I think the editorial board and many other institutions will look back in ten
years at their statements today regarding gay marriage and be embarrassed.
"The essence of judicial tyranny is when a single, unelected federal judge
declares the laws and constitution of an entire state null and void with an
opinion clothed in the barest of legal precedent"Except that
there's plenty of precedent (striking down interracial marriage bans for
instance) and the laws and constitutional provisions of a state are supposed to
be struck null and void if they are in violation of the federal constitutional.
That is the entire point of judicial review."That Supreme Court
decision, Windsor v. U.S., dealt with the federal definition of marriage.The Windsor case, however, pointedly did not impact state laws defining
marriage."Wait, you're using the DOMA case and not Prop 8?
Uh... if the court overturned state laws during a challenge to a federal law,
that'd be much more of an overreach than today's decision is being
claimed to be."sex discrimination even though there is no
difference between the way men and women are treated under Utah marriage
law."The discriminated sex is partners of the same sex. This
applies to both men and women. Interracial marriage bans were racist even though
one could marry their own race.
Sometimes respect for basic rights oblige a judge to rule against the will of
the majority. And time and experience will show that the decision was right. It
has been the same with other discriminatory laws in the past. Some day our
grandchildren will wonder what all the fuss was about in 2013: a small group of
gays and lesbians wanted something as simple as equal rights. It was granted and
with time the matter became a non-issue. Like interracial marriage.
The 14th Amendment is hardly a scantly legal precedent.Do Utahns
want Utah to be remembered as the Mississippi of marriage reform/evolution? Do
Utahns want Utah to be on marriage equality in the 2010s what Mississippi was to
the civil rights movement in the 1960s?Amusing that when
heterosexuals corrupt marriage most Utahns will call it "progressive."
But when homosexual corrupt marriage, most Utahns will call it a "sin."
Heterosexuals have over the years done the most damage to marriage.
I agree completely with this opinion piece. It is judicial tyranny. It
doesn't matter what you think about the issue at hand. A single judge
should not have the power to make such a decision for an entire state. End of
story. I would say the same thing if it was a decision I agree with. Horrible,
horrible, horrible decision. Judges should not (and constitutionally don't)
have the power to make such decisions all by there selves, based on their own
bias when an entire state has made the opposite decision. I am all for citizens
trying to change laws and work for causes they believe in (even if it is a cause
I disagree with). But it should be done in the proper way. This is not the
proper way. Shame on the judge.
In our opinion: Triumph of the constitution over religious tyranny.
Tyranny… 'Poll: New High Of 58 Percent Support Same-Sex
Marriage' – By TOM KLUDT – By Talking Points Memo –
03/18/13 'At a time when the Supreme Court prepares to take up
same-sex marriage and the Republican Party determines the best approach to the
issue going forward, an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday showed a
new high-water mark in support for the right of gay and lesbian couples to tie
the knot. The poll found 58 percent of Americans now believe marriage
should be legal for same-sex couples, while just 36 percent said it should be
illegal.' 'A Majority of Young Republicans Support Gay
Marriage' - —By Tim Murphy – Mother Jones – 03/08/2013 ' On Thursday, Jan van Lohuizen and Joel Benenson, top
campaign pollsters respectively for Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama,
released a new study on attitudes toward marriage equality, based on 2012 exit
poll data. The short of it: Even young Republicans think conservatives are
fighting a losing battle.' I don't think that word
means… what you think it means.
'Poll: Majority in US back same-sex marriage' - Live Science –
05/20/2011'Gallup shows 53 percent say it should be legal, up
from 44 percent last year' FYI… the judge in
question was appointed by George W. Bush.
Wow! Rarely has there been strung together a more pathetic collection of
legalistic whining and petty parliamentary proceduralism masquerading as
argument.Only trained legal mind simultaneously blunted and blinded
by religious dogma could possibly blow so much impotent hot air as this.Bigotry is crumbling across this great, freedom loving country, and all
the puny hands of hyperbole and religious objection in the world will not stop
the rising tide of marriage equality from sweeping the nation from coast to
Judicial tyranny = a judge made a ruling that we disagree with.Hate
to break it to you, conservatives, but the whole purpose of the judicial branch
of government is to check legislation, drafted by officials elected by the
majority, against the constitution, and the constitutionality of a law is not a
function of its popularity.
@ThinksIThink I think that certain opinionated people will find one day that
they will be more than just embarrassed.@Pagan Your points are
totally irrelevant to this issue. It makes no difference if a "majority"
of the nation are for SSM and it also does not matter if a majority of the
nation are against SSM. It also doesn't matter who appointed the judge--who
cares? The point is that Utah voted with a supermajority to amend their
constitution. A judge should not have power to overturn that amendment. Court
rulings are not based on majority electorate opinion. It should be based on law
and the constitution.
"Gays and lesbians are not deprived of any rights they are due in a liberal
democracy when a state, like Utah, through open democratic processes insists
that marriage is between a man and a woman."It's fine if
you say the don't deserve the rights. But how can you say with a straight
face that they are not deprived of them under the previous law?!
Last time I checked "Judicial Tyranny" doesn't have an appeal
process allowing you to try and argue that the outcome should have been
different. And before you blame "Liberal out of touch
judges" Just remember Senator Mike Lee, and Orrin Hatch
submitted this name to the President of the United States and he nominated this
justice to the court. Equality is just that. EQUAL. Across all
Genders, Skin Colors, Sexual Orientation.
I agree wholeheartedly with this editorial. The judge has short circuited the
legal process to craft an opinion molded to fit his own personal social views
and pulled the overused cry of "unconstitutional" out of thin air. The
judge's opinion uses poor logic and is indefensible and irresponsible.
Let's hope wiser heads prevail on appeal.
Wow. This is happening even faster than expected. Will be interesting to see how
soon the rest of the story begins to play out.
Ummmm....DN. Have you guys noticed that every court to which this question is
brought -- in states all across the nation -- is uniformly deciding on the side
of the 14th Amendment and equal rights for all citizens?That should
be a clue. This isn't a matter of judicial tyranny. It's a
matter of the US Constitution protecting a minority from the tyranny of the
majority. And that's an important part of what our Constitution was created
I'm trying to reconcile the judge's opinion with the Proclamation on
the Family's encouragement to responsible citizens and leaders of
government to protect the traditional definition of marriage. A judge who
can't follow such simple directions probably shouldn't be on the
The issue is about right versus wrong and who gets to decide. In a truly moral
nation judges follow the law strictly. In our nation, the politically correct
minority gets to choose and everyone with a pet cause is a victim with a
cavalcade of wrongs which demand redressing. We have a Congress which makes
laws. Judges do not or are at least they are not supposed to. But that no longer
seems to make any difference. Think I am wrong? Just ask any Democrat.
It is clear the Ag's office gets a fail x 2. (both marriage rulings)Agree or not with the policies, the AG. should have properly defended
our state constitution and laws. Not having a stay/appeal ready and waiting
today would not have happened, in my opinion, or would not of occurred if the
Gov had appointed one of the top 2 nominees on Mon, Tues, Wed, or even
yesterday. Christmas is coming. Tell me why Brian should be
appointed now? Sean and Bob are looking better and showing why they were the SCC
first 2 choices. Bob specifically warned about being flat footed on this.
From the editorial, "That would seem to apply even more forcefully in a
review of how Utah defines marriage given that the enabling act that permitted
Utah to join the union in 1896 specified that our state adopt constitutionally a
traditional definition of marriage."No, actually - the Enabling
Act says nothing about a traditional definition of marriage - it only states
polygamy must be prohibited. The exact verbiage is, "... polygamous or
plural marriages are forever prohibited."If you cannot make your
point without lying, perhaps there is a problem with the point you are trying to
make?Additionally, you mention the State's request for Summary
Judgement and imply a decision supporting it would have been valid - while at
the same time criticizing the judge as overstepping his bounds by finding in
favor of the Plaintiff's request for summary judgement instead of having a
trial. The judge made the only decision available to him based on
the paucity of the State's arguments. And you present no factually
compelling reasons for why the decision should have been different. Laws prohibiting same-sex marriage fail judicial review because there are no
legally compelling reasons to support them.
Deseret News' claim of "tyranny" is itself tyrannical, since the
judicial system that has allowed such a ruling, even by a single judge, is part
of the most fundamental structure of the government created the Constitution.
Amendment 3 was and is unconstitutional, and this ruling is the most fundamental
illustration of checks and balance in action. Huge win for the integrity of the
That's some fine whining you're doing there, DN. Kudos.
The logic in this editorial is wrong. The judge is not being an activist, and
his ruling will be vindicated.As a practical matter, whenever the
supreme court decides that a "right" is covered by the "equal
protection clause," that right must eventually be extended to the entire
country. Historically the judicial criterion is that the characteristic under
consideration, like skin color, is genetic and hence not a personal choice. When
Kennedy and the majority decided that sexual orientation is an innate
characteristic, the writing was on the wall.The irony is that now
even the Mormon church (Mormonsandgays.org) acknowledges that orientation is
genetically determined, that gay people "do not choose to have such
attractions." The supreme court dissenter, Justice Scalia, would have
looked at the Mormon position, as he did the majority decision, and yelled:
"but that means that gays should have the same rights as straight
people!" And Scalia would be right.If the church is wise,
they'll wait and let some other other state appeal these issues. Surely the
last thing they want is to be remembered as the losers in "Utah versus the
United States," a case seeking to perpetuate discrimination.
Mob rule is unconstitutional. You cannot vote on the rights of a minority.
That's why Amendment 3 is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court justices that argued this past June that too little is known
about gay marriage to experiment with it were spot on. When interracial laws
were deemed unconstitutional there were hundreds of years of empirical data from
countries that allowed it to base the decision off. We have less that 10 years
of experience with this.I guess my vote on Amendment 3 doesn't
matter when one judge, who likely doesn't know the equal amendment clause
any better than me, decided it doesn't matter.The will of the
people governs the United States, not activist judges and mayors.
This is one of the most embarrassingly short-sighted and wrong-headed opinion
pieces I've ever read. It's shameful.
"Mr. Chairman, I strongly support Bob Shelby’s nomination and commend
him to my Committee colleagues. I hope this Committee and the full Senate will
approve his nomination as soon as possible."Orin Hatch.DMN have you ever heard the term "the tyrany of the majority?. The abused
have become supporters of the abuswers.
Perhaps an unelected judge is the best person to deal with such things as s/he
wouldn't feel that they have to follow the dictates of the Mormon church
which seems to still weald the power in Utah.
It has nothing to do with any imaginary "judicial tyranny."it has to do with the State of Utah totally failing to make even a
rational-basis legal case for discrimination inherent in Amendment 3 in clear
violation of individual Constitutional rights to equal protection.
On this very same day, December 20, 2013, the Ugandan parliament passed a bill
that punishes acts of homosexuality with life in prison. "This legislation
is needed to protect the traditional family here in Africa" said David
Bahati, the introducer of the bill. Reading some comments by conservatives
Utahns, one wonders how close they would like Utah to be to Uganda.
Judicial Review is the bedrock of our legal system. This isn't the first
time, nor will it be the last, that the judicial branch of government has
reviewed an existing law, determined that it violates the constitution, and on
that basis voided the offending law.More to the point - there is
simply no rational basis for expecting governments to perpetuate a popular
The judicial has been out of control for years. Vote against all judges at every
I guess I was under the impression that the SCOTUS, when it dealt with DOMA this
past year, left it up to the individual states to determine whether or not they
were going to allow for same sex marriages. Utah already had with its own
amendment to the state Constitution. And yes, I understand the Supremacy Clause
of the US Constitution. In this case I just can't call it marriage. I can
call it a civil union with all the legal protections under the US Constitution.
I can't, with all due respect, call same sex unions "marriages".
It's very simple. The Constitution is the Law. There is no higher law in
Utah than Utah's Constitution. No judge can legislate from the bench
without breaking the law. When a judge thinks that he is prophet, priest, and
king, he will make laws and force his subjects to obey his will. That concept
is very important to the gay community. They always look for their prophet,
priest and king who will ignore the law as he dictates from his throne HIS law.
When a society accepts that self-proclaimed prophet, priest and king, it has
abandoned its government and returned to a feudal system where kings dictate and
pawns are ordered to do the king's will. Welcome to the 12th century.
For what other purpose does the Deseret News Editorial Board think we have
Judges whose task is to try to make certain that the rights of the minority are
not trampled by the will of the majority? We live in a Republic (not
a Democracy) (I pledge allegiance to the "Republic"). That is our form
of government. The Judge made a correct decision.
How is this possibly about "rights"?Prior to the ruling,
every man and woman had precisely the same "right" (meaning, in this
case, "opportunity") to marry someone of the opposite sex. What the
ruling did is change the definition of marriage.Marriage is (or was)
the mechanism by which the state incentivized couples to establish a legally
binding relationship in which children would be produced, nurtured, taught,
protected, and provided for. It was about the preservation of society, not about
whether two people love each other and would like to have certain legal benefits
as a result of that love. The marriage contract, in the eyes of the state, was
never about love. The state has no reliable way to assess love or sexual
attraction.Yes, the sun will continue to rise and existing marriages
will not be harmed. It is the future of society, not the present, that is now in
question and has been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness by
"Our grandchildren will look back and feel embarassed"Funny
thing this secular theology of progressivism, not only because most of their
proponents are pseudo-secularists, but because it rests upon a linear notion of
time and moral progress not supported by history. Same for the egalitarian
obscurantism which wants us ignore all the differences upon which nature is
structured, for the sake of some metaphysical abstractions of 'individual
rights' meant to be enforced against communities, which have been able to
exist and thrive only because they understood and adjusted to said natural
structures. It's no coincidence that at the time of the highest
sexual chaos in the West, with ubiquitous pornography (of all kinds), transient
relations, divorce and with fertility rates below replacement levels, the fad of
homosexualism shows its face. It's no coincidence that even in the most
"tolerant" countries homosexualism is correlated with higher rates of
suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, anxiety disorders and sexually transmitted
diseases.It's time to stop exalting the individual and its
freedom over what an holistic view of human communities demands about which
conducts must be encouraged and disencouraged, as minimum requirements for
having any stable and functional society.
This article is simply trying to spread a message of fear. Go ahead and point
legal arguments missed by the judge that is fine. But to end it by claiming that
trust is lost in the judicial system does not help our nation- it only helps
tear it apart. Lots of court decisions go against peoples' opinions but to
lose faith in the system because your opinion lost is not healthy. Spreading a
message of fear like this only come from one place- Satan. Fear is his tool and
he will use good meaning people to wield that tool. Sadly this article shows
It's about time!
While it's true that the Constitution doesn't define
"marriage," the federal government has complicated the issue by taking a
vested interest in married couples for the purposes of tax law and Social
Security (among the 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that
are automatically bestowed on couples once they marry). Therefore this is not an
issue that can be left up to the states to decide individually, since it
wouldn't do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa, for instance,
to become automatically UN-married once they decide to move somewhere else. Religious beliefs are irrelevant to this debate, because (1) the United
States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or
deny ceremonies to whomever they want. Procreation and parenting are
irrelevant, since (1) couples do not have to marry to have children, and (2) the
ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a
marriage license. This is simply a matter of equal treatment under
the law. But if it will make you feel any better, Straight marriages will be
completely unaffected by this decision.
I'm hard pressed to see what facts would have been proven at trial. It was
the State's burden to convince Judge Shelby that facts are in dispute.
Apparently, the State failed. And, Pagan, Judge Shelby was recently
appointed. He is an Obama appointee.
Redneck lefty: how then is polygamy illegal? Don't all you lefties believe
in a changing constitution or is that just when it is convenient to your cause?
let me just say it straight? Marriage is between a man and women and anything
less is an affront to God!, no matter whether the laws of the land ever say
otherwise. the constitution works when common sense is followed and depravity
isn't viewed as an excuse for living!
Any court decisions that I disagree with would be "overstepping" bounds
too. This is just political hyperbole from someone on the editorial board.
@gittalopctbi:The point is you contradict yourself when you minimize
and dismiss popular majority when that majority is in favor of gay marriage but
use it to strengthen your point when it comes to defending Utah's
constitutional amendment. Therein lies the perfect example for
those who favor discrimination. When the majority of the people were against
gay marriage, you cited that as a fundamental component to your opposition, but
now that has changed you say it no longer matters, but wait for it, you still
try to use majority to argue why gay marriage should still be banned. Now tell us about how yours (or anyone's) heterosexual marriage will be
ruined because gay people can be married in Utah.
The people of Utah do not have the right to violate the Constitution of the
United States, not even if ALL of them think so--not even if the Deseret News
When compared with this editorial opinion, Judge Shelby's decision
appearsmto be the work of an intelectual lightweight.
One can have respect for a judge doing his job. We can know and understand his
background because we can easily learn and know his educational background, work
background, etc., from which his ruling was made. When an individual writes an
opinion piece such as this, using damning words, such as "tyranny" and
using all kinds of legal background and legal buzzwords, one would hope and
assume that individual has a foundation upon which to base his defamatory
comments, but "no", this writer is merely a photographer. I can find no
biography on him whatsoever. He appears to be just another person of the
predominant religion who doesn't like the fact that someone, anyone, could
strike down an element of the Utah constitution because it is not constitutional
and protect the rights of the minority, rather than cater to the will of the
majority. Yesterday was one of the few times in my life living in Utah that I
was proud to say that I am a citizen of Utah.
The essence of tyranny is when a majority suppresses the rights of a minority
out of sheer prejudice. Our country was founded with protections for minority
rights enshrined in our Constitution (remember that many of the founders'
ancestors came to this country to escape persecution back in Europe due to their
minority religious status, and later amendments to the Constitution came to
recognize the rights of those who had been denied them at the founding,
including former slaves and women). One of the purposes of the Courts is, in
fact, to overturn the will of the majority (as expressed through the measure
passed in Utah) when it conflicts with the Constitution and the rights of a
minority.One of the mainstays of Utah's economy is tourism. I
come there from California each October to enjoy the natural beauty of your
state. Thanks to this ruling, Utah just became a friendlier, more welcoming
state. Congratulations! May the ruling hold up on appeal, but one way or the
other, "a change is gonna come." As MLK Jr. said, "The arc of the
moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
What right does one person wit a law degree have to overturn the will of the
people. Many judges have to be retained any way to remove Shelby? And I
don't subscribe to beliefs that whatever man does is no crime it is ok to
sleep with anyone you choose. I do know there is A God that gave us
commandments for our protection. Don' subscribe to peoples lack of
morality beliefs. People are tolerant as long as you don't oppose there
You call this judicial tyranny and cry "victim." Now imagine being gay
and having legislative tyranny forced upon you by the majority. Turn about is
fair play. This ruling is a victory for equal rights and for those of us who
have been deemed second class citizens by Utah's "majority."
The editors of the Des News are entitled to their opinion. That it could not be
more incorrect matters not in the grand scheme of things. Judicial Tyranny
indeed! Thanks for the laugh this morning Des News.
Here is another indisputable factual finding that could support the voters of
Utah in their adoption of a traditional definition for marriage. There is an
intrinsically procreative purpose for marriage, and the legal definition of
marriage should be framed from a child-centered perspective. Marriage exists to
channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring, stable,
parental unions for the sake of responsibly producing and rearing the next
generation. A genderless concept of marriage focused exclusively on the
attachment of the two parties is essentially unconcerned with procreation. We
should not be required to ignore the natural design of our respective bodies,
male and female. Those who choose to act out their gay or lesbian inclinations
do so in obvious contradiction to the anatomical design of their physical
bodies. It is biologically impossible for any two same-gender persons to
produce offspring. Same gender marriages only produce extinction of the human
race. It is biologically impossible for any two same gender persons to create
families, the best social unit for the rearing of children in our society.
Crazy that most Mormons don't see the contradiction that fighting this
equality train is with their core doctrine. Even the message of the
"pre-existence war in heaven" was to allow each their
'agency,' right? Then why are they so aggressively fighting it? One
could say they have become followers of Lucifer! Lol!
For those against the recognition of gay marriage think about the following
situation which will become fact in the next few years:You and your
spouse have been married for a while (say 20 years). You both decide it is time
to retire, so you move across country to St. George, Utah. After about a year
there, your spouse is involved in an accident. You rush to the hospital but are
denied entry to the room because your marriage isn't recognized in the
state. You talk to the staff and eventually are given entry to the room, just
in time to spend the last couple of minutes with them as they pass away.You go home, call family and friends and let them know of the passing.
You call Social Security which updates their records, you call the state to
begin the transfer of assets to your name fully. The state asks for proof of
relationship. You state your their spouse and provide a valid marriage license
from another state.This situation could have happened 2 weeks ago
for gay/lesbians, or in the 50's and 60's for interracial couples. Is
this what we should be doing?
I think it is great that a Judge in the US DISTRICT COURT has upheld the
Constitution. It is time to not put conditions on personal freedoms. For this
paper to publically call this tyranny is just ridiculous and is out of line
showing disrespect for the Judicial system and the Rule of Law.
Amen to the article. There seems to be a lot of confused people. The rational
given by the judge was illogical. This is a sad day for the "united"
The fussing in this editorial reminds me of the real definition of an
"activist judge" being "a judge who rules against you." Let's keep in mind that this is how most cases dealing with
constitutional law work. They start out with a single judge in either a State
court or a Federal District Court ruling that something is or is not within the
limits of the Constitution. If one party is dissatisfied with the ruling, as
will likely be the case here, the case is appealed to a higher court and
eventually to the US Supreme Court, whose word is final. Ultimately,
this law may or may not be reversed or upheld by the Supreme Court, or they may
decline to rule on it, leaving whatever decision is made by an appellate court
intact. In either case, the judge in this lower court has done his job by
issuing a ruling based on his interpretation of the law and the Constitution,
and there is nothing "tyrannical" about him doing so.
Indeed, the 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court revolved around the decision
by Justice Kennedy in regard to state's rights. The same holds true for
abortion decisions in which he was the deciding vote. This particular judge
cannot overrule the "will of the people" on capricious and self serving
logic. An emergency appeal is well warranted.
Either the judge had a good understanding of the 5th and 14th US Constitutional
amendments for due process and equal protection or he did not. Civil rights
have never been dependent on the outcome of an election, no matter how LDS the
state may be.
My last comment to the Deseret News regarding the Duck Dynasty was rejected.
Fortunately, the Deseret can't censor a federal judges opinion.
"Gays and lesbians are not deprived of any rights they are due in a liberal
democracy when a state, like Utah, through open democratic processes insists
that marriage is between a man and a woman."Would you make the
same argument if the subject had been intermarriage instead? "Blacks, Asians
and whites are not deprived of any rights they are due in a liberal democracy
when a state, like Utah, through open democratic processes insists that marriage
is between people of the same race." Doesn't sound so nice now, does
it? Or how about "Negros are not deprived of any rights they are due in a
liberal democracy when a state, like Utah, through open democratic processes
insists on maintaining separate but equal facilities for different races as part
of the segregation policies of our State."The fact is,
majorities are often wrong and the laws they pass sometimes fall outside the
limits of our Constitution. That's why we have judicial review, which
begins with a single judge making a ruling on a matter.
When will we admit this was bad and wrong?There is nothing fair or
just or holy about Amendment 3. Neither the LQBTQ community, nor every woman,
nor every man, receive equality: "even though there is no difference between
the way men and women are treated under Utah marriage law.I am a
member of the Church,in part, because of it's most basic precept, agency.
Yet we took agency away from a select group of people. Amendment 3 is
ultimately based on the ability to procreate "in wedlock"; not about a
civil procedure. Procreation is neither a God-given or legal right. Any
religious institution can choose who can and can't be members, and what
they accept within their religion but they cannot try to dictate law. Step back, let the legal process work. Utah will, again, waste untold amounts
of money fighting this, as we did Obamacare. And, again, Utah will lose. How
many wedding invitations will I get? I hope many! I want to share in my
friends' joy and love.
It was a sad day for justice, the court system, and the voice of the people.
The judge clearly didn't want to allow proper process in this case. He
wanted to act alone to override the people. I have very close friends who are
gay and lesbian and I love them completely. You can find a poll to tell you
anything you want. If the majority of Utah wants to change the law, go through
the process to get it changed. Don't allow one man to change it without
precedence and against the Supreme Court who says it is up to the individual
Anyone who read the United States Supreme Court's Windsor decision striking
down DOMA knew this was coming (not just in Utah, but everywhere). Though
Windsor was about federal law and the Utah decision was about state law, the
high court's reasoning in Windsor was unmistakable in the direction it was
heading. Lower court judges are duty bound to follow the rulings of higher
courts. They can't just do what they want. Even though many in Utah and
nationwide strongly disagree with Judge Shelby's ruling, "Judicial
Tyranny" is not a fair characterization, in my opinion.
Well done Deseret News editorial board! I couldn't have said it better!
P.S. Most of you commenting excitedly as if it were Christmas morning are
missing the point of this article as it is not simply an expression of disbelief
that the ruling was in favor of homosexual marriage, but rather the fact that
this duly appointed judge by our dearest liberal-minded President audaciously
comes out with a 53-page ruling when an optimistic time of decision was set for
January 7. This was not proper timing, nor was it prudent in any sense of the
meaning. Reap your tax benefits if that is what you find so precious, and take
your pride with you because I certainly do not intend to pretentiously display
my pride of being in a heterosexual marriage. This undoubtedly is a public
display of hypocrisy and a complete disregard for God and his laws with marriage
never being the government's to decide in the first place. Marriages were
only effectuated for many years by religious folk until European and later
American civilizations decided to step in and make it part of government
Let's hope the unhappy parents of some of Utah's youngsters do not
poison their children's minds against the US Constitution now.The sun
came up this morning and it is now shining even brighter for all.
The Editorial's presentation of the Court's ruling is most
puzzling:1. The Editorial criticizes the Judge for issuing a summary
judgement. That is exactly what the State of Utah asked for. See page 1.2. The Editorial complains the Judge is defining marriage for the State.
The Judge defends Utah's right to define marriage. He limited his ruling to
the narrow issue of its Constitutionality. See Pages 15-16.3. The
Editorial suggests the Judge ignored the majority opinion in the Windsor case.
He not only agrees with it he quotes from it. He uses to define the case as
being solely a conflict between States' Rights and Individuals'
Rights. See pages 11-14.4. The Editorial complains of the lack legal
judicial precedent in the ruling, yet the Judge relies heavily on the Supreme
Court's landmark ruling in Loving V. Virginia. See page 20.5.
The Editorial complains of judicial tyranny. Yet the Judge's ruling was
based on the proposal "individual rights take precedence over states’
rights where these two interests are in conflict." See page 13.Protecting the individual from an overreaching State government is hardly
tyranny. I saw two former students of mine marry last night.
Congratulations kids - I told you it would happen.
Judicial tyranny is the best two-worded description for this abysmal power grab.
Not only does this so-called judge disrespect the State of Utah, but he
disrespects the entire judicial system. This man has the heart of a dictator.Any judge who truly respects the rule of law would not even consider
issuing such a ruling without also including a stay of enforcement of the
injunction, so that the appeal courts can properly adjudicate the issue.
Instead, he unleashes a public spectacle of confusion and disorderliness.
This sure is a popular trend we are experiencing. But everybody seems to forget
that what is popular is not always moral or right (correct) and what is moral is
not always popular.
If legal Marriage was a law with bite that really meant that neither one of the
partners could have sexual relations with anyone other than the one to whom
they were legally and lawfully married, then..marriage would be
exclusive to only those couples who really wanted to live this law of
chastity."gay community" .... be honest with yourselves.
I believe we are nearing the high-water mark in public acceptance of same-sex
marriage, and that the hubris and stunning overreach by militant gay activists
and their allies in government will begin to spark a backlash. Far from the
"live and let live" mantra that has garnered some public support in
recent years, their true agenda is the destruction of marriage and the family,
through political and economic persecution of those of us whose religious
beliefs, and/or examination of the empirical evidence from social science, are
striving to maintain and strengthen the traditional family for the sake of
society and our children.
Use of the word tyranny is irresponsible. Your censors should have rejected the
In the end the judges decision will be upheld by the supreme court. The state
failed to show that gay marriage hurt traditional marriage or society, with the
lack of any concrete reason to deny one person a right given to another
that's how it had to go. In one way it is a pisser offer that the federal
government tramples states rights but the constitution is a two edged sword. So
suck it up, move on, nobody got hurt here.
If people would look at this issue as a matter of law and take emotion and
religious feelings out of it, then they would be able to see how the law is
unconstitutional.The state can not grant rights to one segment of
the population and not to other.
I am still waiting for some opponent of marriage equality to explain exactly how
granting those rights would adversely affect them personally or society at
large. Religious tenets or arguments are not rational (or Constitutional)
States have authority to make marriage and family law. The federal constitution
guarantees individual rights. What happens when a state's law conflicts
with the U.S. Constitution? The Constitution prevails.That's
why Judge Shelby's ruling is correct.Congratulations to the
judge for helping to make Utah the 18th state to permit same-sex marriage.
Better 18th than 50th.
The lord said that civil rights have always been dependent on the outcome of an
election by a majority of LDS folks. What just happened yesterday?
Trouble 12:35 a.m.You do realize that the Proclamation of the Family
is a religious document, right? Does this mean that you think people should be
able to enforce Sharia law in the United States as well?
I can't wait for the divorces to start. Who gets the house?
This Federal decision is dangerous. We as a Nation are witnessing a change in
this Country. The will of the people is no longer being recognized. We must
all be mindful that one judge has the power to change all of our lives. This
should trouble us all. The issue of Gay marriage is not the legal prescient we
should be concerned about. The emotional arguments cloud the real issue. The
loss of State Constitutions vs Federal intrusion. It is very difficult to
understand the legal ramifications when a small group believes they have been
given a victory. However, what will be the cost? Next time the Federal
government will impose its will on the State and we will no longer have a
Republic. Our President is testing this out. By using Presidential fiat he
changes the rule of law without the Congress or legal review. Last time I
checked that was a dictatorship not a Democracy. Whatever ones view of Marriage
is the underlining rules of procedure are threating all are sense of what
freedom used to be.
Certainly gays and lesbians are deprived of fundamental rights when marriage is
declared to be only between a man and a woman--this has been addressed. I am
interested in the words "our nation’s tradition of ordered
liberty." While the word "ordered" here is difficult to interpret,
it seems to mean the opposite of "total liberty." Curiously, these
are almost the exact words in the founding sentences of Russia and later the
Soviet Union-- "our land is rich but there is no order in it." The
answer to the dilemma is to ask an outside entity to come and rule over them.
They gave up freedom for the sake of order. It seems the concept of
"ordered liberty" reflects this sentiment precisely-- and that the
editorial board claims there should be order as long as we are ready to
sacrifice our freedom.
Enter Ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate and broadis the way,
that leadeth to destruction, and many there bewhich go in therat.Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find itAs the prophets have told through the
years, that broad gate is getting wider and wideras people just follow
after their own wills and desires and ignore God completely.No eternal
perspective, just the here and now.
Utah's ban on freedom is the "Tyranny of the Majority" Alexis de
Tocqueville writes of.Racism and other types of discrimination and
intolerance, often supported by religions, can flourish in a Theocracy (Utah,
Iran)Checks and balances are put in place by the Constitution in
order to prevent this from happening.John F. Kennedy: "I believe
in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.“Sometimes things become possible if we want them bad enough.”
― T.S. Eliot
It's troubling that the Deseret News editiorial board and some of the
posters here seem to think that Judge Shelby should have based his decision not
on the Constitution, but on what the majority of voters want. The whole point
of having a judicial branch of government is to provide some "checks and
balances" against the tyrrany of the majority.The Constitution
gives each of us the right to equal protection under the law, regardless of how
unpopular we may be at the time. Yesterday it was Equal Protection for blacks,
and today it's Equal Protection for gays who want to marry their partners,
but tomorrow it may be Equal Protection for those whose religious beliefs are
outside the mainstream. Those constitutional rights must be guaranteed for all
of us or they won't be there when you're most in need of them.
@KTC John --" There is an intrinsically procreative purpose for
marriage"Procreation is not, and never has been, a necessary
condition for marriage in this country."Those who choose to act
out their gay or lesbian inclinations do so in obvious contradiction to the
anatomical design of their physical bodies."Many species of
nonhuman animals engage in homosexual behaviors. Therefore, these behaviors are
perfectly natural." Same gender marriages only produce
extinction of the human race. "Please don't be
melodramatic.LGBT people only represent about 5% of the human
population. Gay marriages will NEVER endanger the human race."It
is biologically impossible for any two same gender persons to create
families"Gay couples create families in the very same ways that
any other infertile couples do. Many thousands of gay couples are already
raising children in happy stable families -- and they will continue to do so.
To our gay and lesbian friends,I saw so many happy smiles and tears
on the news last night. I am so happy for you all. What a wonderful Christmas.
So much love.
In a state where there is only one party, elections are meaningless. It takes
an unelected official who is not controlled by that one party to be a voice for
the those who have no power to contribute.
Homosexuals have always had the right to get married in Utah. It's just
that they didn't like the way Utah defined marriage (which is incidentally
the same way it has been defined in human civilization for thousands of
years).There is a huge difference between saying somebody can't play the
game and saying you are not going to change the rules to fit their fancy.This was a policy question not a legal question and as U.S.Supreme Court
Justice Antonin Scalia said Judges and Justices "have no more expertise on
policy questions than Joe Sixpack"!
@ThinksIthinkI think people will look back and think...what were we
thinking?? This will leave society worse off, not better. If anything, I we
should be embarrassed at the court system's new dysfunctional analysis of
A lot of comments here are saying the judge was right basically because the ends
justified the means. If you're in that boat you're missing the point.
Judges must follow the legal rules of precedent. They are not legislators.
Imagine if a judge started making rulings where I felt the ends justified the
means. I thing Obamacare, in its current form, is extremely harmful to the
country. But I would be concerned if a judge ignored the Supreme Court precedent
and declared it unconstitutional. That would be overreach. What if a judge
ignored Roe vs. Wade and declared abortions illegal. While I would agree that
abortions are wrong in most cases, I would not agree with the overreach.
Judicial overreach is, itself, unconstitutional. If I want Obamacare gone or
abortions made illegal these are things that must be done through the Supreme
Court and/or the legislative process. It is wrong for the lowest-level federal
judge to ignore the system of checks and balances that protect us all in order
to legislate his own strong feelings - ignoring rule of law and precedent all
the way - no matter how noble he deems his own motives.
"moving cautiously when adjusting the marital norms that have served society
for millennia,"We've had almost 10 years in Massachusetts
and they still lead the nation in lowest divorce rate. How long do you want us
to wait? Or are you just stalling?" that there may be something
uniquely important for the benefit of children about supporting the biologically
intact family,"The state allows single people to adopt, that
hasn't bothered you, so clearly you don't really care about this and
you're just making excuses to justify your position." that
religious liberties might require special consideration given the role of
marriage in religious teaching and practice."The ruling
specifically stated that churches don't have to marry same-sex couples.
This editorial is a prime example of why the judge ruled this way. The argument
for Amendment 3 is a trainwreck with nothing of constitutional substance. It
reads like someone grasping for straws in order to try and justify codifying
religious law.@JLFuller"In a truly moral nation judges
follow the law strictly."That's what the judge did.
It's the duty of judges to strike down laws that violate the US
@JLFuller:"In a truly moral nation judges follow the law
strictly."In our nation, one of the duties of judges is to
follow the Constitution and determine whether laws which have been enacted are
within the Constitution. It is the job of our judiciary to review laws,
statutes and regulations when they are challenged by citizens, and to decide if
they are constitutional. A court that rubber-stamps every challenged
law and defers to the State on every decision is a kangaroo court that
shouldn't even be allowed to call itself a court. If you were arrested,
would you want to appear before a judge whose rulings followed the demands of
the State? This judge, by the way, was recommended by Mike Lee and Senator
Hatch, so it's a bit farfetched to think he's some sort of Democratic
Fortunatley the judicial system in this country does not operate on a basis
which fears "insulting the electorate." as the editor so deftly points
out. Imagine the Civil Rights Movement brought to a halt within the courts out
of fears of "insulting the electorate." Instead it functions on a basis
which considers an individuals constitutional rights. Years from now this paper
will look back in shame at the remarks made today.
@Trouble 12:35 a.m. Dec. 21, 2013 I'm trying to reconcile the
judge's opinion with the Proclamation on the Family's encouragement to
responsible citizens and leaders of government to protect the traditional
definition of marriage. A judge who can't follow such simple directions
probably shouldn't be on the bench.-----------------------You clearly don't understand. Let me enlighten you. It is the job
of judges to follow the law and especially the supreme law of the land -- in
this case the US Constitution -- and not the pronouncement of a religion. We
are a Constitutional republic and NOT a theocracy. The judge did what he should
have done, and ruled constitutionally. Kudos to him. He is right where he
belongs -- on the bench acting as a judge.
Let me get this straight. This author is trying to use a state constitutional
amendment from the late 1800s that was designed to abolish polygamy in order to
allow Utah to join the Union as a basis for his argument against same sex
marriage in 2013. Sorry but taking the 'plural women' out of the
definition of marriage does not support your argument. Hey at least the article
Question: If marriage is constitutionally defined as a non-discriminatory action
where race, religion, gender or sexual orientation is protected, why would
organizations who perform marriages and discriminate based on sexual preference
not be considered law breakers? Could the government justify tax breaks for
churches as they do now? What would happen if a church decided to refuse to
marry anyone outside of a single race? Or decide polygamy is part of their
religious practice? Does the law protect them on the basis of "separation of
church and state"? It hasn't historically. Now may be a
good time to get the government out of the marriage business and pass laws for
non-discriminatory civil unions regardless of orientation (guaranteeing all
couples equality under civil law). Let them define "marriage" as a
"religious sacrament" protecting churches to define it for their
adherents without government involvement.
Amendment 14:Section 1. 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; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.There have been many
who have stated that this amendment "clearly" is being violated by
Utah's amendment 3. There is much precedent attached to amendment 14 -
however almost none of it regarding marriage, and any that is, is very recent.
In a topic fraught with controversy, nothing is "clear" about any of
this. It was irresponsible what the judge did, not necessarily because it was
right or wrong, but because the answer is not clear at this point if this is a
matter of "privileges and immunities".
The Desert News is right. When one unelected person makes law, Than their is no
we the people. The constitution is void and the checks and balances becomes a
joke. I wonder if these that cheer this judge would cheer if the ruling was
different. We as Americans need to stand behind OUR Constitution.
@ Trouble: It is actually very easy to reconcile this judge's decision
with the LDS Proclamation on the Family. The Proclamation is an LDS
religious document. We do not live in a theocracy, so your religious documents
have no bearing on civil law. The US Constitution is the supreme
law of the land and this judge's decision follows it.See how
easy that is?@ EJM: You should read the decision - and the US
Constitution. State's can define marriage as long as they are not
infringing on the rights of their citizens.@ Mike: The US
Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the Utah State Constitution
cannot violate it.
@RedneckLefty*Hate to break it to you, conservatives, but the whole
purpose of the judicial branch of government is to check legislation, drafted by
officials elected by the majority, against the constitution, and the
constitutionality of a law is not a function of its popularity.* IMHO, that statement is inaccurate.Actually the job of judges was
- and mostly is - to judge people and situations according TO the laws PASSED BY
the legislature. That's still the case in most courtrooms today. In the
early nineteen hundreds, this changed a bit so that judges COULD judge laws
themselves in addition to people or cases. Responsible judges will
respect the laws passed by the legislature, at least enough to perform careful
and proper weighing of the evidence and precedent. He’s nullifying the
duly voted-in AMENDMENT to the state’s constitution. Theoretically, when you have enough votes to amend the constitution, what you
get is a new constitution that trumps all other laws in the state . . . . .
unless of course liberal FEDERAL judges do it single-handedly and without proper
procedure/precedence, and for a jurisdiction that should have the final say (the
If those who support Gay marriage move to Colorado, California or any other
state. I am a fifth generation Utahan. My ancestors moved here to live in
Religious Freedom. Now some Judge is trying to cramp some legal fishfuzz down
our throat. Let the voice of the state be heard. We voted. 66% voted against it.
End of discussion.
Strange that the author used the term Judicial "tyranny". Utah's
ban on freedom is the "Tyranny of the Majority" Alexis de Tocqueville
writes of. Racism and other types of discrimination and intolerance, often
supported by religions, can flourish in a Theocracy (Utah, Iran)Checks and
balances are put in place by the Constitution in order to prevent this from
happening. John F. Kennedy: "I believe in an America where the
separation of church and state is absolute.“Sometimes things become
possible if we want them bad enough.” ― T.S. Eliot
To me it's simply this: I live in the state of Utah. I am a citizen of
Utah, and a citizen of the United States. I am not RayTech, United States
Citizen. I am RayTech, a citizen of Utah of the United States. Stop taking
away state rights: it is NOT yours to take. This is MY state YOU do not run it!
Just because Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch mistakenly endorsed this judge
doesn’t mean anything except they are fallible too, as all humans are.And for all those who are predicting that we will be embarrassed in 10
years for even fighting this, I question your prognostications. We will more
likely look back at this as a pivotal moment in which the tyranny of the
MINORITY forced its way. The deleterious consequences to society will be
evidence enough that this was no time to celebrate.Here are some
predictions. This ruling will lead to so many consequences such that real
marriage between a man and a woman will take a big hit. Churches will be
affected in their rights to non-interference by the government (see first
amendment). The family breakdown will accelerate. And the true prophesies of
God, from His legitimate representatives, will come to pass. You can rely on
Where was the outrage from the board when the "activist" Supreme Court
stuck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act that had been renewed by
Congress in 2006 by a vote of 390 to 33 in the House and 98 to 0 in the Senate?
If you insist on being on the wrong side of history, at least try to be
intellectually honest, and not so hypocritical, about it.
For homosexuals the characteristic of same gender attraction may be immutable
but their ability to act on such is a choice. In other words, their same sex
attraction may be part of their nature but such tendencies, no matter how
strong, do not justify their actions any more than an individual's
predilections to violence justify harming another. Desires have no boundaries
but actions should.When we start granting fundamental rights on the basis
of tendencies or desires there's a problem. The example above regarding
violence isn't quite fair. It links a tendency with easily verifiable
harm. A more apt comparison would be bestiality, as awful as that sounds. With
bestiality an individual may have an attraction or tendency toward animals. No
persons are harmed. Should that perverted appetite and act be clothed as a
fundamental right on the basis of a strong inborn attraction toward animals?
What about those with a strong urge to expose themselves publicly, are they
justified? You may say others shouldn't be exposed to such graphic images
but some find two men kissing in public equally offensive.Desires, however
strong, should have some boundaries else we become nothing more than
My problem is that the Republicans in congress are too busy hacking at Obamacare
to take a stand for religious freedoms. I would like to see photographers,
caterers, and florists exempted from having to participate if they wish not to.
People always say " go out and vote it is your right." Would someone
please tell me what good the vote did on this subject. Or the one in
"Homosexuals have always had the right to get married in Utah. It's
just that they didn't like the way Utah defined marriage (which is
incidentally the same way it has been defined in human civilization for
thousands of years)."Imagine if the laws had been reversed, and
you were only allowed to marry somebody of the same sex. How would you feel
about that law? Would you accept it and just go along with it? I don't
I find it interesting that those supporting the court decision use a tone of
language that is so condescending. They speak as if those with the opposite
view are uninformed, outdated, and brainwashed and that, with time, we will come
to our senses.It is wonderful to be possessors of "truth".
Having it, one can move forward with confidence. Obviously both points of view
claim it. I believe there are good intelligent people on both sides but one
side is misguided.
To all the people who disagree with this editorial. You cannot seriously argue
that you would have accepted a summary judgment ruling against you without a
trial, hearing or anything of that sort. You would all be up in arms. This
judge made this decision on a pre-trial motion. He is clearly overreaching his
authority, regardless of what the correct decision is.
It is clear that the only way to defend traditional heterosexual marriages is
through a Constitutional amendment. That is a voting procedure no Judge or group
of Judges can overturn.
Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This
is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. I believe that
defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage
lies clearly within my religious and constitutional prerogatives. Opposition to same-gender marriage can be traced Biblically as far back as the
creation of Adam and Eve. Man’s solitude was not a function of his not
being with other people; it was a function of his not being with a woman.But even if 99 percent of all marriages failed, the principle is still
right, for Paul said, ‘Neither is the man without the woman neither the
woman without the man, in the Lord’ (1 Cor. 11:11. By this reasoning,
homosexual relations are wrong because they deny the God-appointed companionship
of man and woman.
Did they even read the court decision? There is so much wrong with this op-ed.
It's called judicial review, not judicial tyranny. It's a very
important part of the whole system in the U.S. The decision will be appealed and
decided by an even higher court.
Judicial Tyranny has a name and a face Judge Shelby. Obama appointed this
judicial activist who ignores precedence& fairness in his ideological
The decision will be appealed. The judge ruling should have stayed the decision
until the appeals are heard. Even so, another judge will likely stay the
decision. I'm concerned about 3 things that have been promoted
by editorials or government officials. Statement 1: The "will
of the people" should prevail. States and citizens can set policies and
laws as long as they do not violate the U.S. Constitution. Even a majority
cannot overrule the Constitution. Statement 2: Allowing gays to
marry is a violation of religious beliefs and rights. Again, people can belief
what they want and practice those beliefs as long as they don't infringe
upon the U.S. Constitution. Even religious freedom and rights cannot overrule
the Constitution.Statement 3: Restricting marriage based on race is
discriminatory and unconstitutional, but restricting marriage for gays and
discriminating against THEM has no proven legal precedent and should be allowed.
Just because this has not been tested legally in the past doesn't mean
it's not a violation of basic civil rights.
Maybe we should just leave all decisions on marriage up to the Mormon church
since they are have such a good record."Since the founding of
the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous
to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers,
and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among
them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout Christendom,
and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout
all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness
and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and
religious."- The Prophet Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11,
p. 128"...the one-wife system not only degenerates the human
family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with
philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always
proved a curse to a people."- Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star,
Vol. 15, p. 227
Wow. Using your basis to disparage Judge Shelby's decision, if the majority
of Utah's citizens voted to amend the state constitution to officially
declare the white race as the superior race, or Mormonism the official state
religion, that would pass your test and should stand? After all, it would be
the majority will of the people.Folks, judges DO have the power to
strike down a law that is unconstitutional or nullify an amendment to a state
constitution if it conflicts with the United States Constitution, and be
thankful for that! Without that authority the 50 states may as well be 50
individual countries! I realize for some of you that may be a utopia. The only
advice I can offer those upset with the judge's application of the
Constitution to his decision: Don't marry someone of the same sex.
It's not surprising to see that everyone for gay marriage are ignoring the
real power of the article and instead are attacking the softer points.1: Polygamy: Federal government enters marriage business, declares polygamy an
invalid marriage relationship. Homosexuality: Federal government says it
can't define marriage but the STATES CAN. State says homosexuality
isn't "marriage" either. Federal judge says the STATE CAN'T
decide that. Which precedent do you follow?2: State marriage: A
certificate recognizing a social bond as valid within state boundaries. State
civil union: A certificate recognizing a social bond as valid within state
boundaries. What "rights" are being violated when the same
opportunities exist under a different name? Civil unions may not be fully equal
yet, but there isn't much left to fix either. I should be able to start
any business I want but I can't start a law firm because I'm not a
licensed lawyer. That must be discrimination since the state is saying I
can't have a license and all the benefits to go with it. Right?I would post more, but I'm out of words.
Red Corvette:The church can take some pride in this ruling. If the church
hadn't conducted Proposition 8 with such venom and vigor in California in
the first place, gay marriage equality would not have gotten the attention it
justly received.KJK:Amen! I've said on these boards several
times that 1 Cor.10:29 and D&C 134:4 both condemn the use of subjective
morality as an excuse to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. Gays
in California HAD the right to marry before Prop.8 and Prop.8 supporters allowed
their religious opinions to prompt them to infringe upon that right. In doing
that, they objectively violated scripture. If scripture would have been obeyed
instead, there wouldn't have been a ruling by a federal judge in California
on which other courts could lean to justify other rulings like this one.The irony of so many LDS ignoring scripture in supporting Prop.8 leading
to the overturning of a Utah law thereby allowing same-sex marriage is too
delicious for words to express. Hopefully that will teach us all to obey,
rather than ignore scripture. Steadying the ark came back to bite them.
Well, they can pass all the laws they want and I will still never recognize gay
marriage as right and as legal. I have rights, too. At least they can't get
into the temple. Sodom and Gomorrah, here we go. At least the Lord said that he
would spare the city if only a some people could be found in it that were
righteous. Hopefully, that will save our country.
Why do we have State Governments if judges appointed for life and unelected
bureaucrats are going to dictate State marriage policy and the types of health
insurance policies we are required to have? (among other things)
We're living in a lawless society now. When the President can unilaterally
change and amend laws passed by Congress and "judges" can disregard our
state constitution and even the US Constitution that's called anarchy. I'm fine if the citizens of a state want to allow gay marriage. By the
same token citizens should be allowed to define marriage in their state as
between one man and one woman. And the arguments of gay marriage
supporters have zero legal merit. Equal protection? They had the same right to
get married to someone of the opposite sex as everyone else. The law
discriminates. Hello! There is not one passage in the US Constitution that even
mentions marriage. It's up to the States. But just like every other facet
of our lives it's now being dictated by a centralized top-down government.
I hope everyone is cool with that because you're a serf now.
Try and force their philosophy down the throats of our children in school and
you will see backlash you haven't seen before. From now one, I will teach
my children what gays are all about.....or just take them to a gay pride parade.
What they see there will tell all they need to know without me telling them
"Utah citizens voted for Amendment 3 out of a dislike of gay and lesbian
individuals"There is not a single gay person that I have the
least amount of "dislike" for, and I have known plenty, yet I voted for
Amendment 3.I am stunned by the display of arrogance by this judge.
If his basic assumptions are so incredibly incorrect, I can safely assume that
the rest of his judgement is flawed. We who support the government
recognition of heterosexual marriage only are not the monsters of hate and
bigotry that those who disagree claim we are. The fact that I see legal,
religious, and yes, Constitutional effects of this ruling hardly means I am
motivated by "hate". Claiming "dislike" and hatred for those who
disagree with the leftist agenda on this has become an easy, popular thing to
do, and even seems to be a fun and entertaining "new age" thing to do.
Given that Utahn's right to define their Constitution seems to be in
jeopardy, I am stunned at this ruling and the trivializing of Utah's right
that so many pro-gay marriage supporters display.God help us.
"Gays and lesbians are not deprived of any rights they are due in a liberal
democracy when a state, like Utah, through open democratic processes insists
that marriage is between a man and a woman."Simply put, the
"open democratic process" cannot be the means for determining equal
rights for minorities. If a majority of people in a democracy have animus
toward--or even just disagreement with--a minority, that minority is still
entitled to the same rights as the majority. The majority can't rule on
this based on their personal feelings or religious beliefsThat's exactly why the courts have been in favor of gay marriage.
Especially since it's never been established (except in people's own
minds) that gay marriages are in any way detrimental to straight marriages.
To add to my previous comment (and adding what another pointed out), separation
of church and state can NEVER occur absolutely in a republic, nor is it intended
to do so. The government is a representation of the will of the people. If the
people are religious, the government will reflect that in it's laws and
policies to maintain a general peace. It cannot, however, enforce a specific
religion on anyone in the way the Church of England did (people charged with
heresy at the least or put to death just for being some other religion). Many
laws are religiously grounded. Take public lewdness. It harms nobody civilly
speaking, yet it's a law that most people accept and probably wouldn't
want changed. Why does it exist? Religion. Why does it perpetuate? Religion.
What about the "morals" that are written into so many laws?
Religiously dictated. Government has no means (direction or basis) to define
morals, so it bases them on the general consensus of the people. This time the
people spoke for their moral direction and the government didn't listen.
Now who's trying to dictate morals?
@rw123 --"The deleterious consequences to society will be
evidence enough that this was no time to celebrate."Massachussetts has had gay marriage for 10 years. Several Scandinavian
countries have had gay marriage and/or registered partnerships for around 20
years.The world has not ended -- and Massachussetts still has one of
the lowest divorce rates in the country.@BGuy --"You
cannot seriously argue that you would have accepted a summary judgment ruling
against you without a trial, hearing or anything of that sort. "They had a hearing just a few weeks ago. Search the DN archives for the
article about it.@Matthew1voice --"A more apt
comparison would be bestiality, as awful as that sounds. "Ummmm,
nope.We already have multiple laws against animal abuse. Bestiality
certainly does do harm.Gay marriage does not.It's a
simple distinction.The boundary on desires is harm. Look up the harm
This is ONE judge who needs to be impeached posthaste! He has so far exceeded
his authority as to create a tyrannical condition. The judicial branch has NO
authority to create law. In essence, that is what judge Shelby has tried to do.
He is off the reservation. To all those who want to change God's law,
and/or the laws of nature, if you will: wanting it will not make it happen --not
today, not ever. This ruling will soon be reduced to ash,and reality will
First of the all the Dnews acts if this judge decided not to have a trial. Both
parties, the plaintiffs and the defendants(state of utah) submitted motions for
a summary judgment, which means they did not want to got to trial.Second the Dnews argues the judge acted on his creative interpretation of
precedent. The dnews asserted the judge did not use the only precedent which was
Baker v. The judge addressed this and many other precedents that the dnews
conveniently left out of their argument.Third, the judge pointed out
the supreme court has held that the 14th amendment requires the individuals
rights take precedence over states’ rights where these two interests are
in conflict.Fourth, The dnews states that since the voters voted on
amendment three through an open process that gays and lesbians are not deprived
any rights. What if Utah decides that only Lds people can marry or White people
with blond hair can marry. Are other citizens rights not deprived in those
situations?The Dnews arguments are weak at best.
@mike Richards As you are wells aware the state constitution is not
the shrike law the federal continuations and if the state constitution violates
federal law it is unconstitutional. @ron Hilton As for the
social sciences the research dearly does not support your claims. In regards to
you claims about "militant gays" get back to me when they start forcing
religious people to be gay by use forced castration, forced lobotomies, shock
therapy, incarceration, institutionalization, and being rounded up and killed In
Gas chambers, all things done to gay people in the past 100 years by people that
used religion to justify their behavior until then you will pardon me if I do
not concern myself when your biggest complaints are tht others challenge your
thinking and you are not allowed to force others to live by your dictates.
Opponents of same-sex marriage argue with social, biological and religious
reasons. The problem is that they cannot come up with one single valid
constitutional argument. Even Scalia implied it is a losing battle as the 14th
Amendment forbids states to deny due process and equal protection under the law
for all citizens.
Equal Rights confirmed!
@spring street: I taught the Constitution to my high school students thru my
American History classes before the US Government classes came to be part of the
graduation requirements. I also have taken constitutional law classes to keep
abreast of current case law.i have not had the chance to read the decision yet,
just notes thru various media outlets to get somewhat of a broad view of the
opinions being expressed. With that said I am still puzzled as to
the decision of this district court, but then again, I am not puzzled. The
SCOTUS could have dealt with this with the DOMA decision. It didn't. Why?
Because they understood that this is a political nightmare. Their decision with
the DOMA case was constructed with fairly narrow (in looking back, especially
with this district court's latest opinion) constraints. SCOTUS will have to
deal with this now.
The fact that you could call this 'tyranny' indicates your
understanding of true tyranny is completely detached from the actual meaning of
the world. Frankly whether or not you agree with the ruling, tyranny is a
hyperbolic term of which this is definitely not tyrannical. Can you possibly
defend the tone you set by comparing this relatively benign act of jurisprudence
to actual tyranny? It's really an insult to all those in the world who do
suffer from definitional ACTUAL tyranny; cruelty, oppression, ruthlessness, etc.
I'll start taking D-News editorials arguments seriously when I start
seeing language that resembles reality. If you don't agree with the
judicial ruling give sound arguments, well meaning and informed, but don't
give me exaggerations and boogeymen.
Horrors! Now that a hated minority can create a family with the same protections
as mine, my betterness is threatened!
What people don't understand is that the govenrment is by, of, and for the
people, and marriage is a public label for a kind of relationship. Marriage is
just a publicly shared definition for the sexual union between a man and a
woman. What is so tyrannical about that? Civil unions offer the same tax
benefits, so the only possible benefit of taking the label "marriage" is
that of wanting to be the same. It's like trying to force the legal
definition of apples and oranges to both be "orange".
It wouldn't surprise me if those filing this lawsuit made use of the
judicial schedule allowing them in effect to choose which judge would hear this
@ Root Logic: Except the Utah State Constitution also prohibited civil
unions.@ Clarissa: The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were pride, greed,
slothfulness, and a lack of care for their neighbors. It had nothing to do with
homosexuality. Your comment actually does a very good job of illustrating the
sins which destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
I think I could support a Constitutional amendment along these lines (after
proper wordsmithing):Section 1: It is Constitutionally impermissible
to ban gay marriage.Section 2: No church shall be required to perform gay
marriages.I don't think it could happen, though. Five or ten
years ago, conservatives wouldn't have accepted a compromise because they
were riding high. Now that the tide has turned, I'm not sure gay marriage
proponents would accept it.
What legal rights does marriage provide which cannot be gained some other way?
@ the confusing state of mind and this article, we may get lost in the legal
woodsEveryone is picking a straw to make his case.Let us
redefine laws from scratch by using two approaches.One you may
choose to compare your findings with nature, Second you may compare with
historical cultures and traditions. Neither way will lead you to the truth.You may count on religion, or dictatorship or even democracy.Original
intent ? Going back in history you will get lost, going forward with logic, lost
again.That is where this LDS church comes in, it can explain
"difficult" creations.So I am glad we have so many people looking
for the truth.They believe in marriage and family, just need to get
better on explaining it.By the way what a "stupid" new word of the
month : "traditional marriage" ??Marriage will never change,
has never and is not now. We may create a new meaning in our mind, but that will
never change the original truth.If you do not know, go study it. I found
many sources to find truth, boundless sources.
Just another reason for State's Rights, as originally intended. The Civil
War need not been fought and 600,000 men and women killed if a State's
Right to make their own decisions wasn't abridged. the Federal Government
has limits placed on it for a reason. I have no problem with California
deciding to legalize bestiality, drug use, or anything else if the voice of the
people decides that is what it wants. As is the case with Gay marriage, let the
states decide the issue and a more civil society, peaceful, kind, and
responsible will be the result. This decision only divides the electorate even
more, which is good in away. Eventually those who call good evil and evil good
will have to live with their decisions, in each state, as the Constitution first
intended. This judge doesn't have any standing in the state of Utah and
ought to be sent back to Washington where he will feel more comfortable. The
cesspool is quite ready and able to accept him.
Someone claimed that same-sex marriage (SSM) does not affect my family, well:My children are being indoctrinated by society that anyone who opposes
SSM is a "hater", or "homophobe". They see that their parents
oppose SSM; they see that gays cannot marry in the temple, and are told to
believe that this is discrimination, thereby creating strife and confusion
within an otherwise close and loving family.According to the pro-gay
Williams Institute, 3x the percentage of Americans between the ages of 18-29
self-identify as gay compared to those over 65. Normalization of SSM increases
the chances that my children and their friends will also so self-identify.At my work, my views endanger my job. Consider the hostility in a
workplace where "silence" regarding LGBT rights "shall be
interpreted as disapproval". It's like living in Nazi Germany. If you
don't carry a copy of Mein Kampf, you must be a traitor.SSM
further weakens the meaning of marriage. Young people see it as such, making it
seem backwards and archaic. My kids are much less likely to enter into marriage
than those of my generation.So yes, it indeed is affecting me and my
I agree with BillyBob 100%. This is pure evil, plain and simple. The world
continues to shift the definitions of right and wrong. I will stand against it
no matter how many vile words are slung at me, because at the last day we will
stand before our maker and we will know who was right, and who was wrong.
I am all for civil rights for gays. There is a way provided in the constitution
to bring about change.Why is all the intolerance, character assassination and
arbitrary government run by elitist opinion necessary? Should PC causes trump
rule of law by the People?
Anyone that doesn't get their way in the courtroom most likely views it as
"judicial tyranny." Those who believe in the U.S Constitution call it
rarely agree with the articles and opinion from this media outlet, but here i
agree.the legislation from the bench and the tyrants in appointed
and often re -elected positions are a serious threat to the republic in which we
live.democracy is mob rule and in the opposite is judicial
dictatorship, both are dangerous. the extreme position of the .05 percent of any
given special interest in this case same sex are extreme to change the
definitions of equal and marriage.when the elected-appointed become
so engrained against the very majority that they serve...they need to be changed
out.there is a time for all things and we need a change in judicial
and executive branches of this government.the 99.5% are now being
tormented and oppressed by the extreme .05%
"Marriage is a civil contract. You might as well make a law to say how many
children a man shall have, as to make a law to say how many wives he shall have.
It would be as sensible to make a law to say how many horses or oxen he shall
possess, or how many cows his wife shall milk." —Brigham Young
An extremely well written article. I whole-heartedly agree. I'm convinced
that Utah is once again being persecuted by the federal government.True marriage = one man and one woman, and that is what Utah voters have
agreed upon. No "judge" can refute that.
“The Supreme Court has said that: Marriage is the most important relation
in life. Now that’s being withheld from the plaintiffs [gay couples
wishing to marry]. It is the foundation of society. It is essential to the
orderly pursuit of happiness. It’s a right of privacy older than the Bill
of Rights and older than our political parties. One of the liberties protected
by the Due Process Clause. A right of intimacy to the degree of being sacred.
And a liberty right equally available to a person in a homosexual relationship
as to heterosexual persons.” —Ted Olson
The collusion between Shelby and the officers of Salt Lake County to go against
the will of the people is disturbing. I can just see the fact that marriages
were performed in the wake of this ruling used to argue the upholding of the
ruling. This is not law, but disorder.
The will of the majority should never trump the law. If that had been the case,
Blacks would have never been allowed to marry whites. Even in early Mormon
history an angry populace wanted Mormons exterminated. That was the popular
voice of the time. So I guess they should have gone through with it? No!!
There are majority issues that are neither legal, moral or righteous.
Why is it that everytime a judge rules on an issue like this it is called
judicial activism. The job of our judiciary system is to be a shield for
minorities from the majority. We are not a MOB rule society. I am sure the
10th Circuit will agree as well. This case can certainly be fast tracked to the
SCOTUS where they will finally deliver a ruling to end this patchwork on
I think people who are surprised by this decision have misread Justice
Kennedy's ruling in June. While Kennedy cloaked his ruling in
"state's rights" he no more believed in states' rights than
the justices who handed down the Reynolds ruling believed that there was an
absolute right to belief. In the Reynolds case a few years later the Superme
Court, with some justices overlapping, upheld the right of Idaho to penalize
people for belief alone.In this case, all Kennedy's claims
about "state's rights" will be shown to be hallow rhetoric in
support of his single minded attempt to force his own brand of political will on
other people. The definition of marriage is an issue of public policy, and
should be decided by the legislative process, not by the judicial one.
What do you expect from an Obama appointed judge?Sick and
wrong...unless you're gay.
@spring street (and others): Yes, amendment 3 states that "No other domestic
union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or
substantially equivalent legal effect." What it does not say is that civil
unions are illegal. But the gay community doesn't seem to care about that.
Several recent polls show that a majority of Utahns are in favor of instituting
civil unions such as Colorado did. Again, the gay community isn't jumping
to push that over the edge. Instead they specifically target marriage under the
guise of rights.Every license recognized by the state is defined as
a privilege that can be revoked at any time for GOOD reason (drivers, liquor,
business, legal...). Yes, even marriage in the instance of bigamy or divorce.
And if the state can create criteria for getting licenses based on
discrimination factors (age, nationality, medical, education...), why can't
marriage be one too? Using that, there are no rights being violated by not
having a license. Does it make sense for a skilled 12 year old driver to sue
for being limited by age? Why should sexual orientation be treated differently?
It is outrageous that one person can overrule the vote of the majority. I agree
totally with the editorial.
@ Contrariusier:You failed to address the second example of my
argument - public exposure. Where is the measurable harm in an individual
expressing himself in such a manner?If harm is truly the
distinguishing feature governing what personal tendencies should be legal and
which should not how do you measure harm?Society makes judgment
calls all the time as to what is right and what is wrong - indeed that is the
basis of most if not all laws. When such laws trample upon constitutional
protected freedoms those laws are struck down. Last I checked neither the
constitution nor the Supreme Court have said that marriage between two
individuals of the same sex is a fundamental right. The proper mechanism for
altering the constitution is by way of amendment not a judge or judges sitting
on a bench.
@archemeedees"Civil unions offer the same tax benefits"Amendment 3 banned civil unions too.@Jaime Lee Bonberger"They see that their parents oppose SSM; they see that gays cannot marry
in the temple, and are told to believe that this is discrimination, thereby
creating strife and confusion within an otherwise close and loving
family."Oh well okay I guess we should limit civil rights
because it might lead to an awkward conversation in your family..."SSM further weakens the meaning of marriage."You're
the ones explicitly trying to stop marriages...@John Pack Lambert of
Michigan"The collusion between Shelby and the officers of Salt Lake
County to go against the will of the people is disturbing."The
will of the people should always be overridden when it is unconstitutional.
The entire defense of the amendment was a copy and paste explanation that
marriage is for procreation. Except for the fact that a first year law student
would have known that Utah allows first cousins to marry specifically if they
-cannot- procreation. Their entire defense has absolutely no basis after that.
Anyone who understood the case knew it was going to fall after that. The foot stomping and calls of "activist judges" clearly illustrate
the definition of that phrase merely to mean "judges who make decisions you
Oh crap!!! My heterosexual marriage is now going to fall apart! What to do? I find the DN choice of words "judicial tyranny" very
interesting. Feels much like hyperbole for a "legal decision we don't
agree with." All Judge Shelby pointed out was that the State of Utah had
failed to prove that allowing individuals of the same sex to marry would damage
heterosexual marriage. I noticed that the sun came up this morning
and I imagine that it will again tomorrow.
"It is outrageous that one person can overrule the vote of the
majority."Yes! Don't you just love the audacity of the
Founders in establishing this "outrageous" nation, conceived in liberty
and dedicated to the proposition that ALL men are created equal!?God, continue to bless America!Congratulations to my fellow
citizens of Utah on their achievement of justice and fairness. Merry Christmas
to ALL, and to ALL equal rights.
There's almost nothing now that a judge can't "justify" under
the 14th Amendment. Too bad the 9th and 10th Amendments aren't as
If a heterosexual has a right, then a homosexual should have that right as well.
It's as Christian as the Golden Rule. However, what Judge
Shelby did is unconstitutional. He is correct in that the law should
mandate equal protection as set forth in the 14th Amendment. However, he is wrong in that the law must also abide the 1st Amendment which
says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."The religious practice
of marriage predates the founding of the United States by thousands of years.
Consequently, what marriage is or isn't is not up to a judge,
the government or even the voters. They have as much right to dictate marriage
as they do telling worshipers what to wear to church. To meet the
requirements of BOTH the 1st and 14th Amendments, CIVIL UNIONS must be
established. Civil Unions would extend 14th Amendment protections to all
couples, while preserving the free exercise of religion regarding marriage. We don't have to trample one group to please another. Give those of faith back their freedom of religion, and give those who
can't marry all rights under the law.
My take of the Editors' opinions: Weak at law, incomplete analysis, lacks
compassion.Judge Shelby did nothing more than recognize that at a basic
level, our National Constitution does not allow the government to decide who we
marry.1. The will of the majority of Utahns opinions is irrelevant
if it is unconstitutional. Thus, asking Shelby to consider Utahns will on a
constitutional question is inappropriate. The editorial board should know this.
Relying on such an argument reeks of ignorance.2. Shelby did not ignore
judicial precedent, but relied upon it. What irks the editorial board is that
Shelby minimized or distinguished the cases that support their desired outcome,
and emphasized those that didn't. That is called lawyering. Making tough
decisions is called being a judge. I promise you Judge Shelby gave this more
objective thought than the Deseret News Editorial board. (Note: Shelby's
job does not rely upon supporting the LDS church's views.) 3. The
editorial flippantly says Scalia's dissent cannot be used as precedent. Any
first year law student may correct them. Dissents are frequently relied upon.
Most famously by Justice Traynor in Dillon v. Legg.
4. The Editors should hesitate before citing "millennia" of any certain
beliefs or practice when trying to appeal to American ideals or jurisprudence.
Since our Founding Fathers began this "Great American Experiment" to
distance the New World from millennia of error and ignorance perpetuated in the
Old World.5. Conspicuously absent from the editorial was a mention of why
the government ever became interested in 'defining" marriage anyway: To
Stop Those Darned polygamists in the Territory of Deseret. Remember
Woodruff's admonition about who bore the brunt of that error, those using
the government to suppress Mormons' peculiar practice.
I guess Mike Lee just didn't see it coming.
Sin is sin, and the LGBT folks are not going to change that. There will be no
lasting happiness from this ruling, only misery. It does not lend to the
pursuit of true happiness.
re Jaime Lee BonbergerHouston, TXYou say gay marriage is
harming your marriage? I don't believe it. If you are having problems in
your marriage, I suggest you turn your attention from politics and devote it to
being a good husband to your wife.
Sorry, Deseret News, but judicial tyranny doesn't occur simply because you
don't like a court's ruling. There is plenty of precedent on this
issue. The will of the majority does not have title to trample on Constitutional
Citizens United is Judicial Tyranny...Secret Judges approving NSA spying
on U.S. Citizens is Judicial Tyranny...This ruling is simply making
citizens equal under the law.
If you discarded the topic from this discussion (i.e. SSM)you would be left with
a judge who overruled the state vote of their residents AND ruled against the
Supreme Court portion of this decision which said that their ruling did NOT
overrule the decision of the states. Also, I disregard "polls" because
they typically only include a tiny percentage of the population. In my 63 3/4
years I've been contacted once for a poll on any topic. On
this specific topic, look at the number of states who have voted on this issue
and sided with tradition and against SSM.
@jamie lee So you are going to compare your experience of not being
able to spread your views about theLGBT community at work with nazi Germany
were thousands of LGBT will rounded up and killed?
I've been married for five years. Just because I got married didn't
mean that my husband magically gained the ability to visit me in the hospital,
make medical decisions for me if I am incapable, etc. In the state of Utah, I
still have to sign paperwork to give him that right, even though we are married.
So the argument that gays don't have the right to life insurance, medical
decisions, etc. doesn't work for me in this state. I'm heterosexual
and I have still had to put all those things in writing for my husband and he
has had to do so for me. But I still see a lot of people making that argument.
If that was really a valid reason for legalizing gay marriage- then why are
there so many straight couples that choose to remain unmarried? I don't
hear them complaining about this being a problem- so I just have to wonder- is
it really that much of an issue as far as being denied hospital visits and such?
On November 30, 2011, President Obama nominated Robert J. Shelby to be District
Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Does this
contradict several claims that he was appointed by George Bush?And, the
purpose and context of the 14th amendment was to protect the fledgling freedoms
of the newly enfranchised former slaves from states that would surely pass state
laws to "trump" or restrict those freedoms. Do purpose and context not
come into play when interpreting the constitution? I seriously doubt the
authors, supporters, or ratifiers of the amendment were acting to protect the
right of same sex marriage. Some of the language of the judge's decision
nullifying the Utah law leans on the 14th amendment. I'm not saying a good
argument for same sex marriage does not exist. I am questioning whether the 14th
amendment is the basis for a sound argument. If so, the amendment could be used
as an argument for almost anything.
@Matthew1voice --"Where is the measurable harm in an individual
expressing himself in such a manner?"This one's more
nebulous. And the crime is less serious, as well. For more legal
info on the concept, try Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. from 1991."Last I checked neither the constitution nor the Supreme Court have said
that marriage between two individuals of the same sex is a fundamental right.
"The Supreme Court has reaffirmed many times that marriage is a
fundamental civil right.Loving v. Virginia stated "Marriage is
one of the 'basic civil rights of man'..."Zablocki v.
Redhail stated "the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all
individuals"Skinner v. Oklahoma stated that a person, being cut off
from "marriage and procreation," would be "forever deprived of a
basic liberty."Turner v. Safley invalidated a prohibition on marriages
by prison inmates under privacy rightsMeyer v. Nebraska stated that the
liberty protected by the 14th Amendment "without doubt…denotes not
merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to ...
marry, establish a home and bring up children..."These decisions
have spanned over 100 years, and have involved many different panels of
Judge Shelby:"The State has presented no evidence that the
number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be
affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it
defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish
the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried
counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of
committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual
love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and
responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what
the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex
couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a
norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship."
TroubleVancouver, WA"I'm trying to reconcile the
judge's opinion with the Proclamation on the Family's encouragement to
responsible citizens and leaders of government to protect the traditional
definition of marriage. A judge who can't follow such simple directions
probably shouldn't be on the bench."Oh, my goodness
gracious to heaven!A judge who cannot follow the "Proclamation
on the Family" should not be a Federal Judge?When did the USA become
the United Saints of America? I was not aware that your church purchased the
Federal Government and the other 49 States? Was I sleeping?There are
a lot of catholics in the USA -- should we get rid of all the Federal judges who
do not follow the pope?The judge followed a very simple and direct
path--- not being allowed to marry who you love means you miss over 1100
Federal benefits.You do have to like it, your church does not have
to practice it, but it is fair and American to have equality
@ where is JeffersonThe Founding Fathers have lot to say, and
Jefferson said this:"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent
and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections
had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to
them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also,
that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human
mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are
made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of
circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We
might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy,
as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous
ancestors." ---Thomas Jefferson
nweb, actually, yes, when you got married you and your husband did indeed get
all those rights automatically. The paperwork you claimed to fill out would have
been redundant. In the absence of that paper work, your husband would be the
default. In fact, in many states, if someone other than the spouse is named as a
beneficiary on a life insurance policy, that spouse must sign a notarized
affidavit saying they recognize that.
Of course, the is what conservatives have referred to as judicial activism each
time a decision has been handed down that they didn't like. I don't
think the LDS Church is trying to impose its will on the citizenry at large, but
sometimes where a majority beliefcontrols many political decisions, courts
must step in when constitutional principles are violated. If not then all are
subject to the tyranny of the majority.The judges and others are
simply enforcing the full faith and credit clause of the US document and the
14th amendment. That the government has coopted "marriage" for its
civil unions must be ignored when interpreting the constitution involving
interstate movement. This way Utah also must honor laws of other states about
this, as well as offer the same protections to all Utahns. The LDS
wants equal protection or why would it have advocate for equal benefits in the
city and county? Just don't CALL it marriage for ANYONE but those who
choose to marry in church where what they do cannot be restricted by the first
ThinksIThinkSEATTLE, WA"I think the editorial board and many
other institutions will look back in ten years at their statements today
regarding gay marriage and be embarrassed."Actually, I was
shocked out of my chair to read it -- I can think of one of the older leaders of
the lds who talks that way sometimes, but I think of most lds as more
moderate.I am sorry, but it came across like the stuff that the
Australian meddler, Rupert Murdoch, instructs his people at Fox News to say --
slanted, unfair, old fashioned, and combative.It's very
simple:A judge did not decide to make a law, he just ruled on a suit
brought before him.As nearly every other judge has, he ruled that it was
unconstitutional to not allow marriage equality, especially given that marriage
conveys many rights and a better status.How about an editorial
asking "How can the prophet get better information from God on ways to treat
lds members and/or their children who are Gay equally, not as if crippled?"
Excellent OP-ED Deseret News. Thank you for bringing light to the issue.
For those of you against gay marriage, take this advice to heart. Pro-gay
supporters will not recognize damage done to traditional marriage unless the
damage results in death, disfigurement, torture, beatings, bruisings,
lacerations, abuse, theft, property damage or severe social tribulations due to
persecutions or defamation. Everything else is intangible and therefore
unquantifiable, so it means nothing to them even though it is very real and
damaging to us. Also, don't quote the US constitution or great
figures in history. Things will be taken out of context and disfigured to go
against you. Also, don't use religion. Other religions have
changed their views on homosexuality in recent times and we're expected to
do the same, since it's apparently "progressive". Let
the legal experts handle this. He who lives by the law, dies by the law. We have
bigger problems to worry about like being prepared for the natural disasters,
invasion and warfare prophesied. Once we live through that, we can battle gay
marriage, should it still be a topic of discussion. I think we'll be safe.
So oldcougar "Do purpose and context not come into play when interpreting
the constitution? " So we should follow to the letter what the
founding fathers said in the 1780's but not what was said in the
Let me get this straight --- judges who overstep their bounds... but Churches
that don't?It goes both ways.
In the United States, the majority rules. The only time this majority rule is
challenged is when it impedes on the rights of the minority. Take a look at
Brown v The Board of Education. I'm sure most of you won't because
it's too convenient to turn the other cheek and perpetuate ignorance; but
this case overturned a number of state constitutional amendments that required
"separate but equal" facilities for whites and blacks. If a judge
hadn't stood up and ruled in favor of the minority, these facilities would
still be in existence today.This is how the system works.Furthermore, a bench trial (one without a jury) is almost ALWAYS used in these
types of cases. Again, see Brown v The Board of Education.Thomas
Jefferson said: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that
though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be
rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights,
which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."
RootLogicLehi, UT".... Pro-gay supporters will not recognize
damage done to traditional marriage unless the damage results in death,
disfigurement, torture, beatings, bruisings, lacerations, abuse, theft, property
damage or severe social tribulations due to persecutions or defamation.
Everything else is intangible and therefore unquantifiable, so it means nothing
to them even though it is very real and damaging to us."....
Please root out to me the logic of that --- I guess I interpret your
"intangible damage" as the end of an era when you could pretend that the
mormon way was the only right way for all people, and not have to think that
others may have rights, even when their rights do not jibe with lds
directives.This sort of seems like a bigger version of being crushed
because the manufacturer stopped making the socks you like -- an enormous
hoopla over nothing that pertains to you.The part about death,
disfigurement, etc seems kind of petty, seeing that many of us feel that the lds
blocking of Gay rights, including in California, contributed to the bullying and
even suicides of Gay teenagers.I think God is less troubled by
"hurt" mormons than by damaged or dead kids.
@ Contrariusier:The harm is certainly nebulous and I am familiar
with Barnes although I need to review it. On matters that are by their very
nature ambiguous and absent from the constitution I would rather have a society
determine by vote the resolution rather than one judge or at best nine. The
constitution does protect minority rights against the tyranny of the majority
and it should but that does not mean whatever the minority wants is protected.
The rights offered of protective significance are clearly laid out in the
constitution. Those rights have been altered by court decisions throughout the
past 200 years and not always in the expansive form. Economic liberties have
deteriorated significantly. Interestingly, minority rights in that realm are
trampled over by the majority all the time and such is now regarded as perfectly
permissible.You are correct with respect to the court doctrines on
the fundamental right of marriage. However, in more than one of the opinions
you have quoted a key aspect was the right of the couple to procreate -
something impossible for homosexuals. And marriage in those cases always
referred to the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one
You can't build shelves in your garage without an environmental impact
statement, it seems, but you can rip apart the fabric of thousands of years of
social and family structure and mock the cherished belief of millions of
intelligent people who believe (as they are entitled to do) that there is a
God-given plan for mankind. Why? Because it sounds noble, fair, just and
equitable. And as we all know, anything that sounds noble, fair, just, and
equitable cannot possibly do any harm. To the person that said we would be
embarrassed by our comments in 10 years. Perhaps, but in a generation most will
wonder what they were thinking. Still, I'm sure the do-gooders will find
some other cause to blame for the consequences of actions taken without any real
consideration of their long-term impact and against the will of a vast majority.
@Bob KThe point is that federal judges are required to follow
instructions. The Proclamation on the Family is directed at leaders of
government and so is relevant as instruction. One may choose to disregard it,
but it is done at one's peril. It is apparent that he has chosen to ignore
it and I'm just saying that if he can't follow the simple instructions
given in the Proclamation on the Family, how can we be confident that he will
follow other instructions vital to the exercise of his duties as a judge? By
setting it aside he doesn't instill a lot of confidence in the citizens who
rely on his judgment.
I don't agree with the decision, but this is pretty much how it's
supposed to work. The judge over-ruled the people, but the judge thought he
was defending the minority from tyranny of the majority. That's what they
are supposed to do. When the majority wants something that's not
legal.I haven't read any of the comments yet, but I hope we
aren't getting people who were insisting "We are a country of
Majority-Rules", and, "The majority SHOULD be able to get whatever they
want", back when Democrats voted in the Atomic Option (making it easier for
the majority to get whatever they want).There are and should be
rules that keep the majority from just voting for whatever they want even if it
tramples the minority. Judicial review is one of them. The filibuster was
another.It's not always good to have pure
"majority-rules". Sometimes the majority wants to do something
that's not completely legal, or tramples on the minority.
I hope the Deseret News editorial board counts the number of "likes"
from those in support of the judge's decision, as compared to the number of
people who "Like' the editorial that disagrees with the judge's
decision. As the very first comment on this editorial predicts - you will look
back on this editorial with a high level of embarrassment in the future. It is
honorable to champion a cause, but it is more honorable to champion a cause that
"Federal judges are required to follow instructions"[of the church] The
Proclamation on the Family is a RELIGIOUS document, The Judge is to verify that
the Tyranny of the Majority is avoided by ensuring that laws passed by popular
vote do not violate the Constitution. Especially when popular vote deprives the
minority of their rights.
@Matthew1voice --" On matters that are by their very nature
ambiguous and absent from the constitution I would rather have a society
determine by vote the resolution"Gay marriage is not
ambiguous."The constitution does protect minority rights against
the tyranny of the majority and it should but that does not mean whatever the
minority wants is protected."Nope, but it does mean that the
Constitution prevails."The rights offered of protective
significance are clearly laid out in the constitution."You are
forgetting the unenumerated rights, of which marriage is clearly one."in more than one of the opinions you have quoted a key aspect was the
right of the couple to procreate"And in more than one of the
opinions, the ability to procreate was completely irrelevant -- as with, for
instance, convicted felons with no visitation rights.Gay couples
procreate in the very same ways as any other infertile couples do. As multiple
courts (including Shelby) have already noted, procreation is not a valid
argument against gay marriage.
There is a lot of consternation that a federal judge would rule the way he
ruled. I just read his opinion, however, and found it extraordinarily
well-reasoned.Judges must rule based on the facts presented to them.
There are bound to be decisions that many people don't like because they
wanted the outcome to be otherwise.Rather than simply criticize a
judge who ruled in a way you don't like, I wonder if some of you who
disagree with his opinion could point to specifics in his opinion that are
wrongly argued.That would be a lot more meaningful than simply
chastising a judge because he found the argument of the plaintiffs more
convincing than that of the state of Utah.Thanks.
I now feel that my rights have just been violated. I voted for Amendment 3 and
was pleased that my voice was heard and my rights upheld. This unelected Judge,
who I'm guessing took his marching orders from the White House, stomped all
over me. No wonder the state that he's from is called WisconSIN.The slippery slope has begun. Let's see if the 10th Circuit and the
Supremes grow a pair and shoot this one down faster than a Zero at the Great
Marianas Turkey Shoot.
@Really???Kearns, UT"Imagine if the laws had been
reversed, and you were only allowed to marry somebody of the same sex. How would
you feel about that law? Would you accept it and just go along with it? I
don't think so."Well, the answer is pretty easy - You and I
wouldn't be here - you to ask the question and me to tell you how I
feel.Congratulations, though. You have just provided the most basic
argument against SSM!!
Your editorial stance is no surprise but completely out of step with the times.
Society moves on and in doing so, will leave you behind.
Is the Constitution and our system of government perfect? No, far from it!It is a contrivance of man. Good intentions, yes. And, there are those
who will use it to rationalize and justify beliefs and actions that conflict
with laws of a higher order, a perfect and just system. It is counterfeit and in
many ways subversive to the iron rod.I do know this: The day will
come when each of us will stand before our maker to have an honest conversation,
an accounting of our lives. I am far from perfect, but I personally look forward
to that day. I hope to avoid the need to say things like "...but I was
within the law" or "...but the judge said it was ok" or something
along those lines.
@LinguistSilver Spring, MD"Rather than simply criticize a
judge who ruled in a way you don't like, I wonder if some of you who
disagree with his opinion could point to specifics in his opinion that are
wrongly argued.That would be a lot more meaningful than simply
chastising a judge because he found the argument of the plaintiffs more
convincing than that of the state of Utah."Glad you took the
time to read the ruling. ..and even took the time to post a comment. Apparently,
however, you haven't taken the time to read the article and the dozens of
well articulated points made in these, the comments section, before requesting
specifics of the judge's opinion wrongly argued. They are there in
abundance. Sit back and enjoy.
Most people here are perhaps realizing what is happening and it's a good
thing. The revolution was fought, people died, and new heroes were made. The
gays have pushed more people to recognize that this is a war that will force
everyone to take sides, for liberty and righteousness, or tyranny and evil. For
those who thought it was just going to be a taffy pull better put there boot
straps on and enjoy the ride. If there ever was one issue in which to force
public officials to start governing with courage it is now. There is no middle
ground here. You are either for God and His principles or you are against Him.
For your children, America's future, and for a decent and productive
society, it is time to get involved.
DanO- You can say that all you want- but I know what I signed. I know what I had
medical staff telling me- that just saying I am okay with my husband making
medical decisions for me is not enough- I have had to sign that right to him
every time I have gone to the hospital or seen a new doctor. They have told me
that if I don't sign that paperwork, they cannot pass on any medical
information about me.Can't post the link, but there is this
article: Providing Spouses with the Power to Make Healthcare Decisions. Type
that into Google and it brings it up.That does say that being
married does not give a spouse automatic power to make medical decisions. Maybe
I'm crazy- but I am going to trust what the hospital personnel is telling
me what their policies are over someone on the internet that I don't know.
And once again- if this is really such a big deal, what goes on with all those
straight couples that are unmarried and having children together?
Editorial board after reading your opinion piece threetimes I believe it
is spot on. Accurate & honest in the analysisof a judicial activist
judge.I took the time toread the posters & believe it is heavily
skewed.Those supporting gay & lesbian marriageover represented.
They seemed highly motivated much like a child on Christmas Morning. I
believe 70%of Utah voters believe in traditional marriageThe exact
opposite of what this group of posterswould indicate.
Now isn't this special; an activist judge has decided to rule against the
will of the people.Marriage has historically been the union of man
and woman, not man and man, nor woman and woman. Through the marriage covenant
of one man and one woman, procreation and the family unit were established. Hate
to break the news to some, but this does not prove how evolved we're
becoming as a society, but rather how depraved we're becoming. When a
society embraces this perversion (sodomy), and even celebrates it, its moral
foundation is rotting away. God has made his views on this depraved act known
in His Word:Lev 18:22Rom 1:26-271 Cor 6:91 Tim
1:8-11Jude 1:6-7Mark 10:6-7This judge may have handed
down this ruling, but it doesn't make this perversion good or normal in our
society. If our legal system can grant two men whose relationship is defined by
sodomy, the title of a marriage, the ultimate perversion in nature, then
anything other type of relationship, not matter how perverse will also be given
acceptance. The die will have been cast.God is not mocked.
This judge needs to be recalled. Overturning a legal amendment to the Utah
constitution is absolute tyranny.
In my opinion, this is not an issue of whether same-sex marriage is morally
acceptable or not. The issue is a judge overstepped the bounds that are in
place. And now as a result, there are same-sex couples, waiting in limbo, who
don't know if they'll be able to marry or not. Had the proper judicial
procedure been followed, the chaotic nature of this ordeal could've been
averted. Whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry should be up
to the state legislature. Those are elected officials citizens voted in. A judge
The Governor and the State Legislature should tell this judge we will not comply
with his tyrannical judgment. They should stop all gay marriages in the State
immediately. If we don't stand to this abuse and the usurpation of power
not granted to the judiciary, we'll end up being slaves of the US
Government. Striking down legal statutes passed by the good people of Utah and
making rulings from the bench are very wrong and must not be allowed! We must
tell them to stay out of our business!
The nation George Washington governed recognized Martha as his wife, but their
marriage would be illegal in the nation Barack Obama governs.For the
first 147 years of our country's existence, America respected the 1st
Amendment and left marriage to churches and individual states.Then
in 1923 the Federal Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act prompted states to
require government issued marriage licenses.Sorry, Mr. "Father
of Our Country," no government license, no marriage.So why is
the government involved with marriage? Money. Income taxes (16th
Amendment, ratified in 1913) differentiate between single Americans and married
couples.Likewise, the Norris Laguardia Act of 1932 gave power to
organized labor, leading to employer benefits which likewise treat married
people differently.Money caused government to define marriage, and
as the great philosopher, Ringo Starr, once said, "Everything the government
touches turns to crap."I agree that all government and employer
benefits should be available to all couples.But the inconvenient
truth is that marriage is a religious rite, not a government right. Just ask
George and Martha.I'm sorry but disliking the term "civil
union" doesn't grant people the right to selfishly trample the rights
@ FlashbackWhat if the majority of people in Utah voted to reinstall
slavery? Obviously it would be (quickly) struck down by a federal judge. The
Constitution trumps the electorate every time. We should be celebrating the
expansion of freedoms and the fact that the Constitution did exactly what it was
designed to do. Protect our rights. You still have the right to
vote, but you don't have to right to stop another person from marrying who
they want, so long as that other person is a consenting adult who is willing to
sign a marriage contract.
@ bradleycThe amendment to the Utah constitution was not legal,
hence the reason it was struck down. Ironically, forcing your view upon
everybody else (voting for amendment 3) when they may not believe the same
things you do, and despite the fact that it does not affect you in any way, well
that is Tyranny.
I get a giggle about how conservatives yammer on about how much they love the
Constitution. And then, when the Constitution goes against their religiously
biased world view and protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority, as
intended, they scream activism!Social issues will keep the
Republican Party down for quite a while. Every generation throughout history has
become more liberal than the one before.
So, this judge has unwittingly desolved Utah's constitution. Bienvenido a
Schwa,Amen.That is because religionists have been
well-known for their hypocrisy for generations!Why should they
"...that there are prudential reasons for moving cautiously when adjusting
the marital norms that have served society for millennia."Marital norms have not been the same for a millennia, let alone 100 years.
Married women were literally the property of the husband when our country was
first founded. They couldn't own property. They couldn't have credit
in their own name. Marriage was not a partnership of equals like it is today.
No-fault divorce and interracial marriage have only been around for about 50
years.The judge also shot down that argument in his ruling. Saying
that laws would never change if lawyers could simply argue that "We just
don't know what will happen if we change the law." All civil rights
issues would never happen otherwise: the end of slavery, woman's right to
@NT"Well, the answer is pretty easy - You and I wouldn't be
here - you to ask the question and me to tell you how I feel."Congratulations on your ability to avoid the real question. I believe we would
still be here. You see, people still find ways to procreate outside the bonds of
matrimony. Just think of how many children are born to single mothers. Infertile
couples are able to make arrangements to have add children their families.
Unfaithful spouses have also brought children into our communities. People continue to say that we had the same rights as everyone else--to marry
somebody of the opposite gender. Well, the way to determine whether or not that
is a fair and equal right is to reverse roles and see if that situation would be
fair. Would you think it was fair if the law were changed and everyone were to
marry somebody of the same gender--regardless of orientation?
The judge did not create any new laws defining marriage, he merely deemed the
new law that was created in 2004 to define marriage was unconstitutional.
Interesting, don't you think?
I am surprised to read arguments by "traditionalists" against calling
marriage a 'right'.Intuitively, don't you feel you
have the "right' to marry the person of your choice? If not, why
not?The best legal minds in the country have repeatedly agreed that
marriage IS a 'right'.Indeed, from the founding of the
country it has been a principle of the Constitution that 'rights'
inhere in each individual, and cannot be granted by the Constitution or the
Government - rights can only be protected by law. As such, each individual has
an inherent set of "un-enumerated rights", including the right to marry
the consenting person of their choice, and the Bill of RIGHTS clearly states:"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."In other words, just because marriage is not 'enumerated' in the
Constitution or its amendments does not mean individuals do not have it as a
'right'. By contrast, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention
specific "(licensed) privileges", much less marriage as one of these.So, you are just plain wrong.
Everyone here is talking about God. Let me be clear: I
do not care what your God thinks. Your religion stops at yourself.
And does NOT start at another person. Is that clear? The
constitution is in place to prevent this type of theocratic based arguments
because at some point: Someone else's God will contradict what your God
says. What then? Instead of promoted a tyrannical
theocracy, we have the constitution. Promoting inalienable rights of American
citizens. Gay people pay taxes, serve in our military to protect the
very rights some claim are being 'violated'. And yet in 2013 years of
history, no god-fearing member of the community has any factual evidence that
their lives are being effected one iota from gay marriage. Not
one. For those who claim to follow Gods teachings, what did God say
about bearing false witness? Your God is fine. No one's rights
are being violated. But LGBT Americans factually DO pay more taxes and get less
legal protections than the 1,100+ rights afforded straight Americans in
marriage. Do not legislate from your beliefs. Leave it to free
agency. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have
Why are so many people so upset about something that impacts them not in the
slightest? Unless you were previously forbidden from marrying the person you
love, you life is no different than it was on Friday morning. Absolutely
nothing has changed for you. Be happy that others now have the same rights as
Sounds like the 66% Utah majority has spoken. Utah doesn't want to be part
of the Union anymore - once again. Beating a dead horse may bear repeating in
this case, and I apologize to the educated for sounding unbearably trite: Our
United States was founded on a secular premise, to avoid the blood-soaked mayhem
Europe went through during the Inquisition and the exhausting religious wars
associated with it. Do some fact-checking on the decidedly agnostic stance of
our founding fathers! Mob rule has been a particular concern to them, when
designing our Republic. So, Utah, decide - once again - are you ready for giving
unto Caesar what is Caesar's or do you want out?! You can't have it
@silverbear: How exactly does granting equal rights to a group which you
obviously hate, although you didn't have the courage to say why, harm you
in any way, shape or form?
A Federal Constitutional Amendment banning marriage equality isn't going to
happen. Do the math:There are 50 States.17
have marriage equality.That leaves 33 that don't.An
Amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and
three-fourths of State legislatures.Three-fourths of the States is
37.It's HIGHLY doubtful that a State which HAS marriage
equality is going to vote for an Amendment which RESCINDS marriage equality.Therefore, the vote for an Amendment rescinding marriage equality (37
States required) CANNOT happen. 33 States currently don't have
marriage equality; lawsuits are pending in many of those States. It's
likely that there will be even fewer in short order, if indeed the US Supreme
Court doesn't rule ALL marriage inequality laws are unconstitutional.
RootLogic in Lehi, UT wrote: "Yes, amendment 3 states that "No other
domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given
the same or substantially equivalent legal effect." What it does not say is
that civil unions are illegal."That simply isn't true. You
don't have to be a lawyer to understand that civil unions or even domestic
partnerships are the "substantial equivalent" to marriage. Most
discriminatory state amendments that ban same-sex marriage also ban ANY legal
recognition for gay relationships. Utah is no different. When the people of Utah
voted for Amendment 3, they made it perfectly clear that they didn't want
gay people to have any legal protections for their relationships. Honestly,
I'm flabbergasted that you'd try to make a claim that is so patently
Lev 18:22Rom 1:26-271 Cor 6:91 Tim 1:8-11Jude 1:6-7Mark 10:6-7are not admissible in a US court of law. See the First
Amendment for details.
I agree 100 percent with your editorial comment. This goes well beyond the topic
at hand. It is truly over reaching for one person to declare what is
constitutional or not constitutional for an entire state.
@ gmk17of TXNo it's not. Declaring what is constitutional or
not is literally the purpose of the judicial branch.....
Scalia's dissent is relevant because it sets out the INEVITABLE result IF a
case about national recognition of SSM gets to the Court. Windsor did not
address the right question, as it wasn't about the fundamental right to
marry and the unconstitutionality of discrimination. It was about DOMA, and
only one section of DOMA. Had it been about the other section, that would have
As conservative should be well aware, the United States is NOT a democracy, it
is a constitutional republic. Our founding fathers created it that way to
protect the natural rights of all individuals. States have the right to create
their own rules of law, but are bound by the US constitution. Meaning if a state
law violates the constitution it is invalid. The argument that this
judge is an "unelected" official is totally wrong and invalid. In our
republic, we elect representatives whom we allow to choose and vote on our
behalf. The state of Utah elected Senators Hatch and Lee, and they recommended
this judge. So yes, Utah, you DID effectively elect this Judge Shelby, because
you elected someone to represent you who that choose him. There is no
'tyrannical overreach' here. If you are unhappy about it, then you
should be questioning your senators, NOT the judge. I am full
agreement with this ruling. Banning any individual from a legal status IS
unconstitutional. I hope this sets a precedent for the entire nation.
"Baker v. Nelson" was decided over 40 years ago and should not be used
to defend the discrimination of gays today. That case was decided in 1971 when
segregation was still legal. If anything, Baker v Nelson is a shining example of
what happens when you allow the majority rule to squash the rights of a minority
YAY FOR DESERET NEWS COMMENTARY! I was beginning to wonder about you folks, but
you have restored my faith--for now--that you still have some common sense in
the world of liberal journalism! NO judge should EVER have that much power!!!
What is interesting is the "Lefts" emergency like dumping of democratic
processes and institutions. This action by a judge, based on Summary Judgement
no less, is little different than President Obama simply "waiving" the
law where he doesn't like it. We have long since stopped by a
Republic. And with the past 18 months in the rear view mirror, with many similar
actions such as this judge's ruling, we are no longer a democracy. Even
President Carter made such a comment (not on this subject, though the broader
abuse of the police state, etc.)If Utah's Constitution is to be
gutted there is a process. If not, we are simply governed by the whims of men.
If supporters of gay rights feel oppressed by the absence of the right to marry,
you can only image how much worse it will be for all by setting this clearly
undemocratic precedent.Laws matter. And how laws change also
matters. Lenin gave us 'the end justifies the means.'
"Sounds like the 66% Utah majority has spoken. Utah doesn't want to be
part of the Union anymore - once again."We all know what they
obnoxiously tell the haters--"If you don't like Utah, leave it."
Maybe they should follow their own advice.
@JMT: This is the process. Judges evaluate the Constitutionality of laws.
We'll see what the appellate courts do.
Apparently one's morals are supposed to be guided by majority opinion. So
if I decide some behaviour is bad for our society, and 50.1 percent of others
disagree, then I am to move lockstep into the other camp.
This editorial is based on something other than the law. The judge acted within
his authority and based on the law and prior cases. You just don't like
the outcome. This is a problem of religion wanting to have its precepts enforced
by civil law. The law says otherwise. As much as I don't personally
relate to homosexual attraction, I do recognize equality under the law and the
Constitution. Like it or not, we saw the train pulling out of the station a
while ago, yet you refused to accept the fait accompli. Now what? You can rant
and rave all you like, but life will go on. You may exercise your religious
beliefs, but you have one less way to compel others to live by those religious
beliefs. Frankly, this editorial is dead wrong, hysterical and way over the
So when you read the article you realize it WASN'T a single judge. It was
based on the Supreme Courts DOMA ruling. That's 10 judges.
I just wish we as a community and a nation could focus on what is important,
that is, education, health care, maldistribution of wealth, rather than fear
issues created by people who wish to divide. Love does not limit itself to
gender, but as Christ said, it is a virtue we should always practice to others.
Be at peace.
We have all been given a front row seat allowing us a close up view of our
society coming unraveled. I think this is only the beginning. Fasten your
spiritual seat belts and hang on. We are in for quite a ride.It's amazing to listen to the silver tongued, smooth, silky arguments
offered by those who favor debauchery in our society. Their arguments are smooth
to the ear but deep in my heart I know they are wrong and born of evil.We are not slouching towards Gomorrah anymore, we are sliding at breath taking
I believe in traditional marriage. But if you are going to open up to non
traditional marriage, then in fairness you have to open up to all types of non
traditional marriage. If you can marry anybody you like regardless of sex, then
you should also be able to marry anybody you like regardless of how many other
people like that same person. So opening up to gay marriage should also open the
gate to polygamy. It's consenting adults. Whose right is it to judge one
group and not another?
I was under the impression that pre-trial motions are not binding.
@ JLFuller - "The issue is about right versus wrong and who gets to decide.
In a truly moral nation judges follow the law strictly."That is
EXACTLY what happened. The intolerance based on religion was superceded by the
United States Constitution.Thank you, Judge Shelby for doing what is
right despite popular opinion (based on a common delusion) to the contrary.Just maybe there is hope for this beautiful but backward state.
We should be celebrating on behalf of the hundreds of loving couples who want to
promise to love and care for one another in sickness and in health. My 20 year
marriage is not harmed in the least. These couples can finally enjoy the same
legal protections I enjoy.
Manxmom said:"We should be celebrating on behalf of the hundreds
of loving couples who want to promise to love and care for one another in
sickness and in health. My 20 year marriage is not harmed in the least. These
couples can finally enjoy the same legal protections I enjoy."No, we should NOT be celebrating, we should be repenting. When a
society/nation not only accepts, but celebrates and embraces homosexuality, and
the vile practices that define it, that nation's demise is not far. We
delude ourselves into thinking that this activist judges "ruling" shows
how open minded and evolved we are as a state and as a nation. What it really
does is prove God's eternal Word is true Romans 1:26-27. A
time is fast approaching, when in the name of tolerance, the beliefs and public
utterances of Christians will no longer be tolerated in this nation. Ask Phil
This discussion and the court ruling largely ignore that secular laws represent
a mere "social construct" in the absence of moral values. Morality is
the foundational basis for the rule of law. No amount of sophistry can change
This is not a 10th amendment issue, it is a 14th amendment issue. Also, this
editorial clearly shows why the 1st amendment is so important.
@Sven --"the vile practices that define it,"There are no "vile practices" which exclusively define homosexuality,
Sven. The activities enjoyed by gay and lesbian couples are often also enjoyed
by straight couples. Are these practices "vile" when straight couples do
them?@Rustymommy --"But if you are going to open up
to non traditional marriage, then in fairness you have to open up to all types
of non traditional marriage."No you don't.Polygamy, incest, etc. convey a significantly increased risk of harm compared
to other forms of marriage.Gay marriage doesn't.It's a very simple distinction.
@ PhotoSpongeThat's what people said after a judge ruled it was
unconstitutional to prevent people of different races to marry. A similar outcry
was heard after the schools were desegregated in Topeka, Kansas. Is that really
the side of history you want to stand on?
@Sven who said: "A time is fast approaching, when in the name of tolerance,
the beliefs and public utterances of Christians will no longer be tolerated in
this nation"Fear-mongering is no argument. The beliefs and
utterances of all must be respected, but when a group of Christians tries to
impose restrictions on others, then there is a problem of tolerance. As a
heterosexual married Mormon I believe in so-called traditional marriage, but
that does not give me the right to forbid others a different type of marriage. I
know I will be more respected as a Mormon if I respect others.
States rights only go as far as the constitution will allow. For example,
southern states were determined to maintain segregation in the 60s, the voters
in Alabama, Mississippi wanted segregation. But Federal court forced these
states to desegregate. The problem of states seeking to deny civil rights to
groups they don't like is not new. But the constitution trumps the
electorate every time.
This is so sad. Any LDS individual who thinks this is a good thing stands with
those of olden times who persecuted the prophets for testifying against the
wicked. You are on very shaky ground.
SvenMorgan, UTsaid:No, we should NOT be celebrating, we
should be repenting. •8:33 p.m. Dec. 22, 2013====== Why?
Are you gay?Look – 32 years ago I married the person I
“loved”.I got married for love, not for sex.Gay
people are already living together, And the secret is out, they are also
already having sex.I want for them the same rights I enjoy -- to
have the same legal status, and be allowed to legally commit to someone they
love.Not recognizing “gay marriage” is not going to stop gay
people from having sex anymore than heterosexuals.What you keep advocating
is discrimination against their legal rights to such things as property
ownership, tax status, military benefits, notary and visitation. BTW
-- 11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the
dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men THE SAME privilege, let them
worship how, where, or what they may. 12 We believe in being subject
to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and
sustaining the law.Follow the rules,You have no one to account
to except God for yourself.
IMO what the government or the courts say about "Marriage" doesn't
change anything (for me). Just because a judge or a government leader says
so... doesn't make Gay Marriage any more "Normal" than it was
before the judge's decision.But it does make it
"legal". And if that's enough for the gay community... then we
are both happy. But DON'T try to force me to believe that it
is "normal", or "acceptable", in God's eyes. A
judge's decision doesn't change God's definition of marriage.
Just because government allows something... doesn't automatically mean God
has to be OK with it.So for me nothing has changed. God's
definition of "marriage" hasn't changed. Just society has
changed.If you think throwing your lot in with society and hoping
THEY are right (and God is wrong)... good luck with that.
@ Sven, isn't repentence a personal thing?
This has got to be the most unsubstantive editorial I've seen in awhile.
Look, people, I'm not a fan of gay marriage. I think it's wrong.
BUT, we live in a country that is (or should be) governed by LAW. We do NOT
live in a country that is ruled by the majority. The supreme law of the land is
the Constitution of the United States, and under that Constitution, a State does
not have the authority to restrict the Right to marry. When the Constitution
was written, marriage was regarded as a private contract between two families.
The practice of requiring a marriage license from the State (implying that
marriage is a privilege granted by the State, rather than a fundamental Right)
did not become common practice until the mid-1800s, or about the time Utah was
first settled. Marriage licenses were first implemented to prevent interracial
marriages, or more likely in the case of Utah, to prevent polygamous marriages.
The Constitution was written under the assumption that marriage was a
fundamental right of the individual, and that no State or Federal government had
the right to restrict its practice. To be continued...
Tyranny? Try Hyperbole. The Deseret News Editorial Board appears as if they are
writing satire of themselves. There are plenty of comments about how the Deseret
News will look back in ten years and feel ashamed for this editorial. They
shouldn't need ten years. It is shameful now. The Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment and questions of due process have been central to
the debate surrounding same sex marriage. Far from unexpected and unprecedented,
the ruling was inevitable. The irony is apparently lost on the Deseret News. The
reversal of a law rooted in misunderstanding and bigotry is tyrannical? The
notion is laughable.
...continued. That's the way it should remain. It was a mistake for
government to ever become involved in what is inherently a private matter
between consenting adults.Furthermore, the attempts by this article
to argue against the process of judicial review are laughable. Judicial review
has long been established to protect people from infringement upon their
constitutionally guaranteed rights, even at times in spite of the will of the
majority. The check of judicial review is a primary reason for the existence of
the judicial branch, and this paper is making a fool of itself to try and wrest
the Constitution to discount this important function of the courts.Again, I'm not a fan of gay marriage, but this was the right ruling.
Now, perhaps we have the opportunity to undo the government intrusion into
marriage altogether. This is the only way to satisfy both sides of the issue,
while making sure that both sides are equally protected in their right to marry
and/or in their right to religious freedom. If you're really interested in
defending traditional marriage, and not just pushing down another group of
people who believes differently, then get government out of marriage.
Have the duck Dynasty guy fill in for the Attorney General for oral arguments.
What a pity that most comments here regarding the "activism" of the
federal judges seem to miss the important fact that whenever laws that
eventually affect citizens not living only in a particular state for all their
lives, the federal laws TRUMP state laws. Here:Article IV, Section
1 of the United States Constitution, known as the "Full Faith and Credit
Clause", addresses the duties that states within the United States have to
respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other
state."Americans are a mobile bunch. Thus states which joined
the union have already signed onto this concept, and also the 14th Amendment.
Utah cannot be exceptional if it wishes to remain in the union.While
many judges are willing to turn a blind eye to some constitutional provisions,
faithful ones will not. For this they are often labeled activist or tyrannical
by those who disagree on other than legal grounds. My idea is, if you
don't like the idea of gay marriage, don't get married to a person of
the same gender. Just don't deny their right to do so if they wish.
It's the law. Simple as that.
Anthony Kennecy once stated "An activist judge is one that makes a decision
you don't like." This statement couldn't be more appropriate than
for those who are upset a judge, of all people, upheld personal rights. "(the definition of marriage)that have served society for
millennia,"Except for when the LDS Church decided to change the definition
of marriage by promoting polygamy. The LDS church still promotes a form of
polygamy in its D&C. Simply because other people's definition of
marriage doesn't fit yours, it's not necessarily wrong. "But as we scour the legal landscape, we find no 10th Circuit or Supreme
Court precedent that prevents Utah from adhering to a traditional definition of
marriage." In 1954, there was no legal precedent ofr Brown v. Board of
education either. Precedent ihas to be set somewhere, sometime, by somebody.
that is waht happened in this case. Regardless of what Utah and some
residents believe, the 14th Amendment applies even here. And whether Utah
residents like it or not, the Consitution supercedes the Utah Constituion or
Utah law. To use the famous argument by some Utahns, "If you don't like
it, you can leave the US."
I was going through all of the posted comments and I have got to admit I am
totally surprised that a majority of the deseret news on-line readers appear to
be in support of the judge's ruling in support of marriage equality. How
" I have got to admit I am totally surprised that a majority of the deseret
news on-line readers appear to be in support of the judge's ruling in
support of marriage equality."Perhaps the ruling gave them more
courage to speak up.
What most people forget, and even the gays don't want to admit, is that
this is not about marriage. This is about legal benefits.If gays
wanted to get married in Utah, there never has been anything preventing that.
Gays could find a minister, friend, or a clown if they wanted, to perform a
marriage ceremony for them. There is no state law that could or would prevent
the marriage from taking place. Even if they proclaimed that they were married
in every local newspaper in Utah, nothing would be done to prevent it, or put
them in jail.The more I look at the issue, the more insecure the
gays look. For all of these years, they wouldn't get married because
"mommy government" didn't approve. If marriage is about
celebrating the union of two people in love, why do they need government
approval before they would do it?
Really???: " I have got to admit I am totally surprised that a majority of
the deseret news on-line readers appear to be in support of the judge's
ruling in support of marriage equality. Perhaps the ruling gave them more
courage to speak up."Or perhaps this forum is flooded with GLBT
activists who will take an issue like this and spend all day writing pro-gay
comments and "liking" each other's comments. This is not a
scientific poll by any stretch of the imagination. Even though gays represent a
tiny minority of the population, they are extremely vocal and engage in activist
behavior.That is fine if you are very passionate about an issue, but
let's not confuse their stance as any kind of consensus. I believe most
people in Utah and in the U.S. (as evidenced by actual voting whenever gay
marriage is put on the ballot), do not support it. That is why they try to force
their agenda through the courts. You only have to get one judge to favor it and
you can over-ride all the voters.
The DNews argues there is no precedent for Judge Shelby's decision in this
matter. The DNews could not be farther from the truth. The fact is, throughout
US history, starting with Marbury v. Madison and continuing to Fletcher v. Peck
and Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and beyond, judicial review is an accepted
legal practice in the US. The Federalist Papers even discuss judicial review in
a positive light. The fact that the DNews and its parent
organization would like to define marriage for all, yet complain when another
defines marriage against there wishes is simply hypocritical. Nobody is trying
to define marriage for the LDS Church. Consequently, the LDS church should not
define marriage for all Utah citizens. The argument that marriage should be pro
family or pro creation is a red herring. Many couple who can not procreate get
married. Are their marriages any less legal or significant that others? I think
@JoeCapitalist@ --" I believe most people in Utah and in the
U.S. (as evidenced by actual voting whenever gay marriage is put on the ballot),
do not support it"9/13 -- Quinnipiac University -- 56% of
American adults and 57% of registered voters for, 36% of both groups opposed.7/13 -- Gallup -- 54% for 7/13 -- USA Today -- 55% of
Americans for, 40% against5/13 -- Washington Post-ABC News -- 55%
of Americans for, 40% against3/13 -- CBS News -- 53% of Americans
for, 39% opposed, 8% were undecided3/13 -- Washington Post-ABC News
-- 58% of Americans for, 36% against-- This same poll indicated that even
52% of GOP-leaning independents under 50 years old supported gay marriage.11/12 -- Gallup -- 53% of Americans for, 46% against 11/12
-- CBS News -- 51% of Americans for, 40% against 11/12 -- ABC
News/Washington Post -- 51% or, 47% against6/12 -- CNN/ORC
International -- 54% of Americans for, 42% against5/12 -- NBC
News/Wall Street Journal -- 54% of Americans for, 40% against 5/12
-- ABC News/Washington Post -- 53% or, 39% against5/12 -- USA
Today/Gallup -- 51% of Americans for, 45% againstIs that enough
evidence for ya?
So lets see here. The Supreme Court has declared that marriage is a fundamental
right in the United States. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection of
laws. I don't see the Deseret News' argument about that, except that
precident doesn't allow the Judge to do what he did. I do however want to
know when I can vote to strip others of their rights afforded them by the
Constitution, then use the argument that the people know better than the
Constitution which they swear is a perfect document until it doesn't fit
The constitution is seriously flawed in that there are no checks or balances on
the judicial system.
I am dismayed by the number of otherwise intelligent and knowledgeable people
that don't understand how their own judicial system works. I am dismayed
by the number of otherwise intelligent and knowledgeable people that believe
their religious beliefs actually trump or should trump our Constitution. How
ironic that it is our Constitution that protects their right to remain this
mistaken.My congratulations to all of my fellow citizens in Utah
that exercised their equal status and got married these past few days. My
sincerest best wishes to you and your families!
I like how this editorial references the 1896 provisions of statehood. I hope
the irony isn't lost of how a victorian population brutally imposed their
views on the early LDS church and good people of Deseret. My ancestors staunchly
believed that polygamy was protected by the constitution as a religious freedom.
The Edmonds Tucker Act was tyranny, breaking the back of the LDS church and
bringing the territory to its knees prior to our compliance and statehood. Have
we lost all sympathy for their plight? Now it seems the people of Utah and the
LDS church have become like their oppressors of the 1800's, in chilling
stockholm-syndrome fashion. The same men seeking to impose a narrow view of the
family on their own state and the nation have polygamists in every branch of
their family tree.
It's the height of stupidity to claim that being prevented from abusing the
power of the state to discriminate against others is "tyranny". The
primary purpose of the federal judiciary is to make such calls, to protect the
basic INDIVIDUAL liberties of American citizens against the abuse of government
tyranny at the hands of those with the political power to commit such abuses,
whether that be an elite minority or a populist bigoted majority. It
doesn't matter if a majority of the citizens of a state vote for something;
as soon as their prejudices become embodied in the power of the government, they
are subject to review by the courts, and to claim that a majority vote somehow
removes that basic constitutional protection from the individual is idiotic and
anti-American in the extreme. We are a nation of individual liberties, not of
the tyranny of the collective. Choosing to use the power of the state to enforce
your bigotry on others is the very definition of tyranny that the Founding
Fathers wrote the Constitution to oppose, and doing so rightly exposes you to a
If a lawyer wrote this editorial, he or she would be subject to sanction from
the state bar for misrepresenting the law."The weight of settled
precedent" is on the side of same-sex couples who are attempting to
vindicate their fundamental right to liberty, due process, and equal protection
of the laws. See Windsor, Lawrence, Romer, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Golinski v.
OPM, Gill v. OPM, Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, Witt v. United States,
Garden State Equality v. Dow, etc. etc. etc.'overreaching'
- Shelby did exactly what he was supposed to do when a law is unconstitutional.
He threw it out. Was Antonin Scalia 'overreaching' when he gutted the
bipartisan and wildly popular Voting Rights Act?'ignored
rational reasons' - See all of the cases cited above (and others) for the
simple proposition that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
receives intermediate or heightened scrutiny from the courts. They don't
need to say it. The fact that they have dismantled anti-LGBT legislation piece
by piece says it for itself.This rag should be ashamed of itself for
publishing such spurious rubbish.
Wow! This truly is a Church Newsletter and not a serious Newspaper.
This shrill and flawed editorial show a breathtaking misunderstanding of the
U.S. Constitution and basic civics, as do some comments.Utah asked a
federal judge for a summary judgement. The federal judge obliged, basing his
judgement on precisely what he is entrusted to follow: the U.S. Constitution,
citing "equal protection". You can't be on more solid ground. Even if 100% of Utah voters outlawed SSM, if the federal courts conclude
it violates the U.S. Constitution, it's overturned. The "will of the
people" becomes immaterial because we are a constitutional republic.
Otherwise, there would be "mob rule". A huge majority in our state,
Alabama, voted for segregation, judged by federal courts as unconstitutional.
Regrettably, it took federal troops to enforce. I believe Utah is better than
that. The next recourse is to appeal to the 10th Circuit. They
agreed with Judge Shelby.The state's remaining recourse is the
Supreme Court. They must first decide to even accept the case. If they do
not, or they do and conclude the 10th Circuit ruling was correct, ammendment 3
is overturned, as is every law in every state prohibiting same sex marriage. Be careful what you wish for.
Judicial Tyranny? This judge was vetted by Utah's two republican Senators!
He is an honest, hardworking judge who bases his decisions on the
constitutionality of the cases before him and uses precedent to guide him.
He is anything but a tyrant!This judge is a married, straight father of
two girls who lives in Salt Lake City and who donates money to a
Republican candidates! Folks...stop the hyperbole...get a grip!Look at the
photographs of the nearly 1000 newly married couples. Look at the unfettered joy
in the faces of these couple and everyone around them. Look into your
souls.Let there be light!
The News fails utterly to explain why the people of Utah are entitled to make
this decision. This is just 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for
dinner.The trial in Salt Lake, and in California (Hollingsworth v
Perry) and New York (US v Windsor) established that the only people harmed by
these bans are the same-sex couples, and the results do nothing to improve the
health of the institution of marriage for opposite-sex couples.Game
set match, Judge Shelby is right, and called Utah out.