Monday, Sept. 1, 2014

In our opinion: Human Rights Campaign dead wrong in concerns about religion

Deseret News editorial

Published: Fri, Jan. 24 9:28 a.m. MST

 Mike and Jenet Erickson with their daughter LaDawn join traditional marriage supporters gathered Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at the Utah State Capitol to celebrate marriage.

Mike and Jenet Erickson with their daughter LaDawn join traditional marriage supporters gathered Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at the Utah State Capitol to celebrate marriage.

(Scott G Winterton, Deseret News)

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.

From the promise "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights," to the First Amendment's decree that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," religious belief and action have been vital forces.

The founding fathers understood the wisdom of forbidding a national church. But from Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, they understood the power of and need for religion.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports,” Washington declared in his farewell address.

In recent decades, however, an aggressive secularism has twisted these arguments against their core.

These critics “insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such," commentator M. J. Sobran wrote presciently in 1978.

“What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs.”

This appears to be the philosophy of the Human Rights Campaign and some other proponents of same-sex marriage.

This group, which advocates for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered individuals, on Wednesday slammed the attorney hired by the state of Utah, Gene Schaerr. He resigned from his prestigious law firm, Winston & Strawn, to accept this case. In an e-mail to his former colleagues, he said he accepted the responsibility "so that I can fulfill what I have come to see as a religious and family duty: defending the constitutionality of traditional marriage."

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.”

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes was quick to react this nonsense: “Any intimation that [Schaerr] 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."

In Thursday's Washington Post, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh wrote that HRC’s argument “strikes me as badly wrong, and indeed deeply unfair to religious believers. Lawyers decide to take cases based on their personal moral values all the time. Lawyers decide to take government cases based on their personal moral values, and indeed seek out certain government jobs based on their personal moral values. Pro-gay-rights lawyers might choose to take pro-gay-rights cases based on their personal moral values — including ones that seek to impose a certain moral viewpoint, such as that embodied in various antidiscrimination statutes, on all citizens."

Unfortunately, this isn't the first case in which HRC has attempted to impugn or intimidate people of faith, or attorneys representing clients who hold to a traditional view of marriage.

Former Solicitor General Paul Clement's law firm, King & Spalding, withdrew from its representation of the Defense of Marriage Act after being pressured by HRC. Clement moved to another law firm and continued to represent DOMA.

"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.

We call on HRC to respect the rights of believers, the rights of attorneys and the rule of law as Utah defends the constitutionality of its marriage law. It should apologize for its statement to Schaerr.

Recommended
1. marxist
Salt Lake City, UT,
Jan. 24, 2014

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 fight(s) begin!

2. Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT,
Jan. 24, 2014

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.

3. JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC,
Jan. 24, 2014

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.

4. Ranch
Here, UT,
Jan. 24, 2014

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.

5. Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah,
Jan. 24, 2014

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"?