In the My View titled "Judiciary exists to cast judgment," Jan. 7, Carson Anderson argues that it is the job of judges to rule on unconstitutional laws and counteract acts of the Legislature. This is true.
Then Anderson compares Utah's marriage law to a hypothetical situation, pretending Utahns pass a law making all firearm ownership and use illegal. Anderson states correctly that it would be the judiciary's responsibility to strike down such a law. The problem with Anderson's argument is that there is a very clearly stated clause in the Constitution that specifically protects the citizens' right to bear arms. No such specific clause exists regarding gay marriage, and that is the problem here.
Where the judge has overstepped his authority is not in overturning a voter-approved law, but in using flawed logic to claim that the Constitution protects gay marriage, when it does not.
- Ralph Hancock: 'Reason' is difficult to...
- In our opinion: The breach between mass...
- Letter: Removing rights
- My view: Misinterpretation of Second...
- David Blankenhorn: Overcoming the blindness...
- Letter: Excess political science
- Letter: We deserve better
- Drew Clark: Deeply felt religious faith, of...
- My view: Misinterpretation of Second... 93
- In our opinion: The breach between mass... 62
- Letter: Removing rights 47
- Letter: Excess political science 38
- Ralph Hancock: 'Reason' is difficult to... 33
- Letter: Our French Revolution 32
- Drew Clark: Deeply felt religious... 28
- In our opinion: Suspended Alaskan oil... 26