Traditional family defenders now in 'gay' agenda bull's-eye

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | January 01, 2009 | Bob Unruh

[Man50D]

One of the top lawyers in the nation in the battle to protect traditional marriage, historically Christian lifestyle choices, parental rights and the key freedoms provided by the U.S. Constitution is warning that there eventually could be no lawyers left to take up those disputes.

That's because of a recommendation before the State Bar of Arizona – the organization that licenses attorneys – to require all new lawyers to swear they won't let their personal religious perspective on homosexuality affect their representation of any client. Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, warns that the proposal is just the "tip of the iceberg."

According to reports in Arizona, the state bar is considering a major change to its existing oath that requires lawyers to affirm they won't "permit considerations of gender, race, age, nationality, disability or social standing to influence my duty of care" to clients.

The proposal in Arizona is to add "sexual orientation" to that list.

[Man50D]

The homosexual movement has nothing to do with defending the rights of homosexuals. It is one of many methods used by socialists to stifle dissent in order to replace our democratic republic with socialism.

[Happy Rain]

Remember,the leader of the Nazi SA,the “Brownshirts,” was not only the most violently extreme of Hitler’s henchmen,but a flaming homosexual to jackboot (little pun).

Ernst Rohm became even too evil for der Fuhrer,so he had the “gay” Nazi bumped off.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The bar associations are racketeers, they have been given a monopoly on the legal system that violate antitrust laws.

[MarkL]

It seems that this means that an ass-hat like Fred Phelps could then force a homosexual lawyer in the state to take on a case defending HIM and his so called family... And seeing how his family is a bunch of ultra-litigious lawyers themselves, they'd bring all sorts of malpractice suits against the lawyer if he didn't win.

Mark

[trebb]

So, if a new lawyer makes a statement like, “I love the homos, and think they should all be able to get married and adopt and everything else, but I believe the law makes this a crime”. Would that make them respect him for his honesty and ability to keep his feelings out of it?

[SECURE AMERICA]

That’s because of a recommendation before the State Bar of Arizona – the organization that licenses attorneys – to require all new lawyers to swear they won’t let their personal religious perspective on homosexuality affect their representation of any client.

---

Note that this is a recommendation.
Under no circumstances would this be legal under the United States Constitution.
A laywer is required to folow the dictates of the law and represent their CLIENT in any legal manner.
By making this declaration before hand this would prevent a Christian citizen from obtaining legal representation that would act in their best interest.
Is it required that they swear their personal racial perspective will not affect them? Or swear that their personal political perspective will not affect them?

[IronJack]

It was inevitable. Dig your trench now or dig it later.

[massgopguy]

“As part of your admittance to the Bar we’re going to have to ask you for a urine sample” - Bar
“But there’s a Crucifix in the jar” - New lawyer
“Exactly” - Bar

[kaehurowing]

This has been looming for a while; I’ve been waiting for it to pop up in my state.

The aim is to prohibit Christians and others with traditional values from becoming attorneys or judges under the guise of “civil rights.”

At that point, homosexuals will have a lock on the legal system.

[IronJack]

At that point, homosexuals will have a lock on the legal system.

And the only choice for the righteous will be to act outside the legal system.

[Man50D]

Under no circumstances would this be legal under the United States Constitution.

The socialists have been stating for some time the Constitution is a living breathing document. That is socialist speak for emphasizing those parts that will help their cause and ignoring those parts that will hurt their cause.