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.
- My view: History lesson — 'Taking back'...
- In our opinion: Boy Scouts of America and...
- John Florez: Education — Big government...
- In our opinion: With caucus compromise, Utah...
- Letter: A 'dying' document
- In our opinion: Prison relocation iffy
- Letter: Religious freedom
- Was Hillary right to compare Putin to Hitler?
- Letter: Minimum Wage insufficient 67
- Has Obama's foreign policy emboldened... 62
- Jay Evensen: Obama could use a dose of... 60
- Letter: Religious freedom 53
- In our opinion: Boy Scouts of America... 32
- Sen. Ted Cruz opens 2014 CPAC with... 30
- Was Hillary right to compare Putin to... 30
- Senate defeats Obama in Justice nod 21