Published: Monday, June 24 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
This shouldn't be controversial at all. It's quite clearly spelled
out in the US Constitution.DOMA violates Article 4 Section 2 of the
US constitution:"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to
all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."Prop 8 & Utah's Amendment 3 (and similar amendments in other states)
violate Amendment 14 of the US Constitution:"All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States;"
It would appear through the eye of history, the Supreme Court has gotten it
right most of the time. There are a few black eyes, such as Dred Scot or Plessy
v Ferguson, but overall they have been mostly correct.Let's
hope this session does not prove to be an exception.
How about we accept whatever rulings they hand down and move on.
Obama told us again and again Obamacare was not a tax! The SCOTUS ruled that it
was indeed a tax. Who did the high court rule against in that case, Obama or the
I find it so interesting that those who supposedly revere the Constitution as
being divinely inspired have so much hatred and disdain for the Supreme Court. I
guess it's only divinely inspired when it rules your way?
@ Maverick. Who told you the Supreme Court follows the divinely inspired
Constitution? Do you believe the justices were divinely inspired when they
legalized the killing of unborn?
"a spokesman for Romney on Monday said the former Massachusetts governor
agrees with Obama that the individual mandate is a penalty or a fine, rather
than a tax."Perhaps Obama was speaking his opinion? Regardless,
in reality, it accomplishes the same thing regardless of whether it was a
penalty or a tax. It only matter in respect to the court challenge.Semantics, Mountainman. You are making (continually) a big deal out of very
"Do you believe the justices were divinely inspired when they legalized the
killing of unborn?"First of all, if the Constitution is inspired
and it helped to create the Supreme Court, then you must respect the 3rd branch
of our government. Even if you disagree with their rulings.Secondly,
they didn't legalize the killing of the unborn. They legalized the CHOICE.
Last I checked, God gave us free agency... To do many good things. Serve and
love. But with that agency comes the agency even kill. What gives
you the right to take that person's free agency away? Why must
conservatives, who hate big government, constantly monitor our bedrooms? What
does it matter to you? Why do you want to force a mother to have a child even if
she was raped or health in danger?Lastly, to borrow a line from you
folks and to show how ridiculous your gun argument was... Won't the people
who want abortion get one anyway? If new laws and regulations won't prevent
folks from getting guns then why would it stop someone from having an
abortion?Ohhhhh repubs, your arguments are so entertaining! Watching
you go around in circles!
I don't care if their decisions are "controversial" as long as they
aren't "political".I don't expect the Supreme
Court's decisions to be "popular" (that's not their job), or
to agree with me (that's not their job), as long as their decisions are
based on the CONSTITUTION. THAT IS THEIR JOB.I HATE when decisions
are based on focus_groups, polls, what's popular, or their political
party's position. Their ONLY job should be applying what's already
in the Constitution, not carrying party_agendas.The Supreme_Court is
supposed to leave politics and popularity out of their mind and just apply the
Constitution. That's why I hate when their decisions lately are
"split" down party_lines. The court should NEVER be split along
party_lines, because the only guide they have is the Constitution (and the
Constitution doesn't get interpreted differently based on your
party_agenda). The Constitution is the Constitution regardless of political
party_positions. That's all that bugs me... when we get partisanship and
politically motivated split-decisions from the court.They don't
have to agree with ME.. but they need to agree with the Constitution.
Calling it a choice does not make it less evil. Every act, evil or good is a
choice! And exactly where in the constitution does it say we have the right to
kill unborn human beings?
@Mountanman – “And exactly where in the constitution does it say we
have the right to kill unborn human beings?”At what point is a
fertilized egg a “human being?” Is it at conception or some later
date – for example when a heart starts beating or a brain/nervous system
develops, or when the fetus is viable (i.e., can live outside the womb)?Not trying to bait you here… really am curious just how black and
white you see it.Thanks…
"And exactly where in the constitution does it say we have the right to kill
unborn human beings?"Do you have any understanding of our
government and how things work? Have you ever studied Roe vs Wade?Hence, why a law about abortion in Texas was challenged. It was raised to the
Supreme Court. They ruled on it. That's how the system works.
The Supreme Court may rule on laws and determine whether they are just or not.
"Every act, evil or good is a choice!"Exactly.
So why do folks like you want to take away that choice? That was Satan's
plan. Without evil as an option, there is no good. 2 Nephi 2:11"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not
so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass,
neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad."I, along with a prophet, believe in teaching correct principles and let
others govern THEMSELVES. Keep those who wish for big government to control
everything, like Mountainman, stay out of our lives! Don't take away my
free agency like someone else attempted to do.
History has proven that the Supreme Court has generally ruled the right way. Whether or not folks like Mountanman want to admit that or not... The truth is, wasn't Mountanman predicting a Romney victory last
November? Yeah, there goes his credibility out the window.
If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry somebody of the same
sex. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. Where's
the problem? Where in the Constitution does it say that you or the government
has the right to butt in between a doctor and his patient?If you
think abortion is evil, then you can rest assured that God will punish those who
commit it. The Bible says "Do not judge, and you will not be judged" -
leave the judging to God. If you believe that God has a plan, do you think that
human beings can frustrate it?The Bible also says that it would be
better for some if they had never been born. And Ecclesiates says that better
than those who are dead and gone and those who are still alive "is the one
who has not been born and has not seen the evil things that are done on
earth." As I recall, LDS scriptures teach that those who die in infancy go
straight to the Celestial Kingdom. Isn't that better than suffering a
lifetime on this earth, "the vale of tears"?
@Mountanman;Where in the Constitution does it give you the right to
force a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want?
Actually, I never believed Romney would win the election! I absolutely knew 47%
of Americans who pay no federal income taxes would NOT vote for Obama's
free stuff! My credibility remains intact, in spite of your personal attack of
@Mountanman"I absolutely knew 47% of Americans who pay no federal
income taxes would NOT vote for Obama's free stuff! "The
47% voted for Romney? Well I guess Romney did win 8 out of 10 states that have
the highest percentage of 47%ers (all but Florida and New Mexico).
"I absolutely knew 47% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes would
NOT vote for Obama's free stuff!"Would NOT vote for
Obama's free stuff?So, folks who want a free ride would then
vote against the candidate who supposedly offered them a "free lunch?"
Hmmmmm interesting. This seems to go against everything conservatives said after
the election. All well!I just wonder, since Abortion has been
legalized, what do conservatives promote? A complete repeal of Roe vs Wade? And
what happens if that doesn't "stop" abortion? I mean, you folks
seemed to think that new laws wouldn't stop gun ownership. So what makes
you think it will stop abortion? Furthermore, why aren't women
ever included in the decision making process? The latest House committee to come
up with an anti-abortion bill had absolutely ZERO women on it. Zilch. Nadda. Not
one woman. Doesn't that seem a bit odd that the GOP excludes
women from making choices that most effect them? If the GOP wants to
complain about the election they need look no further than their "white old
boys club" process of doing things.
RanchHand,Regarding your question, "Where in the Constitution
does it give you the right to force a woman to carry a baby she doesn't
want?"... I don't think the Constitution says you have to carry a baby
you don't want, but it does say you can't kill another human being
because you don't want them!So the critical question is... are
baby's "human beings"?Courts have decided an attacker
is guilty of double_murder if he murders a mother and fetus. So there is some
legal precedence indicating they are.If you can end their life
because you don't want to carry them... at what age does that right end?
You have to "carry" the baby till it's ~2 years old. So should a
mother have the right to kill them until they are able to walk on their own?Or should that right end once they can breath on their own?Or does it end only when they can get their own food (not provided by the
mother or father)?You make it sound so simple... but it's not.
IMO Contraception is the answer, not abortion.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments