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.
- Greg Bell: The problem of being a conservative
- Mike Noel: Utah leads out on win-win solution...
- Letter: Wrong tax approach
- In our opinion: Disrupted by email and the...
- Letter: Changing environment
- Utah's 'grand bargain' stands in sharp...
- Michael Gerson: The Iran deal: Obama is...
- In our opinion: Fabricated Rolling Stone...
- Ralph Hancock: Religious freedom and... 75
- Letter: Wrong wage approach 47
- Letter: No more hungry kids 41
- Kathleen Parker: Hillary Clinton's... 40
- Greg Bell: The problem of being a... 36
- Utah's 'grand bargain' stands in sharp... 34
- Letter: Unemployment compensation 32
- Letter: Intimate caucus system 27