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.
- 10 things you never knew about the FBI
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah...
- In our opinion: The long-term outlook for...
- My view: Balancing personal conviction and...
- Robert Bennett: Hamas and its financial...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Re-enactment...
- Letter: Policy disagreement
- Can Hollywood keep the faith in faith-based...
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah... 105
- Mary Barker: The Romney I may have... 72
- Stuart Reid: Translations of religious... 61
- Dan Liljenquist: Religious liberty and... 50
- In our opinion: History will remember... 46
- Letter: Breeding hate 44
- Letter: Policy disagreement 42
- My view: Balancing personal conviction... 41