Published: Friday, Jan. 24 2014 9:28 a.m. MST
HRC said that "Schaerr’s entire motivation for taking this
anti-equality case is to impose a certain religious viewpoint on all Utahns
– and that’s wrong. When you become an attorney, you take an oath to
uphold the U.S. Constitution, not any particular religious doctrine.”I agree that this is a very stupid thing for HRC to say. How does HRC
know that such is Schaerr's "entire motivation?" All
of us need to get past this notion that open speech must be circumscribed by
special rules. If any speech is not libelous it should be OK. I'm for
free and open and inclusive discussion. If somebody wants to defend a course of
action based on religious dogma (or any other sort of dogma), that's fine
with me. But those advancing religious doctrine as defense for certain actions
need to understand that this debate is occurring in a secular space, so every
view can be attacked - nothing is off-limits in this arena. Let the
If a majority supported Sharia law would that be okay? No, because that'd
violate the first amendment. Secularism in gov't protects religious
freedom. It's not wrong to have a law that you support due to motivation by
faith, but you need a non-religious reason to back it (and you need it to be
constitutional). For instance, murder fundamentally violates the right to life
and causes direct harm to people. You don't need a religious reason to ban
it though of course religions oppose it. What this attorney needs to do if he
wants to win is figure out how to make a case that there's a reason to ban
same-sex marriage other than a religious one. I don't see it.
I dont get it.I read the article and it seems like both sides are
doing what is commonly done by both sides. They are getting ready for battle,
pushing their sides agenda.Then the article concludes that "Threatening lawyers out of defending [the law] is both shortsighted and
wrong," Slate legal correspondent Dahlia Lithwick wrote at the time of
HRC’s actions."What was contained in the article hardly
approaches "Threatening Lawyers"This is a big case with big
ramifications. This is the preseason.
You are welcome to practice your religious beliefs. You are not welcome to
force others to practice your religious beliefs. Denying marriage to LGBT
couples and saying "you have the same right to marry someone of the opposite
sex", is attempting to force them to adhere to your beliefs.
The powerful purposes that drive each of us to act should be founded on the
purpose of life itself. We were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable
rights. Those rights are our foundation. The right to life, the right to
liberty and the right to pursue our dreams are fundamental to our very being
here on earth. We have the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.We have the right to defend against those who would diminish those
unalienable rights. We have the right to promote our Creator's definition
of "family", of "marriage", of "goodness" and of
"wholesomeness".Who would disparage those "rights"?
Who is their leader? What is their purpose? Why would they claim a
"right" to deny life through abortion? Why would they claim a
"right" to restrict liberty by claiming that liberty is a right given us
from government, not from God? Why would they claim a "right" to
transfer wealth from those who work hard in pursuing their dreams to those who
work hard at avoiding responsibility? Who promotes that "doctrine"?
It used to be that the homosexuals were the ones being forced to hide "in
the closet". Now, not only are they "out", but the same liberal
element now wants religious people to go into a closet. All in the name of
tolerance. Interesting. The BOM sure saw these days coming.
Yes, we as a society are increasingly scrutinizing Bronze Age dogma through the
lens of real-world evidence, humane compassion, and a commitment to honesty,
equality and justice through the application of reason. And
increasingly, the more carefully we examine Bronze Age dogma and its influence
on our laws, the less we like what we discover.Good. There is yet
hope for our species.
I am homosexual: HRC represents me in much the same way NOW represents women or
the Klan represents white people - mostly they are an embarrassment.
Good job DN Editorial Board. Thank you once again for exposing the spurious
agenda of the "Human Rights Campaign (HRC)" which unceasingly strives to
exclude the conservative or religious point of view from the public dialogue.
The HRC along with the at large gay community continues to want to deny citizens
rights to freedom of expression.We citizens of Utah will not be
silenced by your intimidation tactics. If anything, your tactics have
emboldened us to stand up for morality and decency and to protect our children
from influences that are an affront to our Christian heritage. We
seek not to deny the legitimate rights and concerns of the minority, but the
majority have rights too - including the right to express our views on
immorality and indecency and what our Christian point of view is!You
might try to legislate immorality - but you cannot. Immorality and indecency
will never cease to be an affront to logic and intellectual analysis. Trying to
force others to accept such behavior by judicial fiat will never result in
There is a vast difference between your ability to express your religious
beliefs, and laws, public policies, etc. founded "solely" on those
religious beliefs. The latter would in fact be the establishment of religion.
In your hearts you all know this, because one, it's why you
want to establish such policies (Gods will), and two you fight hard against
others when they wish to do the same (Sharia law). The fact is we
have progressed to the point in our society that laws and policies based solely
on religious beliefs will not prevail. You can talk on and on all you want
about this being a religious and even a Christian nation but..in reality the
public square is secular and only those religious beliefs that are supported by
secular principles of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness will prevail.
To Mike Richards:The problem with your life philosophy is that
everyone "knows" that their church is right. I know you know you are
right. But so do the FLDS, scientology, and Muslims. You keep saying
that everyone should just do what God tells us to do and that everyone should
accept "wholesomeness". But your idea of what God wants and what is
considered "wholesome" is different than what others believe.I think what you are trying to say is that everyone should believe as you do.
@Ranch: "You are welcome to practice your religious beliefs. You are not
welcome to force others to practice your religious beliefs." Isn't
that what the LGBT community is trying to do, force its secular religion down
the throats of the Christians? Trying to force Christian photographers to film
LGBT weddings against their religious rights? Trying to force Christian
adoption centers to adopt to gay couples? Trying to force schools to teach
their secular religion to kindergartners? Forcing schools to allow men into
girls' locker rooms?
The HRC wants those with an opposing view to have NO representation. They want
them to forfeit, like they did in California and Virginia.Our system
allows both sides of any suit to have their own legal representatives. The HRC
is trying to deny the citizens of the State of Utah their Constitutional right
to counsel. The HRC seems to be confused about who is abusing people with its
power.Thank you DN for exposing the HRC.
"Since homosexual conduct is associated with higher rates of sexual
promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, and
domestic violence, it too qualifies as a behavior that is harmful to the people
who engage in it and to society at large..... This is why, in the public policy
arena, we will continue to oppose any policy or action that would celebrate or
affirm homosexual conduct.The model for a Christian response to
homosexuals may be the story of the woman caught in adultery. When the crowd
responded with violence, by gathering to stone her, Jesus said, "Let him who
is without sin cast the first stone." Knowing that they were all sinners,
the crowd melted away. But Jesus' words to the woman he saved were crucial.
He did not say, "Go, for you have not sinned." Instead, he said, "Go
and sin no more." There is no contradiction between Christian
compassion and a call for holy living. But the life which is holy (from a
spiritual perspective) or even healthy (from a secular perspective) requires
abstinence from homosexual conduct. We would do no one a favor if we ceased to
proclaim that truth". From writings of Tony Perkins
Sal says:"Isn't that what the LGBT community is trying to
do, force its secular religion down the throats of the Christians? "Nobody is trying to force you to marry someone of the same gender.If you don't want to operate your business like a busines, you have
no business being in business. If you won't service all customers, you
have no business being in business. practice your religious beliefs yourself,
do not expect a non-living entity (your business) to practice your beliefs as
well since your business has no thoughts, ideas, religion or life of it's
own.Jesus never once told you to refuse to serve the
"sinners"; he told you to judge not.
This whole discussion is really about where you draw the line? I
believe it is hard to make the argument that a photographer should be forced to
work a SSM wedding.Much harder to make the argument about making a
cake for a gay wedding.The problem arises when you take this to more
extreme situations.While I do not believe that a Doctor should be
forced to perform an abortion, should they be able to deny treatment to a gay
man on religious grounds?Can Walmart refuse to sell to admitted
gays? Can the Quick lube guy refuse an oil change if he knows you are gay?Where do we draw the line? The issue requires more thought than many
want to give it.I dont know the answer, but I understand that it is
There is no "separation of church and state" clause in the Constitution.
Read it for yourselves. Our right to be free from the Federal
Government's control of an existing church's doctrine is guaranteed.
It is the first clause of the 1st Amendment. Those who have passed 7th grade
English know what "AN establishment" of religion means and they do not
confuse it with "THE establishment" of religion. No matter how much
those who oppose religion in our lives try, they cannot make their case by
claiming "separation of church and state" as their argument. Anyone in
government can talk about religion, can promote religion, can express his
"testimony" about the God that he serves. That is allowed, not only
because their is no prohibition against doing that, but also because we have the
right, even government workers, to speak freely about God, about government and
about the relationship that we should all have with our Creator. Those who fight God and impose their warped view of the Constitutional and
prohibit religion mock everything that America stands for.
To Sal:Do you really want to live in a country where businesses can
choose not to serve Mormons because of their religion? Or blacks because of
their skin color? Or gays because of their partner?I sure
don't. If you are going to open your doors to the public, as a
business, then you should be willing to serve anyone that comes in. Or find an
employee who will.
1. The fact that Mr. Schaerr felt motivated by his religious beliefs to quit his
job and take up Utah's appeal in the Amendment 3 case is NOT the same thing
as saying that he is seeking to impose his religious beliefs on other people. I
imagine he will make a number of secular arguments, persuasive or not, in
support of the State’s position. Let's wait to see what the
State's brief says before we decide what arguments Schaerr and the State of
Utah are putting forward. 2. If I were the State of Utah, the tone and content
of Mr. Schaerr's departing email to his colleagues at his law firm would
make me question his wisdom and judgment. I thought it was a very odd email to
write, under the circumstances.
"Few can deny the central role religion and a belief in God has played, and
continues to play, in the civic life of this nation."Now
THAT'S an awfully presumptuous statement. It's almost as though God
Himself decided to meet with the editorial board before this column was
written.I just wish that GOD, in His wisdom and omnipotence, would
be just a bit more media-savvy in this day and age. Maybe He can call a press
conference. After all, we have countless religions, each with its own unique
take on what God expects of us. Wouldn’t God be a little more effective in
getting us to behave decently toward one another if He would just put together a
website or a television channel or at the very least a 1-800 number? There is a
wide variety of contemporary social and economic issues I sure would like to get
His opinion on.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments