations at regular council meetings.

Is the American Civil Liberties Union listening?

Before the ACLU sends attorneys to the local courthouse to file briefs, it should carefully study Tracy’s invocation policy, for it allows for members of every religion, including the nonreligious, to participate in the ceremony, whether it is a prayer or a profound statement. Someone doesn’t even have to be a Tracy resident to stand up before the council and speak.

There is just one caveat: The speaker must have his or her name on the council meeting calendar to avoid too many invocations at one time. The sign-up is accomplished by contacting the city clerk’s office at Tracy City Hall by phone, e-mail, fax or in person.

That’s it. No questions are asked; no paperwork; no research into the speaker’s faith or beliefs. Nothing, period.

Because the council’s invocation policy invites pluralism, it gives sectarian believers and nonbelievers the same opportunity to speak.

Is that enough to comply with the so-named "Marsh" test, the only U.S. Supreme Court case that has decided the issue of legislative prayer? The court held that an invocation cannot "proselytize or advance any one, or ... disparage any other, faith or belief" without violating the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal determined five years ago in Rubin v. City of Burbank that the Burbank City Council’s invocation was sectarian and unconstitutional because the words "Our Father in Heaven" opened the prayer and "Jesus Christ" concluded it.

In its defense, the city of Burbank maintains the Marsh test examines the proselytizing or disparaging content of the prayer, not the sectarian nature of it.

The appellate court, however, was extremely expressive in its opinion that "government may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed (including a preference for Christianity over other religions)."

It advised Burbank and 34 other supporting cities in California that government can run afoul by making adherence to a religion relevant to a person’s standing in the political community by excessive entanglement with religious institutions or government endorsement or disapproval of religion.

In paraphrasing the appellate court decision, to safeguard the fundamental constitutional right to maintain a separation between church and state in our republic, and to demand government neutrality when such interests intersect, is extremely important in a pluralistic society. Our community can never become a true melting pot of different races, creeds, colors and genders until our government adheres to such republican values.