This attack shows how desperate the HRC is to try to deny those they oppose the
right to speak. There are complex reasons why people choose to take on cases,
and having your religious beliefs influence your decision on what cases to take
does not negate the fact that you believe that the position you are arguing is
in line with the constitution.
@ NoBoxScotNobody is trying to force their viewpoint on you. Nobody
cares if you think SSM is wrong and nobody is going to force you into a same-sex
relationship. All they want is to allowed to marry their "significant
@Meckofahess;In what ways do I discriminate against Mormons? Please
elucidate. I don't care what you believe. I care that you use your
beliefs against others."Besides, there are many concerns about
same-sex marriage laws that don't even involve religion at all."Name one valid concern. Valid, not hyperbole, fiction or fear.
How many attorney's file endless appeals in death penalty cases. Their
sole motivation is their own objection to capital punishment and has nothing to
do with the guilt of the convicted. Everyone has biases and opinions, including
attorney's. That is just life.
@Ranch,You seem to have really big hangup towards Mormons. Are they
the only religion you discriminate against?You said "What about
the religious views of those who disagree with the Mormon church and Mr.
Schaerr?". Well, what about their views? Do you think the Mormons or any
other faith community really cares about the religious views of the attorneys
that represent the gay community's side? What do you recommend
that each side hires someone who holds personal views against their cause?
Religious views are held by hundreds of millions of Americans (including
attorneys) so you might as well get over it. Besides, there are many concerns
about same-sex marriage laws that don't even involve religion at all.
It is called poisoning the well. Radical gays want you to believe Schaerr's
message of saving marriage is tainted so you won't even try to listen to
his arguments. It is their way of censoring others.
@CylonesRus;You can vote any way you want, as long as it
doesn't involve the rights of other Americans. You do not have the right
to vote on the rights of others.@NoBoxScot;Is somebody
trying to force you to have a same-sex marriage? If so, send them to me and
I'll set them straight (pun intended). Equal rights for LGBT does nothing
to you.I fail to see how preventing an LGBT couple from having the
benefits Schaerr possesses through marriage is "practicing his
Fred Sainz's states,"When you become an attorney, you take an oath to
uphold the U.S. Constitution, not any particular religious doctrine."
Attorney Gene Schaerr,was accused Wednesday of taking the job "to impose a
certain religious viewpoint." How does that square w/Scharr's First
Amendment's right to the non-prohibition of the free exercise of
religion;even if this was Scharrs intent? Fred Sainz's, as an
individual citizen, is required to uphold the U.S. Constitution. We all must
live within "the rule of law".I would like to add one more
Constitution enumeration that Sainz appears to ignore. Article, VI., The
Supremacy Clause:".. no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"."(N)o religious Test (to Gene Schaerr) shall have ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.Just
where does Fred Sainz's free exercise of speech expunge Scherr's free
exercise of religious speech?Respectfully, John
"Schaerr's entire motivation for taking this anti-equality case is to
impose a certain religious viewpoint on all Utahns, and that's wrong,"
But for the LGBT to force their viewpoint on all Utahns is ok.
@procuradorfiscal: The issue is a legal argument. And should be decided by
classic legal reasoning and constitutional interpretation."It
was.What you described is *exactly, *precisely* what Judge Shelby
did.The very best, most clearly-written, comprehensive analysis of
how pure logic and reasoning drove the Shelby decision, I invite all to read
this extraordinary analysis: "How A Federal Judge In Utah Adeptly Dismantled
All Of The Arguments Against Marriage Equality" (google those exact words to
locate this article on the ThinkProgress web site).I guarantee you
that Gene Schaerr is studying the above document extremely hard, because he
knows these are the *exact* logical, reason-based arguments he needs to
overcome, if Utah is to continue to promote legal bigotry. The above article
was also the basis for the recent Oklahoma ruling that struck down their ban on
equality.I do feel empathy for those who feel their life is getting
turned upside down by the progress of equality. Cognitive dissonance is
unpleasant to experience, but nonetheless frequently occurs when one has their
perceptions and worldview challenged by reality and progress.
A Quaker,With all due respect, you are wrong. Atheism is not a
coherent "belief system" in any way, shape or form. Atheism has no
doctrine, no dogma, no authorities, etc. Atheism is not a movement, not an
organization, not a discipline. The mere fact that some (such as yourself)
naively throw labels around according to your own definitions does not make
atheism into a religion, much less a "belief system".
VanceoneProvo, UTYou are needed in the public arena, If not already,
you should run for public office at the state or federal level, you can replace
Hatch or come to Indiana and unseat any of our two sentators!
ARanchHere, UTI can not vote my conscience, but you can?
Re: "The only thing same-sex marriage supporters need to demonstrate is that
Prop. 3 is unconstitutional . . . ."Exactly. It's THEIR
burden to carry. NOT the burden of traditional marriage supporters to prove some
nebulous straw man negative. All the liberal blather about peer-reviewed studies
and proving that SSM is harmful is just that -- blather.The issue is
a legal argument. And should be decided by classic legal reasoning and
constitutional interpretation.The sole issue is -- what was the
intent of the proponents of the 14th Amendment? What did THEY believe they were
doing?Is there the slightest evidence in any of the hearings,
speeches, floor debates, or commentaries that the proponents of the 14th
Amendment intended to throw off eons of tradition, common sense, and legal
reasoning to enable or promote SSM?It's a tough burden to
carry. LGBT activist know that. So they've attempted to disingenuously
shift the burden to their opposition.They should not be permitted to
do so.Thanks for making my point.
"Schaerr's entire motivation for taking this anti-equality case is to
impose a certain religious viewpoint on all Utahns..." said Fred Sainz, the
Human Rights Campaign's communications vice president. His
"entire motivation?" Really? It's this type of hyperbole that
hinders reasonable and meaningful dialogue about this issue. People on both
sides call for civility but then we have this Sainz character publicly driving
@Kirk R GravesThank you for agreeing with all three of my points.
@procuradorfiscalThe only thing same-sex marriage supporters need to
demonstrate is that Prop. 3 is unconstitutional and that is it. That does not
require a single peer-reviewed study or "expert witness". Are you sure
you are commenting on the same issue referenced in this article?
@The ScientistProvo, says:"Please use your heads. Atheism is by
definition NOT a belief system, and certainly not a religious one There is no
religious belief system possible based on the absence of belief in any
god."\------------------------There are many
religious belief systems that don't involve gods.Buddhism is
one.Ancestor-worship, the indigenous religion of a billion Asians,
is another.Confucianism, an "ethical-sociopolitical
teaching" is practiced as a religion.Animism, which worships the
spirits of living things, and nature-worship.Ethical humanism, which
believes that all ethics stem from the human spirit, not from any god.Avowed atheists also believe all ethics stem from the human heart and mind,
and that Man invented God(s). It's a valid belief system. I haven't
noticed atheists being worse people than many Christians, and in many cases far
more altruistic. After all, they're doing what is right because it's
right, not because they expect any reward in the afterlife.I know
that God loves them, too, and holds them close, His best children, practicing
loving care without threat, reward, or even knowledge of Him.
This matter has everything to do with morality and that is a very good thing. If
Utah were to depart from a moral path, our State would be doomed. I hope and
pray Schaerr and his team are successful in convincing the court that the
sovereign State of Utah has the right to determine its own laws based on
principles of correct governance and morality. And no one, not even the federal
government, has the right to tell us otherwise.
Fred Sainz's states,"When you become an attorney, you take an oath to
uphold the U.S. Constitution, not any particular religious doctrine." First
of all Attorney Gene Schaerr,was accused Wednesday of taking the job "to
impose a certain religious viewpoint." Well, how does that square
w/Scharr's First Amendment's right to the non-prohibition of the free
exercise of religion;even if this was not Scharrs intent? Just where does Fred
Sainz's free exercise of speech expunged Scherr's free exercise of
religious speech? Dear reader, Fred Sainz's, as an individual
citizen, is required to uphold the U.S. Constitution. We ALL-- must live within
"the rule of law".And, I would like to add one more Constitution
enumeration that Sainz appears to ignore. Article, VI., The Supremacy
Clause:".. no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to
any Office or public Trust under the United States;.Mr. Fred Sainz, Gene
Schaerr shall have "no religious Test () ever be required as a Qualification
to any Office or public Trust under the United States.Respectively, John
“…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
Office or public Trust under the United States
I note that the new Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia has
announced that he will be appearing in Federal Court in a case very like
Utah's defense of Amendment 3. Except, he's going to be arguing on
the side of the plaintiffs. He's said that he doesn't want to see
Virginia on the wrong side of yet another civil rights case. Brown v. Board of
Education, Loving v. Virginia, and the case allowing women to enter VMI, were
all landmark cases that the Commonwealth lost, expanding national civil rights
for every state. Virginia's Governor and AG both support marriage
equality.Oral arguments begin in that case next week.
It probably doesn't matter what religion he is as far as the case is
concerned. The ironic part of all of this is that the three outside lawyers
have never won a traditional marriage case, just the opposite. The three
lawyers are ironic choices in Utah's million dollar price tag of appeal!
According to a SCOTUS brief submitted by the American Sociological Association,
The Regnerus study did not specifically examine children raised by same-sex
parents, and provides no support for the conclusions that same-sex parents are
inferior parents or that the children of same-sex parents experience worse
outcomes. The Regnerus Study Offers No Basis for Conclusions About Same-Sex
Parents. The Regnerus study does not specifically examine children born or
adopted into same-sex parent families, but instead examines children who, from
the time they were born until they were 18 or moved out, had a parent who at any
time had “a same-sex romantic relationship.” As Regnerus noted, the
majority of the individuals characterized by him as children of “lesbian
mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed
opposite sex unions whose parent subsequently had a same-sex relationship. Id.
In other words, Regnerus did not study or analyze the children of two same-sex
parents.Moreover, the clear and consistent consensus in the social
science profession is that across a wide range of indicators, children fare just
as well when they are raised by same-sex parents when compared to children
raised by opposite-sex parents.
Amazing! How can one so intellectually sharp (BYU & Yale --no intellectual
slouch), be so PR ignorant? I mean, what did Schaerr say to himself upon
resigning from his DC law firm? "Let me see how I can make an already
extremely difficult case even harder? I know, I will make a public statement
that will reveal my personal bias before I even arrive upon the scene."Unbelievable! And to top it off, the AG of the state of Utah, rather
than say, "thanks, but no thanks", doubles down on him as "the best
person to argue this case for the state of Utah".Wouldn't
you think the AG might consider that someone of similar belief about the legal
definition of marriage, but different faith than the vast majority of the state,
might be a better pick to argue this case without the obvious distraction that a
claim of "religious bias" would create?Good luck with this
How much is the AG going to spend on this foolish quest to legally discriminate?
Does the state have so much? Because I think the money could be better used
elsewhere. Perhaps education?
procuradorfiscal, 1/23 2:06 pm: "... an interested, jingoistic partisan,
who pretends to represent and speak for thousands of people he doesn't
know..."Spoken without apparent irony.procuradorfiscal, 1/23 2:56 pm: "...privileges and immunities of the REAL
people, those of us that will always continue to believe in the concept of
traditional marriage..." [emphasis added](sigh) After your
first couple posts in this thread I thought maybe you had risen above the
"real Utahn/people" meme, but there you go again. It must be nice to
win debates simply by dismissing all who disagree with you as unreal. Are we
phantasms? Imaginary? Nonhuman? At least this time you have provided
something of a definition of whom you consider to be real. That's a start.
(BTW, I actually agree with your comment on the burden of proof, but had to
call you on style.)As to those arguing the gay civil unions are OK
but not marriages. You have a reasonable point (if hetero couples must unite
civilly also), but the time is long past. Do you think it would be as easy as
hitting Ctrl-F "marriage" on the US Code and CFR and replacing it with
God is not relevant in this discussion. This is about civil rights in the good
old US of A. Your religious beliefs are of no more import than any other
American's religious beliefs; and the likelihood is that in any discussion
on religion, you'll probably be hard-pressed to find two people who
actually hold exactly the same religious views.
We the People - what about the children. The New Family Structure Study (NFSS)
is a comparative project which seeks to understand how young adults (~ages
18-39) raised by same-sex parents fare on a variety of social, emotional, and
relational outcomes when compared with young adults raised in homes with their
married biological parents, those raised with a step-parent, and those raised in
homes with two adoptive parents. NFSS aims to collect new data in order to
evaluate whether biological relatedness and the gender of young adults’
parents are associated with important social, emotional, and relational
outcomes. The empirical claim that no notable differences exist must
go. University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus, using a data set of
nearly 3,000 randomly selected American young adults, looked at their lives on
40 measures of social, emotional and relationship outcomes.He found that,
when compared with adults raised in married, mother-father families, adults
raised by lesbian mothers had negative outcomes in 24 of 40 categories, while
adults raised by gay fathers had negative outcomes in 19 categories.Findings like these contradict claims that there are no differences between
gay parenting and heterosexual, married parents.
We the people of the State of Utah have sovereign rights. We passed amendment3
because we the people feel it is best for our safety and happiness. Our
forefathers established a government that allows us to choose moral laws. …Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness…If the LGBT gets its way,
overturning the voice of the people and we legalize immorality, what is next?
What if others push to legalize their belief that marriage between parent/child
or brother/sister. What if others claim their belief says its ok to steal and
murder – do we legalize this too? My fellow citizens – this is a
slippery slope. The course is clear, WE the people, choose Amendment3.
Thank God America and Utah was founded by men and women of faith.
Please use your heads. Atheism is by definition NOT a belief system, and
certainly not a religious one There is no religious belief system possible based
on the absence of belief in any god.
@Flashback:"By the way while you are at it, read the 10th Amendment
and see the conflict with the 14th."There's no conflict.
The 10th reserves powers to states, etc. The 14th says states will not deny
equal protection under the law. The authority to define marriage (one man/one
women) applies to all citizens. No one is excluded. If so-called LGBT folks
get their way, discrimination will have been introduced in the state
statutes.@EstoPerpetua:"Hmmm...., to suggest that LGBTs
are immoral and are not religious is simply dark ages thinking."Then, please define immoral.There are dozens of sexual attraction
situations such as mother/daughter, father/son, sister/sister, brother/sister,
aunt/nephew, etc., all considered immoral. How is it that same sex attraction
gets a free pass?"Although I am gay, I was brought up as a
Mormon and the best thing I learned from the Mormon religion is that God gave us
a brain and expects us to use it.God also gave us the power to
overcome human weaknesses/shortcomings... of which homosexuality is one. I
could list others but would run the risk that the moderators would object.
If it takes a lawyer to protect Utah's children from Satan and his minions,
then I'm all for it. Someone needs to stand for the lord and defend
Utah's values. While leaving his former law firm, and Quoting from the
Bible, Schaerr said with confidence "all things work together for good to
them that love God."
Is anyone really surprised that an active member of the LDS faith has a strong
opinion about what marriage should be defined as? Getting pretty tired of the
opposition to the amendment using deflection as their argument.
It seems to me that it is actually the other side that has a problem with
religion and takes every opportunity to denigrate those with belief systems at
odds with what they believe or want. Those with religious views have a
constitutional right to defend those tenants. In this case they are NOT trying
to deny anyone the right to couple. Marriage itself is traditionally a religious
tenant. Therefore the constitution should be protecting it as a religious
tenant. Just because some judges have political ulterior motives and go against
the constitution does not make it right. Civil Unions is secular and does not go
against the religious tenant of marriage. This is where these people should have
gone. If it denied certain equal rights then it would have been better to have
fought for that. But this has never really been about equal rights as they
pretend, or they would have taken the latter route.
I read the word "morality" used over and over. What does this have to
do with the LGBT community? Are they not just as "moral" in their
standing before the law. This kind of "immorality" (and name calling)
in our society is no longer tenable. But a Utah majority appears to be slow to
learn this. And if this isn't bigotry, and not moral opinion, I don't
know what is.
It seems many people are missing the point of the criticisms directed at
Utah's legal team selection.Time and again, courts have struck
down discriminatory laws where the only reason for the law was to single out and
exclude a group of people based on a characteristic they share.And
courts have long found (and continue to find) that solely "to send a moral
message" is not an acceptable justification for a law.So when
the State of Utah chooses a legal representative who characterizes his task as a
religious calling or a mission-- who seems to have no problem seeking to impose
a certain religious viewpoint on all citizens-- it is relevant.Like
politicians in other anti-gay states, the Utah leadership has been scrambling
for justifications to exclude gay people (and only gay people) from marriage
that are not solely religious in nature. That fact that Schaerr sees himself as
a religious crusader hardly helps.
@mhenshaw"rather, it should be on advocates of same-sex marriage to
prove that it *won't* harm society"They don't have to
prove that at all, all they have to do is argue that Amendment 3 is
unconstitutional since that's what the lawsuit is about.
@happy2bhere:"So what if religious views are used."Depends on the religion. For example, if Islam is used we will likely lose
most of our freedoms that we enjoy under the US Constitution.@oldcougfan:"God instituted marriage between a man and a woman.
Trying to legitimize gay marriage will not make it right in the sight of
God."Which God? The Muslim god says otherwise, allowing several
wives.@Most Truthful and Patriotic:"My 42-year marriage
(no church, just a justice of the peace in Nevada) has not been harmed due to
same-sex marriage..."The eventuality of SSM is that many
combinations will also have to be approved... which means marriage of any kind
will entirely disappear. There'll be no need for marriage.@Reasonable Person:"So you want to live by the Founding Fathers,
huh? Women, you no longer can vote.Landowners only can vote."Both excellent ideas.@ORDuckie:It took about 5 minutes
in my Constitutional Law class in law school to learn that all civil and
criminal law is grounded on religious tenets (e.g., the 10
commandments)..."Ironically, you'll find the 10
Commandments on the Supreme Court building in D.C.
How would this be different if he was Catholic and moving to New York to do the
same thing? Everyone had a viewpoint whether you are religious or not. Much ado
Advocates of same-sex marriage keep talking about equality. That's not
really what they want. They want to force the states to CHANGE THEIR
DEFINITION of marriage. If gays want to live together, have a
domestic partnership, or whatever else they want to do, that does not give them
the right to force the rest of us to call it what THEY want to call it - a
@Meck"The gays do not want any aspect of religion to be included in
the discussion. In other words, if the straight side sees anything through the
lens of faith, we are not welcome to the party!""The
gays," as you put it, don't all share one viewpoint. Like sentences
that start out "The Jews think…," or "The blacks
are…," or "Mormons all…," you're already headed
toward generalizations and stereotyping.People object less to your
religious viewpoint being part of the discussion than you might imagine. Their
objection is that you think your religion should be the basis for a
discriminatory law, and they won't hesitate to point out that. This is not
the same as being anti-religion. This is being anti-YOUR-religion in other
people's business.Beyond that, your comment shows two stunning
misconceptions: First: that there is "straight side" at all.
This misses fact that many, many straight people support legal marriage for all
citizens.Second: that people looking through the "lens of
faith" reach the same conclusion you do. Plenty of faiths welcome gay
people whole-heartedly and support marriage equality.
What a quote! "When you become an attorney, you take an oath to uphold the
U.S. Constitution, not any particular religious doctrine."When
you become a judge, that is the case. When you become an attorney,
you argue in behalf of your client...and use the law to present a case.
oragami, I have worse news to share with you.Morality to do good,
is one of the "first" principles of certain religions. And as an
example of the good that Christian principles have brought, before the British
colonized India, it used to be that a woman who lost her husband would put
herself to death because she was considered to be of no value to anyone without
a husband. Thankfully that "morality" wherever it came from was done
away with. However, in a world without a moral compass to go by that comes from
a higher power, all one has is Human opinion. Human opinion can bring about as
much evil as any religion can. Muslim terriorists may be committing evil in the
name of god, but Hitler did not.
"Mr. Schaerr was hired because he was the most qualified applicant and gives
us the best chance to win," the attorney general said. "Any intimation
that he was hired for reasons other than his qualifications, his understanding
of the Constitution and his mastery of the legal issues in this case are
offensive and detract from the civility this case merits."Let's tell the truth here, folks!1-- It was no picnic, trying
to find a nationally known attorney willing to take on a case he was bound to
lose, and willing to stand the large dent to his reputation by arguing against
equality.2-- Mr.Schaerr is a perfect choice, because he is working
cheap, and will be seen as defending his own faith and adding to the reputations
of his Utah family. Sutherland has obviously made sure he will be financially
rewarded.3-- The very best that the Governor and AG can hope for is
that a case from another State will be decided first, getting them off the
hook.The DN and many of its writers do the people of Utah no favor
in encouraging the charade that religion will justify the immorality and
unconstitutionality of denying equality.
>>Because your God, Church, traditions, or personal revolsion tells you
to want something that harms others, is not a reason and will not stand in a
court of law. Give facts, give studies that have been peer reviewed...True, but you misunderstood where the burden should be placed. The burden
should not be on advocates of traditional marriage to prove that gay marriage
will harm society; rather, it should be on advocates of same-sex marriage to
prove that it *won't* harm society...or, at least, that any benefits gained
will outweigh any harm.In either case, we're in a Catch-22--gay
marriage hasn't been around long enough for sociologists to conduct
peer-review studies that can prove gay marriage will or won't harm society.
If such studies exist, I can't find them; and I suspect that if they
existed, gay marriage advocates would be trumpeting them from the rooftops. So
we can't really demand that either side produce empirical evidence to
support their position.
One thing that would be funny is if they scrapped Mr. Schaeer and replaced them
with three seasoned attorneys (one of them with judicial experience at the
highest level in the state Supreme Court). I'm quite sure they would take
the case pro bono.Then if they are rejected then the country would
be in a severe world of hurt after having rejected the counsel of
Christofferson, Cook, and Oaks...
From Kanab, eh? Maybe he should grandfather in something about people who get
married having quivers of children. Why be a little "ideal" (oppose
marriage equality) when you can be incredibly "ideal"?
Gail F:1) What school teached pro-homosexuality, btw? Respect for all I
can understand. It was his parent's decision to pull him from school.
That is the choice that changed his outcome. Many students attend school and
learn to value their own beliefs, while allowing others to think and act
differently.2) If he is sued, he has broken the law. If he is
keeping all sinners from receiving his services, he is bound to go bankrupt.
Why would he only think homosexuals need to stay away from his business? That
sounds a little hypocritical to me.3) Catholics can run their
adoption agencies just like the LDS Church does and pay for everything
themselves, not accepting government monies. They are then free to pick whoever
they want to be the parents.4) Did the school teacher know of the
policies regarding posting negative comments that may affect his students
attitudes toward themselves or others in their class? He should have. If it is
more important to harm those students and state his opinion, maybe he should not
Re: "Do you have a legal argument that would stand up in court to prove that
gays should not marry?"That's turning the legal and
constitutional burden of proof on its head.The status quo is that
LGBT are not allowed to marry. The burden is on LGBT activists to come up with
their peer-reviewed studies and expert witnesses to show that status quo should
be altered.It's a common liberal trick to try and shift the
burden, but the legal and moral onus is on the activists. Among
those things they'll need to prove is that the privileges and immunities of
the real people, those of us that will always continue to believe in the concept
of traditional marriage, will not be harmed by the agenda of those who would
turn eons of wisdom on its head.Their burden, not ours.
Some will do anything to denigrate the gay community just like they used to do
to African Americans years ago.
Re: " Once same-sex couples are actually allowed to marry in Utah, they will
no longer be living outside your rules of chastity."No
disrespect intended, but most of us will likely take direction on this issue
from God's prophet. It seems unlikely to us that God can be swayed by
fatuous, legalistic arguments that good is the new evil, and evil, the new good.
But, we'll happily wait on the Lord.Re: "No one is
'afflicted' with LGBT feelings or tendencies."When
presented with a choice between the aspersions of an interested, jingoistic
partisan, who pretends to represent and speak for thousands of people he
doesn't know or care about; and that of honest, sincere personal
acquaintances -- I think I'll ignore the self-interested activist, and go
with the expressed feelings and perceptions of those not engaged in perpetual
axe grinding.Sorry, but your assertion is simply wrong.
@Rock: "It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."No, it is not.The premise of our statement contends that
everyone *must* have some sort of religion. That is patently
ludicrous. What is to become of fellow citizens who are agnostic or atheist?
God made Adam and Eve.Not Adam and Steve
Proud Duck, I have a legal argument. Questions1.If a parent objects to a
school teaching pro-homosexuality and pulls hischild out of school, and
because of it is ridiculed and/or jailed, is heharmed?2.If a
self-employed business owner with strong religious convictionsrefuses to
offer his services to homosexuals and he is sued and goesbankrupt, is he
harmed? 3.If a Catholic orphanage is forced to shut down because it is
against itsreligious moral code to turn children over to homosexual
couples, is someonehurt?4.If a public school teacher voices his
disapproval of homosexuality onFacebook on his own time, away from work,
in his own home, on his owncomputer, and is fired from his teaching
position, is he harmed?5.If a group of pro-homosexual activists (Act-UP)
disrupt the worshipservice of a Christian congregation by throwing condoms
at the pastor, isthe congregation harmed?6.If Christians are forced
into silence because of fear of legal, social,and financial retribution,
are they harmed?7.When morally conservative people who disapprove of
homosexuality arelabeled as "moral dinosaurs," "bigots,"
"hate mongers," "right wingfanatics," "preachers of
hatred," "intolerant," are they harmed?
I approve of this attorney choice. After all, I want my taxdollars spent towards
getting this to the Supreme Court and getting a result of same-sex marriage
nationally. Hiring an attorney who sees this as a religious fight when the
inability to build a secular case for Amendment 3 buried the first attempt
probably helps my cause.
ProudDuck:There is no way to keep faith from the public sphere, but
again, it must be logical and provable to be accepted into any law. It cannot
treat any individual or group in a way that is unequal to others who are
similarly situated, per our constitution.If Amendment 3 is rejected
by the courts, please note that it is not because the judges are turning their
backs on some religions, but that there was no reliable facts shown that this
harms anyone else and it obviously harms gay couples who want to marry.Do you have a legal argument that would stand up in court to prove that gays
should not marry? Do you have peer reviewed studies to prove your points? Do
you have expert witnesses that can testify? This is what we ask in our legal
courts. Religious beliefs will not win the day. So far, those who do not want
SSM are losing in the courts for lack of any legal proof of their contentions.
What would you suggest they argue?
iron&clay: "To be fair, and while we still think we have the freedom of
the press, let's have the Deseret News take a peek through the cloak of the
'Human Rights Campaign'. These activists groups always have innocuous
sounding names."Innocuous, like First Freedoms Coalition.I'm all for gay marriage, but the HRC's concerns strike me as
overstated and irrelevant. I don't care if religion informs an
attorney's worldview. That is to be expected, especially in a case and a
state like this one. He just needs to leave the religious arguments outside the
courtroom.Now, while the DesNews is investigating the HRC at
iron&clay's behest, could they also peek behind the cloak of the
Sutherland Institute and its relationship to the AG's office, the selection
of the attorneys, and the financial compensation of the attorneys? Sutherland
offered to pony up money to help support the case and Schaerr is working for the
state at a discount. Is there a connection? Some illumination and transparency
are in order.
Let's see: Leftists seek to exclude religion, and religiously-derived
worldviews, from the public sphere. At the same time, they constantly seek to
expand the scope of the public sphere. "The personal is political,"
etc.If you exclude faith from the public sphere, and you expand the
public sphere, you reduce the area where faith may operate. Whether you call
yourself anti-religion or not, the effect is the same.
@ Procurador FiscalYou wrote: "The real heroes in this issue mostly
stay out of it. They are those righteous, humble, God-loving people afflicted
with LGBT feelings or tendencies, that continue to live in accord with their
covenants with God,"1.- No one is "afflicted" with LGBT
feelings or tendencies. You are LGBT or not, is not an affliction.2.- I know heterosexuals who do not engage in any sexual activity. Are they
also heroes?3.- Thousands of us were there and after a lot of pray,
meditation, fasting and some more praying we discovered that our Heavenly
Father doesn't make mistakes and we are perfect just the way we are. God is
Love and we are free to Love according to "our" nature.@
Yorkshire:I have never known an LGBT who would criticize someone else for
personal decisions of this type. It doesn't mean there are no shallow
minded LGBT, we have our quota as heterosexuals have theirs.
@oragami>1) Morality precedes religion Perhaps from a
secular viewpoint, but religion codifies morality allowing society a stable,
reliable framework to operate under.>2) Religion contributes to
immorality on a daily basisIf this is a "people do horrible things in
the name of religion" argument, you really need to get over it. People do
horrible things in the name of whatever will get them the most power. Religion
is only 1 tool in the chest. If atheism becomes the state religion, I guarantee
it will become the tool used.>3) atheists are, on average,
fantastically moral peopleEasy to do when you define your own morality.
@Meckofahess"1- The heterosexual community will feel that the gay
community wasn't interested in fairness for both sides and didn't play
by the rules."You say that as if the "heterosexual
community" is a monolithic group but based on recent national polling
roughly half of heterosexuals support same-sex marriage. "2- The
heterosexul community will feel increased resentment toward the gay community
which is unfortunate "Somehow I have a hard time believing this
is a sincere concern of yours. @A Quaker"they will no
longer be living outside your rules of chastity"The LDS rules of
chastity only allow for sex between a man and a woman who are married. There is
no same-sex marriage loophole, otherwise it'd have come up in Massachusetts
Superior education, BYU and Yale. Why wouldn't the state of Utah hire the
most qualified attorney to defend its case? Everyone has personal opinions, be
they humanist or religious. While I don't know his thoughts, questioning
the origin of their personal philosophy implies that one is more legitimate than
the other. Who is bullying whom?
Native American have managed to survive many astrocites inflicted by Europeans
and we continue to fight for our inheret rights to live on our aboriginal lands.
Treaties and Constitutions were made, formal agreements to give up vast amounts
of lands from the Indian Tribes to make way for the westward expansion. Many
died and sacrafied and succomed to coercion of the Jacksonian Era. From the
Proclamation of 1763, state or colonist did not have a hand in making deals with
the Indian Tribes. With the new United States, Congress had "plenary
power" to govern Native American tribes. States do not have the power to
encroach onto Native American land/tribes or their governemnt, see Johnson v.
McIntosh (1823). To be honest, I will need to find out how the State of Utah
became trustee of Tribal lands that held scores of natural resources. This
sounds like a case of mismanagement, perhaps, we shall be see another Cobell
case in the works with the State of Utah. Utah, as trustee, did not uphold
it's fiduciary obligations to maintain an honest accounting of the funds,
accountable for the huge gap that is being reported.
procuradorfiscal said "The real heroes in this issue mostly stay out of it.
They are those righteous, humble, God-loving people afflicted with LGBT feelings
or tendencies, that continue to live in accord with their covenants with God,
embrace and defend His doctrines and commandments, and live their lives as
constructively, serenely, and joyfully as their circumstances permit.My
hat's off to them"I agree.The 3 same-sex
attracted people I know have chosen to never post on these comments boards. They feel as much or more maligned by the LGBT community than by any
LDS, because they will not give in and become a practicing Gay or Lesbian. As stated above, THEY are the real heroes in all this.
happy2bhere and soooooo many others:I find it amusing that you
honestly seem to believe that without religion and it's moral codes (i.e.
ten commandments), morality wouldn't exist and that murder and rape would
be legal. I do not, however, find it surprising that you believe this. After
all, morality is one of the last bastions of religious claims to relevance. I
have some bad news to share with you though.... 1) Morality precedes religion,
2) Religion contributes to immorality on a daily basis, 3) atheists are, on
average, fantastically moral people.Educate yourselves.
What a wonderful nation this would be if all politicians were Christian and
followed the doctrine of Scripture and Christ. We have lost our way, and surly
there will be retribution for the rejection, as a nation of Biblical Laws,
Statutes and Judgments. The Christian nation has no obligations to enforce and
permit a life of debauchery. If we allow evil to triumph, and surely it will,
if good men do nothing. The churches and decent alleged Christian has been
silent too long and we will pay a price for not standing for God, but rather
sitting for evil because it is politically uncomfortable and not politically
correct to speak against evil and debauchery. The good we should do, we
don't, and the things we don't do are the things we should. What we
must 're-understand' is that God does not wink at our sin, and if we
as Christians had the fortitude and love for our God, as the pagan has for his,
the world would be a better place, and so would our hearts. He who has ears to
he hear, let him hear.
@TekakaromatagiI meant to say more on this in my original post, but it
never got entered. But I agree, just because an idea is based off of a religion
doesn't mean it's wrong, or even unconstitutional. But the part I have
a problem with regarding this law is that their is no one can actually point to
a real problem ssm causes the rest of society. The only real reasons tie back to
religion, not society as a whole. Reasearch has shown that kids in gay or
straight households with similar economic conditions don't suffer long term
negative consequences, and that a child with a single parent is much worse off
than two gay or straight parents. We allow people to be in gay relationships,
have gay relations, in many states adopt kids, and in all states in-vitro or
other fertility treatments are availible. If you combine the fact that being gay
is perfectly legal, and that no one can prove their is a negative societal
impact why should we ban gay marraige? Because if the only arguments are that it
violates religios tenants of some americans it shouldn't be the law.
An attorney who believes in what he is representing, and who has an 80% success
rate? No wonder the homosexual advocates are trash-mouthing him. They are
shaking in their boots. The homosexual advocates are welcome to hire
who they want to represent them. They do not get to choose who the state hires,
despite their wish to. Utah got someone competent, we are going to defend our
laws. Thank goodness I live here, not California or Virginia. At
least this time the people of the state will have representation. We won't
be rolled. This will be a real case, instead of a forfeit.
Obviously him being LDS does not disqualify him from taking this case in any
way. This is an important story because it helps to expose the outright
deception that this is somehow not about religion. The blow-back the LDS image
faced as a result of promoting Prop. 8 in California was significant. The church
would like to avoid that this time around. As a result, same-sex marriage
opponents in this state are propping up all kinds of irrational drivel to defend
"traditional" marriage and selectively citing debunked research to do
so. They feel this is better (or at least safer from a public relations
standpoint) than advancing the core religious motive that drives them. So,
again, this story is valuable in that it exposes that slight of hand for what it
I believe it is a 'martyr complex' that motivates some members of the
Church to battle the issue of marriage equality to the bitter end. The General
Authorities have explained the Church's position on homosexuals and their
lifestyle and some members feel that they should fight the good fight with
whatever resources they have.
@procuradorfiscal: Once same-sex couples are actually allowed to marry in Utah,
they will no longer be living outside your rules of chastity. I wonder if
you'll be able to forgive and adapt.Whether a couple is willing
to commit each to God and each other in the care of a Meeting, as in our Quaker
tradition, or in another church, or purely to each other before a justice of the
peace, we are all under God's heaven and He smiles on the committed love of
all His children, whether they acknowledge Him or not.
This is such a "non-story" for me. I don't understand why people
care about his motives. There are people on either side of this issue for a
variety of different reasons. He's been hired because of his lawyer
skills, not his religion. If the State wanted a religious expert the Pope
and/or the Prophet would have been called to duty... not a lawyer!I
think people are reaching for straws to make this a 'religion' or
'Mormon' issue. This is an issue with people on one side verses
people on the other. Motives vary across the board on the why aspect.
@iron&clay - I completely agree! Ever since the "no choice" claim
came out and everyone hopped on that bandwagon, I've been alarmed at the
implications of the consequences for a group that claims they have "no
choice" about their personal preferences. They're painting a big
bulls-eye on themselves. It's also impossible to know if there is or
isn't a choice for those who don't claim homosexuality. Maybe they
decided at an early age not to follow that urge and never had the urge again.
Take the case of the identical twins: one went homosexual and the other is
heterosexual. Obviously, there was a choice for both of them to make that had
nothing to do with their DNA dictations.
One can only be appauled at this latest example of the gay community's
disdain for the concerns or point of view of the citizens of Utah who oppose
gay marriage.Does anyone naively think the attorney's
representing the gay community don't hold personal views that are contrary
to the majority of Utahn's and Amendment 3? Is anyone surprised
that the state of Utah would hire an attorney who believes in traditional values
and decency and who has religious faith?Would the straight community
be surprised or even care if the gay communitie's attorneys are religious
or not? Get the best man you can! Any wonder why the straight
community wants a man of faith who is well qualified to defend our
Who cares what his personal motive is? That has nothing to do with his right or
ability to interpret the law as he sees fit.
Re: ". . . to suggest that LGBTs are immoral and are not religious is simply
dark ages thinking."Maybe. But that doesn't mean it's
not correct.If you were, indeed, raised LDS, you must know that
knowledgeable, practicing LGBT actually are immoral -- meaning they engage in
practices they know God forbids.Arguing to the contrary is either
misinformed or disingenuous.I agree that there may be people out
there who are prevented from knowing the truth because they don't know
where to find it. And we believe, of course, that such people are not held
accountable for truths they don't know or understand. But someone raised in
the Church would not ordinarily fit into that category.The real
heroes in this issue mostly stay out of it. They are those righteous, humble,
God-loving people afflicted with LGBT feelings or tendencies, that continue to
live in accord with their covenants with God, embrace and defend His doctrines
and commandments, and live their lives as constructively, serenely, and joyfully
as their circumstances permit.My hat's off to them.
"Schaerr's entire motivation for taking this anti-equality case is to
impose a certain religious viewpoint on all Utahns, and that's wrong,"
said Fred SainzSo the Human Right Campaign thinks it is right to
impose an anti-religious viewpoint over the objections of 60% of the people of
Utah?It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
And the truth shall set you free
To be fair, and while we still think we have the freedom of the press,
let's have the Deseret News take a peek through the cloak of the "Human
Rights Campaign". These activists groups always have innocuous
sounding names.But, what happens next after marriage and family, the
basic unit of a free society, is subverted?Joseph Smith said that
when you "teach the people correct principles, they can govern
themselves".When correct principles are abandoned, individuals with
the loss of self control will soon be living in a condition that is fully ripe
for submission to the total government control planned for them.I
appeal to all honest seekers of equal rights to consider exactly where you are
The gay community and their spokes people are resorting to any and all forms of
rhetoric to attack the other side. The gays do not want any aspect of religion
to be included in the discussion. In other words, if the straight side sees
anything through the lens of faith, we are not welcome to the party! My feeling is that their approach will result in outcomes they don't
foresee namely:1- The heterosexual community will feel that the gay
community wasn't interested in fairness for both sides and didn't play
by the rules.2- The heterosexul community will feel increased
resentment toward the gay community which is unfortunate because many of us who
have gay friends do not want to see an increase in resentment toward them. We
want to see less resentment and more recognition of their legitimate
concerns.3- Due to all of these attacks toward faith and traditional
values and decency, I fear the heterosexual community will find it harder to
accept the gays because of these attacks and failure to show respect for our
concerns.So sad to see this divide getting bigger than it needed to
"...According to an email circulated online Wednesday, Schaerr told
co-workers at the Washington, D.C., law firm Winston & Strawn that he was
resigning to "fulfill what I have come to see as a religious and family
duty: defending constitutionality of traditional marriage in the state where my
church is headquartered and where most of my family resides...".To fulfill a religious duty?Schaeer will be payed somewhere north
of $2,000,000 dollars to fulfill a religious duty.200 words is not
nearly enough to detail the irony of that reality.
I am in favor of marriage equality but I find the objection to the lawyer in
question quite confusing. He is an advocate for one side, not the Judge who
makes the final decision. Furthermore, people's religious beliefs are in
play here whether we say so or not. We might as well say so.
SSmith"I think their strategy of attacking the Utah law will have
unintended consequences and will ultimately lead to a Supreme Court ruling
against their cause."Here's the deal... the Supreme Court
ruled in DOMA that the authority to define marriage is reserved to the states.
So, SCOTUS has locked itself in. How can it now say SCOTUS has the authority to
define marriage? As far as 'equal protection under the law' all
citizens have equal protection. If you wanna marry pick one person of the
opposite sex. No polygamy, no incest, no children, no close relatives, no
geezer/children, no mother/son, no brother/sister, no same sex, no human/pet,
etc. Very simple.@Million:"They [Founding Fathers] would
say we should have left it alone and only allowed men who owned land the ability
to vote."Should illegal immigrants be allowed to vote? How
about foreigners who've never set foot on US soil?"Are LGBT
issues the last big hurdle of equality or are there more to come?"LGBT marriages will open the door to all sorts of marriage combinations... and
thus, the eventual death of marriage.
@ambistoes & ORDuckie I think Lane Myer is right. Have you read
the Code of Hammurabi? I think the laws written by this King of Babylon have a
bigger influence in our law system that Moses' 10 commandments.
mhenshaw: "But we can't ban people from bringing their values to the
table just because they're informed by a religion. "------------I absolutely agree. One's religious beliefs can
be used to make laws, but they must be defended as sound, logical and do no harm
to anothers rights, privileges, or pursuit of happiness. They must also, per
our constitution, treat equally situated persons the same under the law.If, and when, the religious can put forth an agrument that can do all of
the above regarding SSM, they will have a case. Because your God, Church,
traditions, or personal revolsion tells you to want something that harms others,
is not a reason and will not stand in a court of law. Give facts, give studies
that have been peer reviewed, give presidence in the law, but the Bible, the
Proclaimation on the Family, or warnings from your prophets will not be
@ RANCH Just like I shouldn't have the LGBT views forced on me. Let them
have civil unions and rights but it's not marriage.
I disagree that the churches have been bullying the GLBT community for years.
At least for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, I observe that it
has been firmly, but civilly defending its doctrine for years while trying to
teach it’s members compassion and peace. If members have not lived with
peace and compassion, please blame them, not The Church.And, as far
as those who suggest the courts should not get involved in moral issues, I
submit the left has been using morality arguments for decades as arguments in
court, just like the right. The moral strategies the left has used have
generally revolved around "individual rights, "fairness",
"equality", and "freedom" from being forced to follow anything
religious or a particular religion. Rightly or wrongly, these are the moral
arguments they have used. They represent moral rights the Founding
Father's were not getting from the British. Unfortunately they
(those same moral arguments of freedom and equality) are being used now to
defend gay lifestyles, abortion, pornography, and the like: some things I think
the Founding Fathers would find disturbing. Nevertheless, liberals are still
using these moral arguments and have done so for decades.
States and governments have a highly vested interest in the family structure of
its citizens. Economic prosperity and good educational opportunities, all have
very strong correlatives to family stability within communities. The data is
compelling, but mostly ignored. It is too bad we don't spend this time,
money, and effort improving family stability, instead of legalizing deviant
behavior, for the hopes of what? A better outcome in social gains? That's
like walking down a hill, wondering when you will get to the top.
Hmmm...., to suggest that LGBTs are immoral and are not religious is simply dark
ages thinking. Although I am gay, I was brought up as a Mormon and the
best thing I learned from the Mormon religion is that God gave us a brain and
expects us to use it. I recommend that those religious extremists do the same.
Once again the left attacks religion. Who cares if the attorney takes the case
to defend the constitutionality of amendment 3, as well as his religious views.
They are actually compatible.
@ the scientist"This is no surprise. The dominating religion in
Utah is well known for its members showing favoritism in hiring and doing
business. Indeed, one of the largest religious discrimination lawsuits in US
history involved Mormons favoring Mormons in hiring and promotions in a well
known educational institution.Sir this happens with every religion,
culture, social class etc. What's your point"?People who like to
work with people who they can get along with, regardless of where. I find your
comment small town.
@NoodleKaboodle: "Islam requires women to wear a burka to be considered
modest," Islam requires a woman to wear hijab, to cover her hair. Whoever
told you that was completely wrong and I would advise you to never listen to
that person again.Referring to Martin Luther King's Letter from
Birmingham jail. Laws that are not in aligmment with God's laws are
unjust. Just because people have not agreed on an absolute morality does not
mean that it does not exist. If we pass laws that allow something that is
immoral there are practical consequences.Back in the slavery days
there were people who argued that slavery was OK and it was legal. Anyone could
take the Bible say that God does not like slavery, just look at the Biblical
plagues that happened in Egypt. But from a practical standpoint, having lots of
forced and free labor is a bad idea economically for 100 different reasons most
of which we could not identify because they are subtle.If someone
has a religious reason against something, it does not mean that the practical
consequences are non-existent.
Gee Most Truthfuland patriotic, I know a lot of Baptists, Catholics, Methodists,
Episcopalians, etc that live right here in good old Utah. One religion, yea
right. My guess is that you haven't lived in the south. Way worse than
here. But if you don't like it, run for the state legislature. While
you are at it, trash the people that live in your district's religion and
see how many votes you get. My guess is that you will be summarily trounced.
>>When did you learn that our laws are based on religious tenets?While I don't agree that our laws are explicitly based on the Ten
Commandments, it's inarguable that law are essentially society's value
judgements. As a society, we decide through the democratic process what
behaviors are right and wrong. Everyone who participates in the process gets to
bring their own values to the table. For many, those values are informed by
their religion; for others, their values are informed their own personal sense
of logic.But we can't ban people from bringing their values to
the table just because they're informed by a religion. "Freedom of
church and state" was intended to keep government from favoring any one
organized religion or belief system over any other, not to eliminate all trace
of religion from public life. So it's unfair to claim that an LDS lawyer
should never be able to argue a legal case because he wants to see an outcome
that aligns with his LDS values. Substitute "atheist" or any other
belief system for "LDS" in that last sentence and you'll see the
Lane Myer - I suggest you look at the life of Alfred Kinsey, but not the
sugarcoated version that you're used to (not the movie either). I would
also suggest that you look at the laws that were on the books before his sexual
"research" was used to influence lawmakers. I believe you'll find
that the laws regarding sexuality were much more Biblical before then in our
>> Civility? Please don't lecture the oppressed about civility.Civility is the foundation of a democratic society. If we give people
license to stop being civil whenever they feel oppressed, then civility dies
because virtually everyone feels like they're being oppressed about
something...which they are. That's the nature of democracy. We all have to
compromise, giving up our preferred 100% solution to arrive at a negotiated
solution that everyone can live with. That can take a long time, but the
alternative--politics through incivility--actually takes longer.So
let's be civil to each other. Being kind doesn't mean that you have to
give up on your goals. It just means that you have to persuade people to accept
your view instead of trying to bludgeon them into silence through insults and
name-calling. And, frankly, if we can't persuade people without being
insulting to them, then maybe we're the ones who are in the wrong.
Oh so he can't have a religious opinion? All you left wing faithful
defenders of the First Amendment only want the First Amendment to apply to you,
not anyone else. He is perfectly entitled to his religious view, and if these
views are part of who he is and his values, so what? Take a pill and calm down
for pete's sake. Just for fun, go and read the First Amendment
sometime. I recall freedom of religion right there at the front, ahead of
freedom of speech. By the way while you are at it, read the 10th Amendment and
see the conflict with the 14th.
A more interesting question is, why did he resign from his law firm to take this
ORDuckie: "It took about 5 minutes in my Constitutional Law class in law
school to learn that all civil and criminal law is grounded on religious tenets
(e.g., the 10 commandments)"------------It always
surprises me when anyone says that our laws are based on the ten commandments.
In fact, there are only two commandments that we have laws for: do not kill, do
not steal. We also will punish you for lying under oath. But that is all!When did you learn that our laws are based on religious tenets? Can you
list them for me? I have not been to law school, but I think I know most of our
laws (not all regulations, though) and I know religions. They really are not
that parallel that I can see. Can you help me with your thought process or what
you were taught?
It is ironic that people don't understand the inextricable connection
between religious liberty and economic well being. Capitalism's gold
standard for creating wealth is tied to religious liberty and virtuous living.
You would think that even the non religious would want to support the very
things that create wealth in this, or any other, country. The facts are in, the
questions answered, and yet, the naysayers, the depressed, and the hopeless will
suppress the very things that would make them prosperous, positive, enlightened,
and filled with hope, capitalism tied to religious liberty, in this case,
One could very EASILY argue (successfully) that the VERY act of marriage is an
act ROOTED in religion....but some of you people want to ignore beliefs, rooted
in religion, when discussing marriage? Can't you people understand,
that's the issue here....where does all this end? I'll
tell you, it ends with government becoming the De facto final say when it comes
to religious beliefs....reminiscent of the country(ies) many of our ancestors
left so they could practice their beliefs without being persecuted.... It's sad irony that there's a belief out there that it's
unconstitutional for a majority (in a state) wanting an institution brought
forth out of religion, to remain the same as it has been for thousands of years
according to religious beliefs and practices.
Question for the Deseret News.Your newspaper have been following the SSM
issue almost daily. However, today when the Attorney General of Virginia Mark
Herring decided not to defend the Virginia's Constitutional Ban on SSM,you published it and let it get lost. Instead of keeping it on first page as
this article for example.AG Herring:"“As attorney general, I
cannot and will not defend a law that violates Virginians’ fundamental
constitutional rights,” he said."DN this should be news in
Utah even if it is just because presents a different perspective to how Utah
sees the same issue. Don't you agree? Information is education.
Mcbillay, West Jordan, UTIt took about 5 minutes in my
Constitutional Law class in law school to learn that all civil and criminal law
is grounded on religious tenets (e.g., the 10 commandments) and that it's
appropriate for persons with "religious" viewpoints to legislate or
codify their own beliefs into law, because other persons with competing
positions are trying to do the same (i.e., they are attempting to impose their
own world view on the religious). The US Supreme Court held that
atheistic/agnostic belief systems, e.g., "secularism," is considered a
"religion" for purposes of 1st amendment jurisprudence. Regardless, it
is also well settled case law that Jefferson's metaphorical church-state
"wall" is not "high and impregnable"; rather, it's fairly
porous. No "smoking gun" or "elephant in the room" here.
CHS 85 - Your seemingly sarcastic statement has nothing to do with an attorney
who is amply qualified, who graduated from Yale law school, defending in a
legitimate case. You are playing with an idea that is not American and are
showing that you believe the U.S. government should be used for the evil purpose
of attacking religious individuals. Let's see, the gay community already
did attack religious people systematically who they found out donated to Prop
8...I guess aggressive militancy and incivility has been the way of the LGBTQ
"human rights" movement....in other words, imposing their rights on
others above everyone else's rights.
@CHS 85No, we are not "okay with people on government payrolls pushing
religious agendas". However, we desire people in government with a strong
moral compass who are willing to get passionate about defending the moral
standards they believe in. If we don't like the morals our
elected officials are advocating, we elect new officers. This is what is known
as a Democratic Representative Republic. We elect our representatives through a
democratic process and expect them to follow the dictates of their conscience in
performing their duties. We place the constraints of a constitution on them so
they don't violate our rights while in office. In this case
there is simply a difference of opinion when it comes to interpreting the US
"The Human Rights Campaign, a national organization that works to ensure
equal rights for LGBT people, said Wednesday that Schaerr's motivation was
religious rather than an interest in defending whether the state's
voter-approved definition of marriage is constitutional"We all
know that. However, I don't think Mr. Schaerr's motivation should
disqualify him for the job. I sincerely hope that Mr. Schaerr' team
presents and defends Utah's side to the best of their abilities.
I applaud Utah for retaining attorneys who are willing to defend their law. In
contrast look at what the state of California did to defend their law. Governor
Jerry Brown the former AG said he would not defend it because he supports SSM.
His current AG also said she would not defend it because she supports SSM. In response to the comment that the Mormons are bullying the LGBT
community. Do we all remember what happened after the initial passage of Prop.8
in California. LDS Temples were vandalized, LGBT activists threatened to boycott
businesses whose employees gave donations in support of Prop 8. The result was
that those employees lost their jobs. Who did the bullying here? Sounds to me
like it was the LGBT community and not those in favor of Prop.8.
This is an example of dirty politics at its absolute worst. Discrediting a
qualified attorneybecause of his religion is targeting and censorship at
its worst. Should we say all gay and lesbians are totally sympathetic to the
tactics of Glad and Act Up. This is rough and tumble gotcha political mentality.
So you want to live by the Founding Fathers, huh?Women, you no
longer can vote.Landowners only can voteSlavery.
Of course they need an attorney that has the same religious views as those that
support amendment 3. There is no legal, ethical or moral basis for
discrimination so the only option left are ones religious beliefs. Apparently in
some religions, God doesn't want LGBT people to pursue and obtain
That's funny, because MY religion does not condemn what God has created.WHENEVER Utahns start reading the Constitution of the United States,
they will find that the First Amendment protects AGAINST institutionalized
religion.....YET, look where we are, here, in Utah: ONE religion, deeply
instituted into the legislature, directing everything that happens to people.Live YOUR religion, and let me live mine. Why is that so hard?My
42-year marriage (no church, just a justice of the peace in Nevada) has not been
harmed due to same-sex marriage -- and it has outlasted ALL of the religious
marriages I attended in the 1970s and 1980s. .
So you guys are okay with people on government payrolls pushing religious
agendas? Good to know. I would like to apply for a job as an auditor with a
government salary so I can push to force the LDS Church to open their donation
books. That's okay with you guys, right?
The attorneys defending traditional marriage should accuse the "human
rights" attorneys of trying to impose the "religious" view of
"moral relativism" which has no compass except that it is required to be
God instituted marriage between a man and a woman. Trying to legitimize gay
marriage will not make it right in the sight of God.
The lines are plainly drawn on this issue: Fundamentally, the SSM advocates and
their leftist allies like Hutterite, state that religion (actually, Christian
faith) is of no value and has nothing to contribute to society. That we should
tolerate religion to the point of maybe allowing it to exist in privacy, but no
farther. Certainly religious people shouldn't be allowed to actually
influence society. That's the leftist and SSM view that has
come across loud and clear in these threads. Do you believe that Christianity
has anything positive to say? If you do, you must be against SSM, because the
SSM advocates are bound and determined to drive religion, its adherents, and any
influence on morality out of existence. Democrats in general are utterly
committed to removing faith in Christ as any source of influence on
anyone--witness their booing of God in the 2012 convention and Cuomo's
demand for people of faith to leave New York--with no pushback from Democrats.
They have declared war on morality.
Why do those of us who oppose same-sex marriage need to apologize or feel
embarrassed? It was God who defined what sin is and the responsibility of
believers is to try to enact and preserve laws in civil society that support
those values. When we enact laws that prohibit theft or fraud or rape or any one
of many values, we are discriminating against people who want to do those
things. If the majority want to prohibit those things, why should the minority
who want to commit those crimes be able to overturn the will of the majority? In
Utah, the large majority do not want same-sex marriage.
This is a completely silly argument. Clearly the pro-gay advocates feel VERY
threatened by this guy and his success in court. They are trying to discredit
him. To say that people of faith, and their views, have no place in
the public square or the court system is completely evil.
This issue is not about granting equality. It is purely about changing the
definition of a word. For the last 200+ years in this country (and a couple
thousand before that in Western Europe) the word marriage has had a very
specific definition. Even today, if you look up the word in any Law dictionary
it still retains its original meaning. It is only in the last 15-20 years that
we have started softening the meaning of the word "marriage" into
something completely different.With that in mind, as a middle-class,
white, hetero, male, I think we should change the definition of the word
"woman". I own a small business, and I am treated with inequality when
bidding on government contracts because I'm male. If I could just get the
world to re-define "woman" to include, well, me, then I could compete
with greater equality under the government "minority owned small
I see a headline story this morning that the Virginia attorney general
won't pursue efforts against same sex marriage because the state should be
'on the right side of the law'. But here we are, going down the wrong
path for the church.
@wrzBut morality in many aspects is cultural and relative. For example the
LDS church has a certain standard for modest dress. In my opinion it's a
modest style of dress. Go google what women wore during the founding of this
country. They would consider current LDS dress standard immodest. Or for a more
current example, Islam requires women to wear a burka to be considered modest,
again what LDS standard for modesty or morality is considered immodest and
immoral by other religious groups. While some morals are timeless, and not
likely to change, like murder, lying or theft. Not all morals are in this same
category. That's why the American system works so well, we have a
government(for now) that is relatively unbiased by one particular faith. That
way we can pick out the morals that need to apply to society as a whole, allow
people of faith to practice their morals,*continued*
Ah yes: if you hold a religious view against SSM, you are automatically
disqualified from speaking out. Religious reasons are a priori invalid. Even
if the argument made is 100 % secular, the fact that the attorney arguing is
religious is reason enough to disqualify the case. Funny, the SSM
advocates say that we have nothing to fear. Why, just two days ago the state of
Oregon upheld legal government prosecution of Christians (to the tune of
hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines) because they --gasp!-- tried to refer
a lesbian couple elsewhere for their wedding cake. The governor of New York
straight out proclaimed that if you don't promote SSM, you don't
belong in New York. How long ago was it that the Gay advocates
tried to get Phil Robertson fired for his beliefs? And you gay rights people
are surprised that there is resistance and pushback against your agenda? We
know full well that the gay rights people intend to destroy religion.
Was this a mission call? I thought missionaries were not paid?
OK....let me think about this....The voters of the State of Utah do not want
same sex marriage. Some headline grabbing, liberal activist judge decides to
overturn the will of the people. The State of Utah wants to appeal the decision
of the liberal activist judge and spend the Taxpayers money to do so. Should the
State of Utah spend the big bucks on some liberal LGBT atheist lawyer who would
put less than their all into the appeal, or choose somebody that has a fire in
them concerning Utah's side of the argument and is deeply motivated to
aggressively pursue overturning Shelby's decision and has the experience to
do it? Or maybe some agnostic who only wants the bucks, win or lose, and has no
interest in success or failure. I'll take the guy that has the fire in
him. Win or lose he will have represented his client (the State of Utah) to the
best of his ability.
I don't see that his motivations are important here. By all accounts, he is
an excellent appellate advocate. I am glad the State hired someone of his
stature to handle the appeal so that the arguments can be well presented and
fully tested. A decision of this magnitude should be made based on the best
Last year Pres. Obama said that his religious faith is a motivation for him to
help the poor. So, he wants to raise the minimum wage? Is this a case of him
forcing his religious views on everyone else.Last summer some
protestors chained themselves to some heavy machinery in the Uinta Basin. They
started with a Navajo medicine man giving a prayer. Is this a case of someone
forcing their religiuos views on everyone else.If someone with
"Love Your Mother" superimposed on a drawing of the earth joins an
environmental group, is that a case of someone forcing their religious views on
everyone else?Martin Luther King in a "Letter from Birmingham
Jail" said that unjust laws are laws that are not in harmony with God's
laws. Slavery was done away with because religious people objected to slavery.
Are those examples of people forcing their religious views on everyone else?I think that the misnamed Human Rights Campaign should get some
diversity training and stop getting into fits about the free thinkers ni Utah.
It is funny how groups will turn things just to support their views. I seem to
remember a certain judge who overturned Prop 8 in CA. He also had an agenda,
remember! He was Gay! Talk about an agenda!
McKensie and DesNews editors, Thank you for your balanced reporting
on this topic. I don't see Judge Shelby as an activist judge,
he was performing his duty per his oath of office. The state is enjoying its
series of legal appeals. In the end your readers will retain their rights to
practice their faith of choice. What more could anyone ask of a free society?This episode is further proof that our Founding Fathers were wise.
Only people whose religions allow ssm can defend there morality. hmmmn.
Gotta love the math of some reporters.***quote***On Tuesday, the
state was granted a 10-day extension to prepare to appeal the decision in the
10th Circuit in Denver. Utah's opening brief must now be filed by Feb.
3.***end quote***The original court imposed deadline was Jan 27. The
state asked for a 10 day extension and was granted an extension until Feb 3.
That would be 7 days.
This is pretty typical of the Human Rights Campaign. The only right they are
interested in is the right to agree with them.
So what if religious views are used. Secular views are also used. No views
whether based on religion or not should carry any extra weight. The law and
courts and people should have the ultimate say so in all public policy and that
should happen regardless of what the foundation of those laws are. Heck, if the
anti religious types took the non religious view on all public policy, we would
have to get rid of things like murder, stealing, ect. They were religious
principles long before they became secular law.
The opposition must feel a little threatened to start these kind of tactics
What would our Founding Fathers say? They would say we should have left it alone
and only allowed men who owned land the ability to vote. Look what has happened
to our country.It will be interesting to look back at this era in 20
years. Are LGBT issues the last big hurdle of equality or are there more to
This is just going to give more credence to the view that Mormons are bullying
the LGBT community.@Thinkman;What about the religious
views of those who disagree with the Mormon church and Mr. Schaerr? They
don't matter? The problem with "defending your religious views",
especially when they're put into law, is that you may violate someone elses
religious views by doing so. You are welcome to your "religious views",
you're just not welcome to force others to live by them.
Schaerr was voicing a private opinion and in no way was it intended for anyone
else to suppose it was his only reason for taking this case. Nor should it be
used against him just because he has more fiber. One does down play your moral
fiber no matter what religion a person is. It is his personal opinion and not
to be used against him. Give this guy some credit for his
expertise, preparation, background in defending Constitutional law and
experience here. He is one of three chosen
The LGBT community claims to have a clear strategy of when and in which states
to file. I think their strategy of attacking the Utah law will have unintended
consequences and will ultimately lead to a Supreme Court ruling against their
Well we better throw out all those victories before the Supreme Court by Jay
Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, who makes no bones about his
religion as a practicing Messianic Christian, and how that informs his world and
legal view, or the Liberty Law Center, you name it.For that matter,
forget Perry Mason. He believed it was morally wrong to lie, and if a potential
client would like to him he would typically not represent him. So dismiss him,
too.Is it the claim that Gene Schaerr might be advancing his own
viewpoint that so rankles the Human Rights Commission, or is it the fact that he
has an 80% success rate as a lawyer, and they'd like to get him off the
There are attornies who fight tooth and nail to set a dangerous murder free and
sometimes they are successful. If we are going to complain about attorney
motivations, lets start there.There are reasons to oppose full gay
marriage other than religious. That is children where the opportunity exists
should be given a mother and father in adoption, not a father and a father or a
mother and a mother.So far as any religion trying to impose its will
on all people for purely religious reasons this is wrong.
so what's the big deal? aren't the LGBT trying to do the exact same
thing?only in this case the majority of Utahans passed a law based on
their religious convictions and those rights are being taken. why not hire a
lawyer who holds to those same beliefs?
This is no surprise. The dominating religion in Utah is well known for its
members showing favoritism in hiring and doing business. Indeed, one of the
largest religious discrimination lawsuits in US history involved Mormons
favoring Mormons in hiring and promotions in a well known educational
Heaven, or whatever you choose, forbid if someone has religious convictions for
doing what they do or making decisions that they make. This is a ridiculous
story on its face. The media again is being used to make something out of
nothing. It's just amazing how much the GAY activists drive the media to
cover their agenda. It gets old. This is a none story. Just typical of how
media is so used to drive their viewpoint.
What a silly criticism. The fact that faith plays a part in someone's
world view and their position on a moral and legal issue? Shocking!
Mr. Shaerr has just as much right to defend this amendment as anyone else. For
"The Human Rights Campaign" to attempt to disqualify him is nothing more
that religious discrimination of the worst kind. I cannot think of anything
I don't understand your headline. An attorney can't impose anything
in law. All he can do is represent a party in a case. The court makes the
decisions.You've got a factual error in your story. A ten-day
extension may have been requested, but only a seven-day extension was granted by
the court. I'm not reading too much into that, other than they're not
being fully accommodating to the appellant in this case.I see no
reason to question or decry Mr. Schaerr's motives, or his resignation from
his firm. If he were to succeed at this case, his career as a "traditional
marriage" defender would be solid gold. Nor would the Court hold his
religion against him. But, I'd give his odds of success significantly
lower than 80%. Maybe 8%, tops. Nobody's ever won one of these cases in a
Federal court, have they? We've heard all the fervent arguments against
SSM. Conservative think tanks have worked on this for years, and none of the
largely emotional rationales have satisfied either the law or the facts. Well, I hope he cashes his check before the verdict.
Let's see what the founding fathers said about religion..."Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt
and vicious, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports." George Washington
I'm surmising that seeing "BYU" on the application gave a fairly
good indication of the attorney applicant's religious affiliation.
And I suppose those who are on the other side of the amendment has no feelings
for same sex marriage -- it is always a one way street with these people.
If they want to defend anything to the upper ladder, let them be smart not
religious !In god we trust is a nice saying, but what matters today
is how smart we are against those who want to establish a society where children
shall serve their masters of arguments and selfishness. That is a tough job. Be
smart, but without fault !
Wow! That has never been done before a complete waste of taxpayer dollars (2
million) for an attempt to impose the will of the religious right in order to
deny others equality.
Any wonder why fiscal conservatives who support and understand our
country's Constitution are upset about this 3 million dollar charade
we're paying for?
Wow that has never been done before in the history of Constitutional Law to
defend a person's religious views! (Sarcasm I hope is understood)