Published: Monday, Dec. 30 2013 10:35 a.m. MST
He ruled on the stupied "All-or-Nothing" law you guys in the State
Legislature gave hime.All he had was a simple Thumbs up, Thumbs down
vote.Tell you what -- You are a State legislator, Rather
than writing political opinion letters to the Deseret News whinning about it,
You are one of the very few people in this State that can actually DO
something.But, I suppose as a "politicain" it's
easier and looks better to make a public statement, than it is to actully
You say it's an action by one judge to not issue a stay, but hasn't
Utah been rejected 3+ times in trying to get a stay, by various levels of
courts? Plus, who are we kidding here? Tensions would've also
grown with a stay or a ruling against same-sex marriage. It'd just have
been the other side that'd have been annoyed rather than the side annoyed
with the ruling and lack of stay.
I'm not sure I buy into the argument that the judge was obligated to see
this case through a political as well as legal lens. This judge was not, as is
often pointed out in these discussions, elected. The realm of a federal judge is
one of laws, not politics, and this was a pretty straight up or down case. Maybe
it appears odd that the judge didn't leave it in administrative limbo; on
the other hand it's refreshing to see it encounter a fairly cut and dried
situation and deal with it directly and forthwith, rather than miring it in
obfuscation only to arrive at the same conclusion.
Sorry I cannot agree with you. Judge Shelby was asked to rule using established
constitutional writings. He can't make new laws...all he can do is make
sure that laws established, either by executive or legislative branches and yes
including voter passed legislation stand up to consitutional scrutiny. None of
these groups get a pass on judicial review, particularly the voter passed
initiatives. We are not a MOB rule society and our minorities deserve the
protection of the judiciary branch. Finally, Judge Shelby has
determined gays and lesbians have waited 10 years to reach this point in Utah.
To further wait would mean there would have to be compelling proof the law will
standup up to Appellate scrutiny. Clearly he does not believe it will and the
Appellate court seems to agree with him. That is why they refused the stay. I think it is time to put away you animus and realize these citizens
deserve the same rights as you have always had.
Seems like most of the comments here agree so far, and I'm with them.
I've read through the 53-page decision, and it's a very thoughtful
look at the current laws. Throughout, Utah fails to bring any compelling
argument for keeping the law, but the other side is compelling for why the law
harms one group. Anyone who has the time should read through the decision; you
can find it through Google.Unfortunately, the writer of this article
seems to know very little about the history of gay marriage in the US. Shelby
acted much like other judges before him, and many repeatedly refused a stay.
Shelby is not acting without precedence.My partner and I have
considered rushing and getting married. We've been together for almost
three years now, but it's something we'd rather plan out. I'm
excited that we can do it now. Hopefully in a few months we'll still have
I respectfully disagree with Rep. Powell. The notion that a judge has "two
jobs" is not true. Any case a judge decides automatically becomes a
precedent with constitutional implications. Mr. & Mrs. Loving were sentenced
in 1958 by a Virginia JP to 1 year in jail for having a mixed marriage. The
JP's decision obviously had constitutional implications. And when the
federal court reversed it, nobody "stayed" the right of people to a
mixed marriage. The effect was immediate.
Does the Constitution protect a man's "right" to claim that he is a
woman when all medical evidence collected by doctors who examined him show that
his gender is clearly evident and that he does not have the physical
characteristics of a woman?Does the 14th Amendment allow a citizen
to demand special right based on "feelings" when those demands
contradict all physical evidence?I'm not being factious. If
rights are based on "feelings" when physical evidence contradicts those
"feelings", what are the limits? What protects society against
citizens who "feel" that they can redefine marriage, that they can
redefine family, that they can freely teach children that "feelings",
not physical characteristics, determine gender? What protects children from
being told that because they admire a Coach or a Scoutmaster, that they are
exhibiting their homosexual side? Who's going to protect children who are
called homophobic when those children "feel" that homosexuality is
wrong?We are not identified by what we "feel" we are. Equal
protection does not give anyone the right to claim that he is not who he appears
to be because, in his mind, he does not want the body that his Creator gave him.
IMO Judges should be limited to striking down laws they find unconstitutional.
But they should not be enacting their own laws at the same time (THAT is
reserved for the Legislature and the people).So the judge should
have struck down the amendment, but in this case they over-reached and actually
enacted NEW laws.Same sex marriages were not happening in Utah
before the amendment.... so where did the law come from that all counties must
issue licenses immediately (from the bench). That's NOT the
role of the Judicial Branch. They can nullify a law... but they should not
CREATE new laws at the same time. We were not conducting same sex marriages
before the amendment, so when it was struck down we should have reverted to
where we were BEFORE the amendment (not with a whole new batch of laws some
Denver judge placed on the people of Utah).----I think
the writing is on the wall that no restrictions on the nature of the marriage
relationship can be allowed (same sex, more than one, close relative, etc).
But at least do it correctly (not with judges making new laws when striking ones
they don't like).
Re: ". . . unfair and unnecessary overreach that can only serve to further
exacerbate political tensions in Utah . . . ."Yeah, that's
what callow, doctrinaire liberals want -- political tension.And,
Shelby knew he could create it and keep it going, regardless of the rulings of
courts above him, by deciding as he did, both factually and procedurally.And, of course, we ain't seen nothing, yet. Once the Supreme Court
reverses, properly citing the "political question doctrine," and
all the overanxious, unwise LGBT couples begin to wave their void marriage
certificates, bleating about how Utah destroys marriages, it'll be us, real
Utahns, that they'll be blaming, not the ethics-challenged, agenda-driven
"judge" who is the real culprit.Of course, we know that was
the plan all along.Liberals. So predictable.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah11:56 a.m. Dec. 30, 2013========= 1. Mike -- You are not even on the same page as the rest
of us.Gay people are not the same as Transgender.Stop mixing them
up.2. God made some people Hemorphidites.How do you account
for that?3. The Creator said -- As a man (woman) thinketh, so is he
(she).4. God is not in the United States Federal Judiciary.If
you do not want Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster calling the shots, Keep
God out of it.
"I think the writing is on the wall that no restrictions on the nature of
the marriage relationship can be allowed (same sex, more than one, close
relative, etc)."Well, no, the legal principles driving the
country to legalize same-sex marriage, primarily equal protection of the law,
does not apply to multi-person marriages or close relative marriages. In these
two situations, all persons are prohibited equally from participating in those
kinds of marriages. When same-sex marriage is illegal, only gay people are
prohibited from marrying, a clear and obvious violation of equal protection
guarantees.There is a huge difference between being told you
can't have a spouse at all, and being told you can't have more than
one spouse, or a sibling spouse.
Apparently, Mr. Powell does not subscribe to the notion that "justice
delayed is justice denied." Very sad. procuradorfiscal - Just
to make sure I understood you, in your uninformed opinion, this will ultimately
be decided by the SCOTUS incorrectly applying the political question doctrine?
Wow, you guys sure are desperate. Grasping at straws -
Conservatives... so predictable.
Re: ". . . the legal principles driving the country to legalize same-sex
marriage, primarily equal protection of the law, does not apply to multi-person
marriages or close relative marriages."Calling Shelby's
reasoning a "legal principle" dignifies it more than it deserves.
It's a political principle -- "buy needed votes where you can" --
nothing more."Big tent" liberal politics has to buy votes
from so many unaffiliated, mutually contradictory constituencies, it has to make
distinctions without a difference -- like equal protection of the law only
applies to the constituencies they favor, not to anyone else.In
Orwellian newspeak, that translates into -- "All animals are equal, but some
animals are more equal than others."The liberal motto.
A lot of hand-wringing and denial here. While I get the fairly minor point that
judge's rulings sometimes have larger impact than the immediate parties--I
don't agree with the notion that somehow there are two distinctly different
job descriptions. Having read the full 53 page ruling I was struck that ruling
was well-articulated and grounded in both what appears to be sound legal
arguments (I admit I'm not a lawyer though) and an empathy for both the
state of Utah and parties involved.I think his decision is going to
stand.As for others that seem to want to cast aspersions that the
judge is "liberal" and what passes as typical--I can't help but
remind them that one of their other posterchildren of conservative values also
defected some time ago. Theodore Olsen changed his tune years ago..as I think
20 or 30% of the public has as well.You can keep wringing your hands
if you want, but it's coming across about the same as segregationists did
after 1964--on the wrong side of history.
@procuradorfiscal"Yeah, that's what callow, doctrinaire liberals
want -- political tension."That depends, is a lack of political
tension defined as "Republicans/conservatives in this state getting whatever
they want without opposition"? "Once the Supreme Court
reverses, properly citing the"political question doctrine," and
all the overanxious, unwise LGBT couples begin to wave their void marriage
certificates"Oh, you don't have to worry about that, since
you're not going to win the appeal. "It's a political
principle -- "buy needed votes where you can" -- nothing more."So... you mean to tell me that an unelected federal judge who has no use
for any sort vote seeking in a state where Democrats are pretty much
non-existent beyond Salt Lake City/County gov't... is doing this for
political vote gathering purposes?
One would hope that an elected representative would better understand the role
of the Judiciary.@2 bits;The only law forbidding
same-sex marriages in Utah was struck down. Since it was no longer illegal, it
was clearly legal.
Shelby's opinion is reminiscent of the judge who noted, "You can call
it pornography if you want, but I know what I like."
Based on some comments here (2 bits insightful comment notwithstanding) and the
previous article (Judge or King?), this issue seems far too emotional to have a
reasonable discussion about the merits of judicial activism vs. judicial
restraint.I knew it was bad when LDS Liberal attacked me under the
previous article as someone who listens to AM radio and tramples the
constitution – really? Have you never read one comment I’ve made on
DN (90% of which probably agree with you)? Wonder if this is how Caesar felt
when he saw Brutus (with a knife) for the last time.So be
it…I’ll just say this for everyone applauding this
decision (not the end result, which I applaud as well) – be careful what
you wish for.If judges can exert this amount of power to make law
& social policy, they can certainly do it on a whole host of issues that
will make your heads spin. And with the conservative strategy of
trying to pack the courts (why Reid was forced to end the filibuster rule for
judicial nominees), you may regret this power judges now have.
Anyone else remember Jon Huntsman Jr. saying the GOP needed to stop and rethink
where this was going, and they threw him under the bus for it?Anyone?...
Is it Monday? Oh it is! It must be! It's the weekly whine from the
right!Next week we will be on "the left's war on New
Year."And the week after that will be some complaint about
Obama.And after that another interview with Mitt Romney and a
fantasy of what life would be like if he had won.Then we will repeat
some other attack on Utah by the mean ol federal government.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments