Quantcast
Utah

Attorney accused of defending Amendment 3 to impose religious viewpoint

Comments

Return To Article
  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 30, 2014 2:56 p.m.

    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.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 26, 2014 4:24 p.m.

    @ NoBoxScot

    Nobody 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 other"

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 26, 2014 3:42 p.m.

    @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.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 26, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    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.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 26, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    @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.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Jan. 25, 2014 8:44 p.m.

    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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 25, 2014 4:05 p.m.

    @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 religion".

  • T. Publius Kissimmee, FL
    Jan. 24, 2014 9:20 p.m.

    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

  • NoBoxScot Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 24, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    "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.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 24, 2014 11:50 a.m.

    @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.

  • als Atheist Provo, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    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".

  • CylonesRus sunamn, IN
    Jan. 24, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    Vanceone
    Provo, UT
    You 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!

  • CylonesRus sunamn, IN
    Jan. 24, 2014 8:30 a.m.

    ARanch
    Here, UT

    I can not vote my conscience, but you can?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 8:15 a.m.

    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.

  • DonO Draper, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 7:24 a.m.

    "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 wedges.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:43 p.m.

    @Kirk R Graves

    Thank you for agreeing with all three of my points.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:40 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal

    The 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?

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:33 p.m.

    @The Scientist
    Provo, 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.

  • Captain Green Heber City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:16 p.m.

    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.

  • T. Publius Kissimmee, FL
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:58 p.m.

    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

  • T. Publius Kissimmee, FL
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:41 p.m.

    “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:13 p.m.

    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.

  • InLifeHappiness Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 8:34 p.m.

    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!

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 7:55 p.m.

    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.

  • BlakeR St Joseph, MI
    Jan. 23, 2014 7:36 p.m.

    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 one!

  • GatorGirl99 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 7:25 p.m.

    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?

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 6:38 p.m.

    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 "civil union""

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 6:34 p.m.

    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.

  • HENELSON lindon, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 6:16 p.m.

    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.

  • HENELSON lindon, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 5:58 p.m.

    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.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 5:49 p.m.

    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.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 23, 2014 5:40 p.m.

    @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.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 5:34 p.m.

    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."

  • Johnny Moser Thayne, WY
    Jan. 23, 2014 5:29 p.m.

    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.

  • CDL Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 23, 2014 4:44 p.m.

    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.

  • Brian Utley Freedom, IN
    Jan. 23, 2014 4:42 p.m.

    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.

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 23, 2014 4:39 p.m.

    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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 4:36 p.m.

    @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.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 23, 2014 4:31 p.m.

    @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.

  • kattawn ,
    Jan. 23, 2014 4:28 p.m.

    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 about nothing.

  • ksampow Farr West, Utah
    Jan. 23, 2014 4:23 p.m.

    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 marriage.

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 23, 2014 4:12 p.m.

    @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.

  • Sampson Hurricane, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 4:06 p.m.

    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.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 4:00 p.m.

    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.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 23, 2014 3:42 p.m.

    "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.

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 23, 2014 3:27 p.m.

    >>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.

  • Mexican Ute mexico, 00
    Jan. 23, 2014 3:18 p.m.

    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...

  • moniker lewinsky Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 3:11 p.m.

    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"?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 3:01 p.m.

    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 be teaching...

    continued...

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 2:56 p.m.

    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.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 23, 2014 2:15 p.m.

    Some will do anything to denigrate the gay community just like they used to do to African Americans years ago.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 2:06 p.m.

    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.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 23, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    @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?

  • FREDISDEAD West Point, ny
    Jan. 23, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    God made Adam and Eve.

    Not Adam and Steve

  • Gail Fitches Layton, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 1:44 p.m.

    Proud Duck, I have a legal argument. Questions
    1.If a parent objects to a school teaching pro-homosexuality and pulls his
    child out of school, and because of it is ridiculed and/or jailed, is he
    harmed?
    2.If a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions
    refuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he is sued and goes
    bankrupt, is he harmed?
    3.If a Catholic orphanage is forced to shut down because it is against its
    religious moral code to turn children over to homosexual couples, is someone
    hurt?
    4.If a public school teacher voices his disapproval of homosexuality on
    Facebook on his own time, away from work, in his own home, on his own
    computer, and is fired from his teaching position, is he harmed?
    5.If a group of pro-homosexual activists (Act-UP) disrupt the worship
    service of a Christian congregation by throwing condoms at the pastor, is
    the 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 are
    labeled as "moral dinosaurs," "bigots," "hate mongers," "right wing
    fanatics," "preachers of hatred," "intolerant," are they harmed?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 1:37 p.m.

    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.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    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?

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 1:31 p.m.

    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.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Jan. 23, 2014 1:11 p.m.

    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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 23, 2014 1:04 p.m.

    @ Procurador Fiscal
    You 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.

  • Kirk R Graves West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    @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 basis
    If 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 people
    Easy to do when you define your own morality.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    @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 by now.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    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?

  • Juniper Tree Tonalea, AZ
    Jan. 23, 2014 12:25 p.m.

    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.

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    Jan. 23, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    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.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    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.

  • Paddycakes South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    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.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi
    I 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.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    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.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 12:07 p.m.

    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 is.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    Jan. 23, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    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.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 23, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    @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.

  • Bored to the point of THIS! Ogden, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    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.

  • ambistoes Vernal, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:51 a.m.

    @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.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    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 constitutional rights?

  • atrulson cohoes, NY
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:43 a.m.

    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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    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.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    "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 Sainz

    So 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.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:28 a.m.

    And the truth shall set you free

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    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 being led.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    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 be!

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    "...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.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:01 a.m.

    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.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:00 a.m.

    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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    @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.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    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 admissable.

  • Hey It's Me Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Here Sandy, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:49 a.m.

    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.

  • Daniel L. Murray, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    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.

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    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.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:41 a.m.

    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.

  • Uncle Rico Sandy, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    @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.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    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.

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    >>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 absurdity.

  • ambistoes Vernal, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:25 a.m.

    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 country.

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:25 a.m.

    >> 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.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    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.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    A more interesting question is, why did he resign from his law firm to take this job?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    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?

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:50 a.m.

    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, Amendment 3!

  • WasatchReb Provo, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    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.

  • ORDuckie Eugene, OR
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    Mcbillay, West Jordan, UT

    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) 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.

  • ambistoes Vernal, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    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.

  • Social Mod Fiscal Con West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    @CHS 85
    No, 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 Constitution.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    "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.

  • morganh Orem, Utah
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    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.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    This is an example of dirty politics at its absolute worst. Discrediting a qualified attorney
    because 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.

  • Reasonable Person Layton, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    So you want to live by the Founding Fathers, huh?

    Women, you no longer can vote.
    Landowners only can vote
    Slavery.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    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 happiness.

  • Most Truthful and Patriotic Layton, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    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. .

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    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?

  • ambistoes Vernal, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    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 directionless.

  • oldcougfan North Ogden, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:02 a.m.

    God instituted marriage between a man and a woman. Trying to legitimize gay marriage will not make it right in the sight of God.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    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.

  • Tom Johnson Spanish Fork, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    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.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Social Mod Fiscal Con West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 8:28 a.m.

    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 business" rules.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 8:25 a.m.

    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.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 8:24 a.m.

    @wrz
    But 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*

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    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.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    Was this a mission call? I thought missionaries were not paid?

  • shadow01 ,
    Jan. 23, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    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.

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    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 advocacy possible.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 23, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    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.

  • Web Sic, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    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!

  • donahoe NSL, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    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.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 23, 2014 7:53 a.m.

    Only people whose religions allow ssm can defend there morality. hmmmn.

  • Former Sports Director Ogden, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    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.

  • ICantBelieveThisIsHappening San Jose, CA
    Jan. 23, 2014 7:41 a.m.

    This is pretty typical of the Human Rights Campaign. The only right they are interested in is the right to agree with them.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 7:17 a.m.

    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.

  • BU52 Provo, ut
    Jan. 23, 2014 7:15 a.m.

    The opposition must feel a little threatened to start these kind of tactics already.

  • Million Bluffdale, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 7:07 a.m.

    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 come?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 6:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Middle of the Road Home Town USA, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 6:55 a.m.

    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

  • SSmith Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 6:52 a.m.

    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 cause.

  • byufootballrocks Herndon, VA
    Jan. 23, 2014 6:52 a.m.

    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 case?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 6:32 a.m.

    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.

  • happymomto9 Saratoga Springs, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 6:16 a.m.

    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?

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 6:05 a.m.

    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.

  • Jefferson, Thomas Bluffdale, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 5:40 a.m.

    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.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 5:17 a.m.

    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!

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 2:30 a.m.

    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 more un-American!!

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 23, 2014 1:02 a.m.

    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.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 23, 2014 12:22 a.m.

    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

  • Sartawi Vernal, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 12:07 a.m.

    I'm surmising that seeing "BYU" on the application gave a fairly good indication of the attorney applicant's religious affiliation.

  • deseret pete robertson, Wy
    Jan. 22, 2014 11:30 p.m.

    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.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Jan. 22, 2014 11:23 p.m.

    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 !

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 11:12 p.m.

    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.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 11:07 p.m.

    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?

  • Thinkman Provo, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 10:54 p.m.

    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)