Comments about ‘Attorney accused of defending Amendment 3 to impose religious viewpoint’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 22 2014 10:35 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Thinkman
Provo, UT

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)

FT
salt lake city, UT

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?

LiberalJimmy
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

desert
Potsdam, 00

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 !

deseret pete
robertson, Wy

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.

Sartawi
Vernal, UT

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

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

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

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

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.

AZKID
Mapleton, UT

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!!

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

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!

Jefferson, Thomas
Bluffdale, UT

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.

The Scientist
Provo, UT

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.

happymomto9
Saratoga Springs, UT

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?

cjb
Bountiful, UT

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.

byufootballrocks
Herndon, VA

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?

SSmith
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Middle of the Road
Home Town USA, UT

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

Ranch
Here, UT

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.

Million
Bluffdale, UT

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?

BU52
Provo, ut

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

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments