In our opinion: Democratic processes just took it on the chin


Return To Article
  • junkgeek Agua Dulce, TX
    June 30, 2013 11:29 a.m.

    Once again, one's view of SCOTUS depends entirely on whether one agrees with the opinion.

    At any rate, we're not a democracy, but a republic. The processes that allowed Prop 8 to occur were the travesty.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    June 29, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    The defenders of Prop 8 had no standing because their grievances against marriage equality were based upon an animus founded in their religious beliefs. The courts were generous in allowing them to advance as far as they did.

  • Robert Johnson Sunland, CA
    June 29, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    What this article fails to recognize is that the "Democratic Process" never requires that Fundamental rights be put to a popular vote. In fact, the Constitution that is the foundation of this great country requires the opposite. The US Constitution was created in large part to ensure that the rights of the minority cannot be subjected to the tyranny of the majority. The people that are decrying that the Supreme Court overruled the "will of the people" need to take a lesson in civics. If the fundamental rights of Americans were allowed to be put to a popular vote, America would be a very different country than it is today...and it is not one that most of us would want to live in.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 28, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    @2 bits --

    "I just think the US Supreme Court owed these people a ruling. that's what the Supreme Court is for. "

    I agree with you that their refusal to make a ruling is VERY irritating.

    OTOH, the judges really had no choice. They have to follow the constitution and laws themselves, and they are not legally ALLOWED to judge cases unless BOTH sides in the case have standing.

    IMHO, this really should have been stopped before the SC level. It was the Calif. Supreme Court that screwed up, first by declaring Prop 8 an "amendment" rather than a "revision" -- and second by declaring that Prop 8 supporters had standing, even though the district court believed that they didn't.

    So if you want to be mad at someone, I'll help you to be mad at the stupid Calif. Supreme Court. The bad decisions were theirs.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 28, 2013 12:05 p.m.

    I didn't say the decisions all agreed. I pointed out the same thing you did. That there were conflicting rulings.
    -Upheld by CA Supreme Court twice (before and after the election).
    -Injunction by one District judge.
    -Injunction upheld by a split Circuit Court panel,
    -And the court that's supposed to decide when there are conflicting judgements, the US Supreme Court... chickened out.

    That's not definitive IMO.

    The US Supreme Court should have decided the matter once-and-for-all instead of just saying on a technicality we'll let the District judge's injunction stand (which in affect let one judge's opinion overrule the clear voice of the people).

    If you don't think the majority of CA really wanted the amendment... look at the map and the vote totals (Wikipedia).

    I just think the US Supreme Court owed these people a ruling. that's what the Supreme Court is for. I'm not saying I'm right or judge walker was right. I'm just saying the Supreme Court should do their job and made a ruling on this issue once and for all, instead of chickening out.

  • Susan Roylance
    June 28, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    While the recent Supreme Court decision did not directly affect Utah, Utah will soon be on the horizon as a hot spot for further litigation. A law suit has already been filed by same-sex couples who want to see the Utah Constitution (Amendment 3) declared unconstitutional, as it relates to defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The difference is -- Utah will defend the law. And, if this case goes all the way to the Supreme Court, a decision will likely be made as to the consitutionality of defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Hopefully, the Supreme Court would decide in favor of states rights, and leave the matter alone. But, it is also possible that the Utah law could be struck down by the Federal Courts.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 28, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    @4word --

    "Seems like a whole new activist position to me."


    As the justices pointed out, they have NEVER allowed private citizens without standing to do what the Prop 8 supporters were trying to do. NEVER.

    "Persons do not have standing to sue to enforce a constitutional provision when all they can show or claim is that they have an interest or have suffered an injury that is shared by all members of the public."
    -- "Standing to Challenge Lawfulness of Governmental Action" at Justicia.com

    As for either the state or Federal governments declining to defend the law, that is also not new.

    For details, look up "The Indefensible Duty to Defend" at Columbia Law Review; "Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes" (written in 1994 by the then-assistant US Attorney General); "When May a President Refuse to Defend a Statute?" at Northwestern University Law Review; and "Executivie Discretion to Decline to Defend Federal Law Against Constitutional Challenge" by the Palm Center for Sound Public Policy.

    These principles are very well established, folks. There's nothing brand new about either of them.

  • 4word thinker Murray, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    What the ruling on prop 8 really says is:

    The people do not have the right to appeal unjust decisions of lower federal courts to the SC, because they are not the government.

    Strange ruling in a country where the Constitution starts out "We the people".

    So really the SC court just ruled that the people aren't the government, completely contrary to the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

    Seems like a whole new activist position to me.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 28, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal -- "that's EXACTLY what happened."
    @2 bits -- "You make it sound like every court sided with you."

    1. 2008 -- Calif Supreme Court **invalidated** Prop 8 when it was called Prop 22 (as a statute rather than a Constitutional amendment), with the very same wording.
    2. "2009 -- UPHELD by the California Supreme Court."
    -- it was mostly "upheld" only in a procedural sense -- it was declared an "amendment" rather than a "revision", so they decided that the vote on it was legitimate and sufficient. They COULDN'T really vote on its constitutionality in a broad sense -- It had **become** the constitution for that state, so it was by definition constitutional in the state.
    3. 2010 -- The district court said "unconstitutional"
    4. 2012 -- The circuit court said "unconstitutional, and by the way we think you're sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong (no standing)." The Calif Supreme Court insisted they did have standing, even though the circuit court was dubious.
    5. 2013 -- The SCOTUS trial said "you're definitely sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong."

    That's actually FIVE levels of review -- and it was only upheld in ONE of them, and for essentially technical reasons at that.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 27, 2013 10:58 p.m.

    Marriage needs to be in the form of man/woman to make it clearly linked to child rearing. It is the outward form and not the individual circumstances of the couples involved that matter.

    Debates about the public policy of what marriage means should be carried out in the legislative and referendum forums where public policy is formulated. The courts should not short circuit the formulation of public policy on what marriage is. That is what is before us, a fundamental disagreement about the basic meaning of marriage.

    Those who think it is about "equality" have assumed a certain set of meaning to marriage. It is a set of meanings that ignores commitment, or creating a form that is focused on raising children.

  • Fitz Murray, UT
    June 27, 2013 6:50 p.m.

    The Court went for the technicality of "standing" in the Prop 8 decision, instead of the crux of the case, which is can a federal court overturn a state constitutional amendment? I think Scalia's dissent was the more accurate and proper direction. The decision makes the point that the laws come from the citizens, and then they refuse to back it up. If courts can undo a constitutional amendment voted on in citizen's referendum, then the power is in the courts and not the people.

    This makes two years in a row that our Chief Justice has tried to be a political Solomon. And he has failed in both decisions. He is supposed to defend the Constitutions, both federal and state, and not try to bow to public opinion. He needs to read the protocols on interpreting the Constitution set forth in "Commentaries on the Constitution." What a disappointment he has turned out to be.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    June 27, 2013 6:41 p.m.

    Re: "Just a reminder -- Judge Walker is an openly gay person living with another gay person who he has admitted he'd like to marry.

    "No conflict of interest there, huh?"

    So if the judge had been an openly straight man living with a straight woman who he had admitted he'd like to marry, that wouldn't have been a conflict of interest? After all, he could have been suspected of being prejudiced in favor of traditional marriage.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 27, 2013 5:42 p.m.

    Re: "The Deseret News and most Republicans didn't complain one bit when George W Bush was selected and named POTUS by the same Supreme Court . . . ."

    Are liberals still flogging that dead horse? That's truly amazing!

    By EVERY actual study that's been done, George Bush won. EVERY single one.

    The Supreme Court merely slowed things down and required the election to come out the way it was supposed to, all along.

    Liberals are only miffed because the Court stepped in to prevent the cynical miscarriage of the electoral process liberals had tried so hard to pull off.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 27, 2013 5:24 p.m.

    Re: "It's not "justice" when the vote of the people is overturned by a single local judge (who may have a political agenda) . . . Fortunately, this is not actually what happened."

    Actually, that's EXACTLY what happened.

    If you read the opinion, the Supremes held that there was standing only at District-Court level. So the deranged 9th Circus opinion doesn't count. The Supreme Court ruling can't honestly be characterized as either win or loss, since it didn't even consider the merits of the issue.

    So that leaves Judge Vaughn Walker's opinion as the law of the case.

    Just a reminder -- Judge Walker is an openly gay person living with another gay person who he has admitted he'd like to marry.

    No conflict of interest there, huh?

    Thus -- the will of millions of Californians was overturned by a single unelected, lower-court judge, with a clear conflict of interest, who was clearly following a political agenda other than justice.

    The rule of law is dead in America.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 27, 2013 4:45 p.m.

    You make it sound like every court sided with you. That's disingenuous to say the least.

    Prop8's constitutionality was challenged in court before it went on the ballot... and Prop8 was declared "Constitutional" and went on the ballot (Nov 2008).

    After they won the election... the proposition was challenged and was UPHELD by the California Supreme Court. Google "Strauss v Horton"... the California Supreme Court UPHELD Proposition 8.

    District Court judge Vaughn Walker (ONE person with an agenda) issued an injunction pending appeal on August 4, 2010 "Perry v Schwarzenegger".

    Perry V Brown:
    9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Prop8 proponents didn't have standing to appeal, and State officials refused to appeal. California Supreme Court ruled they DID have standing. The 9th Circuit panel affirmed the District court in a 2-1 split decision.

    So ONE District Court Judge (Judge Walker). And a one-vote-majority at the Circuit Court, overruled all the people of California.

    The US Supreme Court didn't decide one way or the other. They wouldn't even hear the case ruling prop8 proponents didn't even have standing.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 27, 2013 3:48 p.m.

    @patriot – “Barack has NOT compromised on a single thing in 5 years.”

    You need to put down the kool aid.

    Here’s a short list of legislation pushed by the president that either had wide spread support or whose core ideas were taken directly from republicans, or both:

    ACA – not popular I admit, but the individual mandate was a republican answer to the free rider problem and the ACA was to the right of what Nixon proposed.

    Cap & Trade – a conservative think-tank invention meant as a market friendly alternative to reducing greenhouse gases (back when conservatives believed in science).

    Stimulus Bill – huge tax cuts and infrastructure spending

    Wall Street reform – hugely popular

    Debt - $2 or even $3 of cuts for every $1 of tax

    Really we could go on and on regarding the number of times Obama has reached across the aisle and said essentially, “I like your idea… let’s see if we can get it done” only to have republicans time and again say “no” unless they got 100% of what they wanted.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 27, 2013 3:37 p.m.


    The Deseret News and most Republicans didn't complain one bit when George W Bush was selected and named POTUS by the same Supreme Court when HE didn't win the majority vote in a Democratic process?

    All I can say is -- Hypocrites.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 27, 2013 2:39 p.m.


    Yes I am suggesting exactly that Claudio and one only need follow legislation over the past 25 years to understand. Barack has NOT compromised on a single thing in 5 years. Not one. Heck - there isn't even a discussion and if you speak with congressional leaders they will tell you that this president has no idea how to compromise... he acts and reacts solely on leftist ideology. Instead of setting down with congressional leaders of both parties to solve issues where does Barack go - always- predictably? Yes he hits the campaign trail and speaks to HIS adoring crowds using props when needed. This is NOT governing. This is campaigning. Bill Clinton passed loads of legislation during his second term with a dominate GOP congress. How? He compromised. He was a former governor and he understood how to get things done as did Ronald Reagan. Look at our energy production in America - it is dead in the water. No Keystone pipeline and no active development on public land and all due to a president who will NOT compromise. Barack is willing to talk if you agree 100% with his point of view.... and that is NOT governing.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    @Say No to BO
    No, The court isn't trying to have it both ways. DOMA was a federal regulation, they struck it down, saying that it's the states right to choose who can get married. They didn't strike down prop 8, they decided not to rule on the case, making the lower courts decision binding. How on earth is that imposition by the federal government?

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 27, 2013 1:30 p.m.

    @2 bits --

    "IMO It's not "justice" when the vote of the people is overturned by a single local judge (who may have a political agenda) and the supreme court won't hear the case. It lets one man wipe out the popular vote. "

    Fortunately, this is not actually what happened.

    In reality, Prop 8 was struck down BOTH in the trials court (one judge) AND in the appeals court (three judges). Then it made it to the Supreme Court (nine judges).

    In other words, the supporters of Prop 8 actually lost their case THREE SEPARATE TIMES in the judicial system.

    I'd say that's a pretty darned thorough review.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    LunchBoy @ 7:13,
    Where in the article did it say that the Des News would do away with the Judicial Branch completely?

    I HATE when people put words in your mouth that you never said.

    How about we stick with what the writer actually said... Instead of reading your own thoughts into what they said and then pretending they actually said it?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    The democratic process DID take a hit. But you have to remember that the judicial branch is there to overrule legislatures and even the voters when they try to do something unconstitutional. Basically to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority.

    You may not like every decision they make, but it's comforting to know they are there if YOU are in the minority... They stand between the majority walking all over your Constitutional Rights.

    That said... I have to admit that there were extraordinary shenanigans going on with the California decision. It was NOT declared "Unconstitutional"... but the popular vote was overturned. (NOT supposed to work that way). It should be declared "Unconstitutional" by the US Supreme court (not a local judge) to overrule election results.

    IMO It's not "justice" when the vote of the people is overturned by a single local judge (who may have a political agenda) and the supreme court won't hear the case. It lets one man wipe out the popular vote. The Supreme Court should have made a decision.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    June 27, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    Hypocrisy abounds? I wonder if the Desnews editorial board would feel the same way if some state had a citizens initiative to... oh say not allow Church's to knock on the doors of complete strangers, or a State initiative to make an official State religion. It's the will of the people right? If a simple majority, as in the case of Prop 8, show up to the polls and vote on something, even something absurd, then it's the will of the people and should be observed and adhered to right? Oh but I bet if a court overturned those citizens initiatives as unconstitutional, because they would be, you'd be thrilled with that decision right? Yea. We don't live in a pure democracy, we live in a Democratic Republic and we have checks and balances so that a majority of people don't get to (always) run roughshod over the minority. You can't have it both ways. Members of the LDS church are protected from discrimination in places where they are not the majority right? But apperently you think those protections could be taken away by a simple majority of the people? Really?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 12:39 p.m.

    @J Thompson
    "The court ruled that California has no right to amend its own constitution. Where did the court receive authority to rule about a state's constitution?"

    No, it ruled that California has no right to amend its own constitution in a manner that violates the federal constitution.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    June 27, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    This editorial is basically saying that in a democracy, the majority should be able to get what they want. Ironically, the Constitution was designed to protect the minority from the majority (or mob rule). Let's look at a hypothetical. What if a simple majority of people in California voted to abolish Mormonism from California, including all missionary work and enshrined it as an amendment to the California Constitution. Let us then say that the Supreme Court rejected this amendment on the grounds of legal standing because the State of California refused to enforce it, so an atheist group decided to try to get the courts to enforce the law. Would the writer of this editorial decry this ruling as the "democratic process taking it on the chin?" I think not. But this is a what happened with the Prop 8 ruling. If you read the majority opinion written by Justice Roberts, he said that in the history of the Supreme Court, it has never granted legal standing to a non-state entity. Doing so would open the doors to all kinds of groups seeking the courts to become the enforcement branch of government.

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    June 27, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    The supreme court's ruling will not diminish the importance of traditional marriage for heterosexual couples. Two homosexuals marrying will not affect my marriage. So why all the fuss? This ruling just legitimized the gay sexual lifestyle. Homosexuality is now "normal". The normalization of homosexuality will only hasten the moral decay of our society.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 11:40 a.m.

    I am amused by the phrase, "biologically intact families." Does the DN then believe the special protections to those families should not extend to families with adopted or step-children? Also, I find it disingenuous that the LDS Church refers to marriage as between one man and one woman, when men can be sealed to more than one woman (if widowed or divorced) and that polygamy will exist in the next life.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    June 27, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    The court ruled that California has no right to amend its own constitution. Where did the court receive authority to rule about a state's constitution? Article 3, Section 2 enumerates the authority of the Supreme Court. Nothing in that section gives the Court authority to rule on the constitution of a State.

    When unauthorized acts are permitted, our freedom is lost. The Supreme Court told us that those who favored the amendment to California's Constitution had no "standing", yet the Court assumed that it had "standing" in an area that is not enumerated in the authority given to it by the people.

  • Bill McGee Alpine, UT
    June 27, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    What about the will of the majority and the democratic process when states voted to segregate school, promote "separate but equal" laws, ban mixed-race marriage, or any of the thousands of other small-minded laws, approved by a majority, that singled out and marginalized a minority by blocking their access to basic rights and services? The majority doesn't get to pick when what is chosen violates our core legal foundation,

    This editorial is egregiously one-sided and indefensible, certainly is designed to parrot the press release issued by the LDS Newsroom yesterday, and is certainly not worthy of this newspaper.

    June 27, 2013 11:20 a.m.

    The Constitution does not give us the right to vote on whether or not other people are allowed their full human rights.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 27, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    Many very good comments here. I especially like this reminder from LunchBoy: "Every law that the Supreme court has ever overturned was enacted by a majority in a national or state legislature." I also liked the posts saying that if Prop. 8 were proposed today it would lose and that the elected officials in California who chose not to defend Prop. 8 were elected by majority vote.

    It's almost as though the Deseret News would insist that the Southern States should be allowed by majority vote to continue to discriminate.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    You argue the will of the people was ignored. Have you ever heard of "tyranny of the majority?" The judicial branch was set up to protect minority rights from infringement by the majority. If not extended to the states through the 14th Amendment, segregation and bans on interracial marriage still might exist in some Southern states.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    June 27, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    So if the people of California passed a constitutional amendment requiring that redheads pay double the tax of everybody else, the courts should let that stand, too, because it was the will of the majority?

    And by the way, we don't live in a theocracy. Even Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

    Can't you live your religion unless its doctrine is the law of the land?

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    June 27, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    The court is trying to have it both ways. States rights and federal imposition. Pick your decision; both are confusing.
    The GBLT will continue to push.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 27, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    The court told the people of California that they have no right to vote to change their state constitution. The court said that those who defended California's right to choose its own destiny had no "standing"; but, the court allowed those who opposed Prop 8 to have "standing".

    Is that "equality"? How can they speak of "equality" and the 14th Amendment when they deny one side to even have "standing"?

    The court is "full of itself". It thinks that it has the right to rule that the federal government controls the States and that moral people cannot insert into their state constitution that marriage will not be changed to suit the desires of those who do not respect marriage.

    The Court does not respect history. They have not walked among the ruins of "civilizations" who rejected eternal truth, civilizations who chose to indulge their appetites and passions.

    It will become clear that those who reject eternal laws will be rejected by Him who gave us those laws to keep us from destroying ourselves. Foolish people do foolish things. This Court has acted foolishly and set aside the Constitution that was meant to protect us.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 27, 2013 8:58 a.m.


    Your comment would make sense had the SC struck down Prop 8… they did not. They simply ruled that the petitioners had no standing, and based on historic precedent (read Justice Robert’s opinion) it was the correct ruling.

    Had the State chose to defend the amendment, the correct ruling in my view would have been to uphold it (i.e., put it back on the State to change their own laws if they see fit). So it sounds like your issue is more with the elected officials of CA (who chose not to defend the law in Court) than it is with the SC.

  • jchowell Cedar City, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    I find it ironic that the Progressive Movement was started in order to lessen the influence of elite interests and increase the influence of ordinary citizens. Citizen initiatives such as Proposition 8 were one of the vehicles of the Progressive Movement. Today, those calling themselves "progressives" disdain and vilify citizen initiatives that do not go their way, and rely on the least small "d" democratic branch of government, the courts, to get their way.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 27, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    Show of hands – how many think the DN would publish an article claiming “democracy took it on the chin” had the SC overturned the ACA earlier this year? At least support for the ACA can actually be found in the Constitution under either the Commerce Clause or Congress’ tax authority. Where does the Constitution ever mention marriage or the right of the Federal government to regulate it?

    This article is dripping with hypocrisy…

  • FreedomFighter41 Orem, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    We don't live in a Democracy.

    We live in a Compound Constitutional Republic.

    Sorry, but majority doesn't rule!

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 27, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    Marriage between a man and a woman is codified in state law, sometimes through the legislature and some times through an election. A federal judge says that those laws violate a citizens rights under the US constitution. The supreme court says federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman is unconstitutional, and it's well established law that state laws don't trump the federal constitution. I understand all of the nuances of both decisions, however 30,000 foot level, where do you think this leaves states like Utah?

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    Wow, You guys are brave. I'll be sure to read more articles by my favorite columnist, Mr. Deseret News Editorial, I mean, that guy thinks judicial review is anti democracy. But yesterday he thought it was perfectly OK to strike parts of the Voting Rights Act. This is some intellectual discord. You can disagree with the decision, but if you want to disagree with the process you'd better have a better idea to put on the table. Not a sour grapes article like this one because the court didn't make the decision you wanted.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    June 27, 2013 7:04 a.m.

    DN Judicial review is part of the "democratic process". Just because you don't agree with the decision does not mean that the democratic process has been compromised.

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    June 27, 2013 6:13 a.m.

    The United States used to be a republic. What happened? (That was a rhetorical question for those who are just a tad slow.)

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    June 27, 2013 5:57 a.m.

    They can't change the meaning of the word. A mirage is a bolt and nut of the same size and thread bound together.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 27, 2013 12:36 a.m.

    Remember --

    The LDS Church only represents 0.9% of the U.S. population....

    I'll remember this article if the other 99.1% try to take away our rights.

    Who gets what "rights" is not by decided on by popular vote.

    We should have learned than from 1838 Missouri Mobs.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:22 p.m.

    The voters of California passed Prop. 8. Then they elected a governor and an attorney general who would not defend it. In which instance were the voters wrong?

    Also as a side note, polls today indicate that prop. 8 would lose by a large margin if put before the voters.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:38 p.m.

    A lot of good comments here. Unconstitutional measures should not be allowed just because a majority support them.

  • Midway Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:22 p.m.

    I imagine the day will come (probably soon) when a conservative judge will do the same thing to a popular vote supported by liberal, left-wing voters. Then the liberals will cry "fowl". Why oh why can't we see how freedom and liberty has taken a major step back today: there is too much power in the hands of a few judges.

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    June 26, 2013 10:00 p.m.

    First, I disagree with the court's decision. I view this as a dramatic expansion of rights, not the defense of existing rights. Yes, the court has effectively legislated and "found" rights that have never previously been found in the constitutional landscape.

    That said, this is not unprecedented for the court. Also, the court's role is, in part, to overturn laws (even popular ones with lots of support) it deems as being unconstitutional so we can't get too worked up over the democratically passed laws vs. court decisions issue.

    I believe this is a sad day for our nation and will lead to marginalization of any religious group that will not fully embrace homosexuality as good before God. But it is not all that out of character for the court.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 26, 2013 9:30 p.m.

    The Prop 8 campaign was despicable--especially the commercials, and the "Six Consequences" missive.

    There is much I could write today, but I won't. I'm just happy for my gay brothers and sisters.

    No one should have to lie, hide or pretend they are someone they're not. I strongly believe in the family unit as important in providing economically, emotionally and physically stable environments for children.

    Today was a step forward.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:14 p.m.

    The purpose of courts is to determine validity of law, prop 8 was rejected as violating the federal constitution at two court levels and then rejected by the Supreme Court for not having someone with standing because apparently nobody is harmed by same-sex marriage. It's an extremely concering position for the editorial writer to argue that unconstitutional measures should be allowed because a majority supported it.

  • Arizona1 Tucson, AZ
    June 26, 2013 7:48 p.m.

    We can play with the word "rights" all we want. If any special interests group can change the vocabulary of a populace, they can control how they think.

    As for the Supreme Court's ruling on Proposition 8, I agree that they followed the protocol that governs their judicial power; however, the fact that individuals have willfully broken their oath of office by refusing to uphold the laws enacted by the people they represent is despicable. So much for checks and balances that should require them to at least attempt to abide by the oath that they have made.

  • LunchBoy DRAPER, UT
    June 26, 2013 7:13 p.m.

    Just, WOW. So am I to understand that the DesNews would do away with the Judicial branch entirely as a check on the Legislative? Every law that the Supreme court has ever overturned was enacted by a majority in a national or state legislature. Good grief, DesNews, try harder.

  • UTAH Bill Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 7:10 p.m.

    Whenever SCOTUS issues a decision News bosses like, they say the court was reasoned and rational. But, when they disagree, the decision is flawed and tramples America's interests. Coincidence?

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    June 26, 2013 6:51 p.m.

    I see now.

    When the Supreme Court throws out popular laws in certain states restricting the proselyting activities of Mormon Missionaries that's being a strict constructionists. If they use the same Constitution to throw out laws you happen to agree with then that's legislating from the bench.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    June 26, 2013 6:38 p.m.


    Are you suggesting that conservatives don't engage in the same tactics of non-compromise?

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 6:09 p.m.

    The LDS Church lost big on this. It was very unwise to jump into the political arena in California. This paper has to spin it.

  • Stenar Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 5:43 p.m.

    There have always been protections in the Constitution for minorities against mob rule, i.e. you can't vote on people's rights, even if they are a tiny minority.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 26, 2013 5:41 p.m.

    Wasn't it just yesterday you published an editorial agreeing with the court's evisceration of the voting rights act. That act was also passed by large majorities in congress and signed by the president. In other words it was passed by the legitimate democratic process. I'm calling you out on your "judicial activism" claim. You seem to think that it's only judicial activism when you don't like the result.

  • Creaver Sandy, UT
    June 26, 2013 5:33 p.m.

    Spot on, Deseret News.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 26, 2013 5:14 p.m.

    Actually, the only things that "took it on the chin" were bigotry and prejudice and discrimination. Under the US Contitution, people cannot vote or legislate the rights of others. Good job, Supreme Court.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 26, 2013 5:10 p.m.

    I think Barack pretty much summed up what the term 'democratic process' has been redefined to mean in his ridiculous global warming speech two days ago. Basically his speech said that he was wide open to any discussion on global warming so long as you AGREED with his views on global warming. In other words there is no open discussion or respect for other view points anymore... not as far as the liberal radical lefties are concerned. It is their view or else!! Gay marriage is the same. Gays are wide open to discussion so long as you agree with them...down to every detail. The will of the majority means nothing anymore especially when Barack and his Chicago thugs are more than willing to buy votes and corrupt the process anyway. If they lose they just get an activist unelected judge to overrule the vote and voice of the people. Pretty simple. Liberty is dead in America.