I will say once again (and perhaps only for the moderator's benefit): this
newspaper printed an op/ed piece that compared a judge letting gay people get
married to an animal-rights activist releasing minks from a fur farm. I
commented: "Comparing gay people to minks is like comparing black people to
monkeys." This comment was rejected as being "off topic or
disruptive." Gentlemen, please. The comment is SO on-target that
you're uncomfortable with it and perhaps embarrassed. (Clueless is the
third alternative. You pick.)
Nelson, and this newspaper, seem to think it's ok to compare letting gay
people get married to releasing minks from a farm. Comparing gay people to farm
animals is obnoxious.
Alexis de Toqueville in 1851 warned about the Tyranny of the Majority in his
book, Democracy in America. Thankfully the framers of the US Constitution set up
a system of Checks and Balances to avoid Mob Rule and ensure that laws must be
Constitutional, and protect ALL citizens. Discrimination is IMORAL! (Evil)
It seems there is a rush by Utah news outlets, officials. and professors who
"happen to be mormons" to jump on the bandwagon of publicly trashing
Judge Selby.Comparing correcting a gross injustice, so that
taxpaying, law-abiding citizens who wish to marry can do so to "letting the
minks out of the barn" would be funny if the man were not serious in writing
it.Just because many of the voters, political contributors, and
newspaper readers of Utah are older lds people, it seems that you guys are
rushing to kiss their hands, at the expense of fairness and of noticing the US
Constitution.Jesus said a few things about how to treat our fellow
ksampowWhat gay people do in their marriage has no ill effect on you or
society. The State's attorneys failed to convince Judge Shelby on that and
they'll have no better luck with any other judge or court. What
opponenents of his ruling fail to see is no person, state or law can take away
what our founders envisioned for all us. Equal protection and freedoms under
the constitution. I'm grateful I live in a country where a State or a
group of people are not entitled to take away anothers right to pursue hapiness
if it does no harm to others.
JeffreyRO555: You are wrong. Gay people are not prohibited from
marrying. They may marry a person of the opposite gender just as anyone can.
They want to REDEFINE what marrying means so that it applies to their lifestyle.
LDS Liberal, Jeffsla and others who say there is no basis for
opposing gay marriage:The people of the state of Utah have defined
marriage (and obviously it is not a new or unusual definition). Gay people can
do what they like without misapplying a well-established legal term to those
actions. They want to steal the name of a time-honored institution and change
it to suit their whims.
Now for an editorial criticizing the Utah Attorney General's office for not
requesting a stay before the judge issued his decision. That's what a
competent law office would have done. But in this case, the AG's office
created its own "Don't Ask" policy. Utah wins: in its
over-confidence, it doesn't take the case seriously, so it doesn't
request a stay before the decision; and that's what it won.
It is clear that the American people and the judiciary are taking this issue
very seriously.As we come closer to a final resolution on this divisive
issue it becomes clearer every week that Same sex couples will be able to
marry legally in every corner of this nation. Shelby recognizes this and
the decisions that have come before his show a clear path towards justice.He will not grant a stay and nor should the Supreme Court because at this
point justice delayed is justice denied.
The heart of this whole argument comes from this country NOT having separated
religion and state. The same right wingers would change their
opinions if the state religion was not their own so I find their arguments
disingenuous and hypocritical.If the majority wanted to worship
golden calf marriages and not recognize anything else they would be upset and
fighting for their equality under the law.
This is one Judge who is using his own interpretations of the law, or it would
have been legal from the start. This is to push another anything goes Agenda.
The over-reach of the judge is obvious.It is one thing to decide
whether a law is constitutional.But to order a state to to allow gay
marriages is entirely another thingThat is why this judge has gone
beyond his scope of power.And why the judge is an partisan
activist, he has become a judicial activist and not an objective judge.It should not matter what your stance is on the issue, an activist judge is
an activist judge when he goes beyond only deciding constitutionality.
I think if you check with Senator Valentine you will find the problem was that
Utah's Attorney General office never asked for a stay until it was too
late. There were similar problems with the Polygamy case. Shouldn't the
authors of these editorials address this central before accusing the Judge of
@ LDS Liberal the people of Utah voted on the law not the State legislature.
If the situation were reversed and a divisive law that was supported by the
progressives in our state was suddenly overturned, there would be a loud and
resounding cry of injustice. In a republic, such a major cultural issue that has
been decided by the voters should be dealt with much more carefully and have a
more thorough treatment through the legislative and judicial processes. The
sacred will of the people shouldn't be overturned so suddenly and
unceremoniously simply because it is popular among a certain judge or a certain
group of people. The cultural war is real and both sides need to play fair or
the war will just intensify. Compromise and tolerance have taken a back seat to
a narrow-minded and zealous ideology among both liberals and conservatives.
The purpose of religion is to enslave the minds of people. The reason for such
enslavement is the same as that of any other group, tribe, business or nation.
That reason is to garner the control and the wealth of all the world. Membership, belief and submission readily traded by ordinary humans for hope
and satisfaction of eternal life. Not content with the strength of
their story (dogma) they invented crutches and traps to acquire new members.
Some even went so far as to kill if refused. Sin was the invention of religion.
Its purpose was to create the need to belong and believe. There is no sin in
the natural world. The biggest crutch is government enforcement.Religion like fire is a wonder thing for helping us find comfort and
happiness, but if not controlled could destroy the world.
RE: procuradorfiscal "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."You sir are living in your own version of reality.
You've lost it. And, Utah has lost it. Same gender marriage is here and I
dare say we can live with it just fine. I've had some reservations about
gay marriage, but have none now. The rest of you will get used to it too.
"If gay people decide to marry all they need do is pick one person of the
opposite sex just like anybody else."Trust me when I say that
choosing that path has led to many unhappy marriages. Even your church leaders
counsel against doing that now."It is difficult not to be
skeptical about the Judge's actions when he not only refuses to stay the
matter but also releases his opinion of the Friday before the Christmas holiday,
thus tremendously complicating any effort to obtain a stay. This cannot have
been a coincidence."Could you imagine how this would have played
out after the holidays? Your children would be in school discussing this issue
with other students and those "liberal" teachers instead of discussing
this at home.
AllSeeingEye:I don't know anything about Shelby, other than
he's 43 and was endorsed by Hatch & Lee as being a good candidate for
the position in Utah. (When you look at one of the previous Hatch
'endorsees' when Clinton was president, Ted Stewart, and his lack of
courtroom experience, it's hard to feel too bad for Hatch).Given that two judges from the 10th circuit refused to issue a stay, it seems
Shelby's opinion and refusal to issue a stay is getting solid respect up
the chain, so far. From what I understand, Shelby was asking leading questions
of the Utah attorneys, seemingly trying to get them to present stronger
arguments, so considering Shelby basically is following the legal course Scalia
suggested would occur, and considering the upheaval and incompetence
demonstrated by Utah voters in electing the flagrantly corrupt - and apparently
inept - John Swallow, I'm having a hard time mustering sympathy.
The real problem Judge Shelby creates, regardless of one's views concerning
the merits of the case, is that everyone knows the issue will ultimately be
decided by the United States Supreme Court. Given that fact it seems foolhardy,
at best, for a district court judge to require immediate implementation of his
decision when it is possible that a circuit court of appeals or the U.S. Supreme
Court will reverse that decision. Accomplished marriages then may turn out to
be illegal, and cleaning up the ensuing mess will be a nightmare for everyone
involved.It is difficult not to be skeptical about the Judge's
actions when he not only refuses to stay the matter but also releases his
opinion of the Friday before the Christmas holiday, thus tremendously
complicating any effort to obtain a stay. This cannot have been a coincidence.
It's a very old trick among lawyers--usually involving the filing of a
motion late on a Friday, even better on a Friday before a holiday, to make it
more difficult for the other side to respond. I expect better from
the federal judiciary, and my views about gay marriage itself might surprise
@Lane Myer;I think you're a bit overly optimistic about
Mike's ability to adapt to change. @wrz;"So,
why do you think you need marriage?"Umm, for the same reasons
heterosexuals need marriage. Legal rights and benefits, inheritance, custody,
and a whole host of other things. Why did you get married? It's probably
the same reasons we'll be getting married too.@Miss Piggie;What if WE required YOU to marry someone of the "same sex"?
Would you be okay with that?
@hnoelLayton, UTExactly!Thanks for that very thoughtful
comment.And to the nay-sayers;Stop TRAMPLING the U.S.
Those who constantly accuse Shelby of being an "activist" judge who had
no right to rule Utah's third amendment as "unconstitutional" are
missing the point by a mile. Not only did he have the right to make his
decision, it was his responsibility. The case was filed.....the arguments were
made....and he was obligated to make a decision. That's how the system
works. If the decision is not the one you want, there are avenues of
appeal....many avenues. The issue is now following that important process. As
important as the will of the people is, the US Constitution does not allow it to
run over the rights of anyone......even and especially, the minority. Regardless
of which side of this issue you are on, you must be pleased to see the process
working. If Shelby was wrong, the complex system of checks and balances will
reveal that. If he was right, and the law is unconstitutional, they will reveal
that as well. Meantime, let's grow up and pay attention to the process --
stop calling people names. So far the system is working -- and it will continue
to work throughout the process.
The irony in all of this is that Utah may very well be the state that caused gay
marriage to go nationwide. If you want to blame someone, blame the people who
felt it was necessary to even propose the law in the first place. Had Utah left
it alone we would be like many other states waiting for the Supreme Court to
make their ruling on the matter.
@procuradorfiscal"He's doing exactly what he was appointed to
do."You want to pretend that liberals in the White House and
Congress apply litmus tests to their judicial picks and that conservatives
don't?"Obama's judicial appointees have established an
unblemished record as the most leftist, the most doctrinaire, the most
agenda-driven "judges" since Jim-Crow days."Do you
actually have a means of ascertaining that or are you just guessing? For
instance, I know this is the most radical Republican Congress in half a century
because of DW-NOMINATE scores.
Procuradorafiscal made a statement that deserves more attention: "liberals
cannot be trusted with political power".What exactly do you mean
by that? Do you propose that liberals be denied political rights? Are you
proposing some kind of suspension of the Constitution until things can be made
correct again, from the conservative perspective?Obama was elected
President, *twice*. We've seen governments in Latin America overthrown by
force to re-institute conservative values, (in their view). to turn back
progress voted by the people, to essentially cleanse the nation.Please elaborate on your statement, if you would.
@Mike RichardsWe 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.11:56 a.m. Dec. 30, 2013@Mike RichardsI said nothing about "transgender". More importantly, why are
you demanding that we ignore God when we discuss moral issues? Judge
Shelby ruled that "feelings" are the basis of equality. After all, even
the honorable Judge cannot convince; that a male who thinks of himself as female
is not, in all reality, a male with all of the physical characteristics of a
male.============ 1. Um, Yes - you did mention transgender,
see above.2. As for defining ourselves based on "feelings";
I "feel" the Church is true. So, I define myself as LDS
(Mormon) and therefore protected under the Constitution based on those
"feelings".And that same right - based on feelings - applies to
others as well.3. I said nothing about "ignoring" God, I
simply ask we keep God out of Government. Do you "feel" it's
OK for other to implement Sharia Law by evoking Allah and the Koran?
@JeffreyRO555:"When same-sex marriage is illegal, only gay people are
prohibited from marrying, a clear and obvious violation of equal protection
guarantees."Not true. If gay people decide to marry all they
need do is pick one person of the opposite sex just like anybody else. And many
gays have done just that and have adjusted their attitudes to make it work. And
it does. Everyone born into this world has some kind of eccentricities to deal
with and put behind them... even heterosexuals.
@Jeffsfla:"Sorry I cannot agree with you. Judge Shelby was asked to
rule using established constitutional writings."There are no
writings in the US Constitution about marriage. And if you mean the 14th
Amendment, it refers to equal protection understate law...and Utah' state
law says if you wanna marry pick one person of the oppose sex. That law applies
to everyone including polygamists, pedophiles, juveniles, etc.@digbythefox:"My partner and I have considered rushing and getting
married. We've been together for almost three years now..."So, why do you think you need marriage? Sounds like you're just fine
with how things are. Remember, if you get married and later decide to split the
sheets, you'll likely end up in divorce court with all the falderol that
entails. Better that you stay unmarried and enjoy life than encounter the
vicissitudes of marriage if things go awry.@2 bits:"...so
where did the law come from that all counties must issue licenses immediately
(from the bench)."There is no such Utah law to issue licenses to
LGBTs. Utah law says marriage is between one man and one woman. All licenses
issue to gays were illegal.
Mike Richards asks, "Why are you demanding that we ignore God when we
discuss moral issues? Is He not welcome in our society?"Which
God are you referring to? The God of the Bible? The Quran? The Talmud? The
Bhagavad Gita? If you can get your God to schedule a press conference and
explain his expectations for modern society a little better, it would be
helpful.Mr Richards also asks, "Are His commandments no longer
binding on society?"Our civilization functions smoothly when we
abide by The Golden Rule: We do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Put all the religious dogma and ritual aside, and this is what our laws boil
down to. We don’t lie or bear false witness because we won’t want
people to lie to us. We don’t steal from other people because we do not
want people stealing from us. We don’t betray the trust of our spouses
because we wouldn’t want them doing the same to us. And so forth.So why the double standard when it comes to Gay and Straight couples?
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahLDS Liberal,Your remarks about my post are false and misleading. I said nothing about
"transgender". Why would change the topic? More importantly, why are you
demanding that we ignore God when we discuss moral issues? Is He not welcome in
our society? Are His commandments no longer binding on society?------------You need to get to know a gay couple. They are not
playing house with a wife and a husband. They are two men who love each other.
Ok, I hear your mind groaning, but it can open a little and see that no one is
the woman in the relationship. They are equals who are building a family a bit
different than what you are used to. But I have faith in you. I believe that
you can see the difference and maybe accept that their way is not your way, but
as citizens of the United States, they have a right to pursue happiness any way
they can, as long as they are not harming another.
To all of you that want to talk about this leading to cousins getting married
read this passage from the Utah State Courts website."You cannot marry
your first cousin, or anyone related more closely than a first cousin, such as
an aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, parent or child, brother or sister.However,
first cousins can marry if both are over 65, or, if both parties are over 55, if
the court finds that they are unable to reproduce."And it's been
on the book a whole lot longer than gay marriage.......
J. Thompson writes, "How very adventuresome of [Gay couples] to redefine the
"family" and to change the purpose of "family.""Let me reassure you: For the vast majority of people who are Straight (i.e.
heterosexual), absolutely nothing about marriage or the family is changing.
Nothing is being redefined. Did you think the marriage equality movement was
some sinister effort to make homosexuality compulsory for everyone? Gee, I hope
not! The human population will always be predominantly Straight, and Straight
people will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families
together as they always have. None of that is going to be affected whether (or
not) Gay couples do the same.As for "God's Word" or LDS
doctrine, it's irrelevant in a society guided by the Constitution. Ours is
not a theocracy.
This op-ed is nothing but a political argument. From a reasoned judicial
argument, Judge Shelby is on firm ground. He may be overruled, or not, but the
decision is rational, addresses the key arguments of the parties, and is
supported by prior case law. One may disagree on principle, but don't
accuse the judge of overreaching or acting outside his authority. What he did
was completely legitimate and in the legal tradition of this country since John
Marshall served as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. If conservatives
love the Constitution and the system of government that it established, then
they must respect the process, even if they wish the decision had been the other
way. If the judge is wrong, then the process will fix it. But don't count
on it. We are in the midst of further evolution on civil rights and a more
consistent application of the Constitution rather than having a government
driven by religion.
I'm sure political tensions were "exacerbated" in the Deep South
back in the 1950s and 1960s when all those uppity negroes started agitating for
THEIR civil rights. And if the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been put to a
popular vote in the Deep South, I think we all know how THAT would've
turned out.But why should fair treatment for law-abiding, taxpaying
Gay Americans be even remotely controversial? People who are Straight (i.e.
heterosexual) have never had to worry about being fired from their jobs, kicked
out of their rental properties, turned away from businesses, targeted with
vandalism or violence, or denied the right to marry the person they love solely
because of THEIR sexual orientation. I don't think it's asking too
much that Gay people shouldn't have to worry about these things, either.
Mike RichardsWe 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.11:56 a.m.Mike RichardsI said nothing
about "transgender". More importantly, why are you demanding that we
ignore God when we discuss moral issues? Judge Shelby ruled that
"feelings" are the basis of equality. After all, even the honorable
Judge cannot convince… that a male who thinks of himself as female is not,
in all reality, a male with all of the physical characteristics of a male.============ 1. Sure you mentioned transgender, see
above.2. As for defining ourselves based on “feelings”
– Do you “feel” the HolyGhost? Do you
“feel” the Church is true? Then - Yes, you ARE being protected
under the Constitution to define yourself based on “feelings”.And that same equal right applies to others.3. I said nothing
about “ignoring” God, I simply demand keeping God out of Government.
You are no different than Muslim extremists implementing Sharia Law evoking
Allah and the Koran.
Apparently unlike a number of the people commenting in this thread (and unlike
the author of the article), I HAVE read and analyzed Judge Shelby's
decision. Judge Shelby's decision is not unfair, or unnecessary, or
overreach. It is a solidly based and soundly argued decision which is supported
by the Constitution and by considerable and weighty precedent going back to the
1800s. He is not "making law" or "legislating from the bench";
or any of myriad other slurs cast at him by those who don't like the fact
that they can no longer exercise their prejudice and impose discrimination under
color of law.Kudos to Judge Shelby for an excellent decision which
stands an excellent chance of remaining in force and becoming the case which
allows same sex marriage to be legal in all the United States.
My apologies, those who believe in a god. I don't, and I'd prefer that
my marriage not be impeded by a god I don't worship.
Dear @J Thompson,The lord told me something completely different.We've hired Judge Shelby to mediate.You lost.In the US, 'He' does not set the rules...sorry.
Political tensions are going to be further exacerbated?How?Is the majority in Utah going to round up people who voted for Obama and send
us to concentration camps? Are they going to seek revenge by removing all air
quality regulations and allow refineries to pollute at will? Are they going to
send a message by letting class sizes to balloon to 50? Are they going to
Legislate in private caucuses?Democrats in Utah have nothing to
lose, really. Our "revenge" is to point out that Utah is still part of
the United States. Maybe Powell is threatening secession, otherwise
it's tough to imagine how political tensions could be worse, because to
have tension there needs to be contention, competition, some sort of drama that
elections might turn out one way or the other. None of that exists.Republicans have complete domination in Utah, comfortably cruising through all
kinds of scandals with no remote threat of accountability from the voters. Let
the tensions boil over, I guess.
This activist judge seems to think that the Proclamation on the Family is not
the law of the land.
Some claim the idea of "no harm, no foul" when they assert that same-sex
unions are no big deal. How very adventuresome of them to assume that they have
authority to redefine the "family" and to change the purpose of
"family".The Lord told the world, through his Prophets: "We, the Firt Presidentcy and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage
between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to
the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.""All human beings - male and female - are created in the image of God.
Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each
has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of
individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."----That opening statement is concise and clear enough for anyone
to understand. God loves us enough to allow us agency and then to hold us
accountable for our actions because each action has a ripple effect throughout
society. He set the rules, not Judge Shelby.
"Even if the mink farmer has a documented record of abuse, public opinion
typically does not condone the activist's failure to play by known and
accepted rules, despite the activist's good intentions."Interesting that Rep. Powell chose this for his analogy. It places Amendment
supporters in the position of those with "a documented record of abuse."
But maybe Mr. Powell just chose poorly because this analogy also places Judge
Shelby in the activist's role when he was, in fact, playing exactly by the
"known and accepted rules," i.e. the U.S. Constitution and the case law
that elucidates it.I believe that most Amendment supporters
genuinely thought they were doing the righteous thing when they voted to pass
the law, and I believe that most of them could not see its true discriminatory
nature because of their religious beliefs. So maybe God used Judge Shelby to
remove their blinders. Maybe Rep. Powell should be singing "Amazing
Grace" instead of the blues.
This chicken little falls back to hyperbole to scare and frighten. Judge
Shelby's ruling startling? Surprising perhaps, but no cause to sound
alarms. No harm has or will come to any Utah citizen due to this ruling. County
officials engaged in a "flurry" of appeals? Four appeals constitute a
flurry? Almost no one believed Judge Shelby would rule on the plaintiffs behalf?
Really? Then why would anyone have filed suit? For fun? The state had it's
day in court. Had they presented any rational defense, they'd have won. Now
the state is in shock because it just expected to win, just because it's
the state. Judge Shelby did not over reach, he simply weighed the arguments,
applied the constitution, and the Windsor precedent as he must. He did not
create any new law. It's as if the law said ALL citizens in Utah are
entitled to a drivers license EXCEPT gay people because the majority voted their
rights away. All judge Shelby did was eliminate the unconstitutional "Except
Gay People" Clause from existing law. No over reach. Just removal of
LDS Liberal,Your remarks about my post are false and misleading. I
said nothing about "transgender". Why would change the topic? More
importantly, why are you demanding that we ignore God when we discuss moral
issues? Is He not welcome in our society? Are His commandments no longer
binding on society?Judge Shelby ruled that "feelings" are
the basis of equality. After all, even the honorable Judge cannot convince you,
me or any citizen in America that a male who thinks of himself as female is not,
in all reality, a male with all of the physical characteristics of a male. The
honorable Judge could not find a doctor who would convince you, me, or anyone
else in America that a woman is not a woman. Therefore, what did he tell us?
He told us that the 14th Amendment guarantees you the "right" to demand
that society have no rules to protect its most fundamental unit, the family,
against a full frontal assault by those who claim that they "feel" that
they are the wrong sex. He used the 14th Amendment as the basis for his ruling,
ignoring all of our history and all societal norms.
Theirs only one group trying to exacerbate political tensions, it's the
same conservatives that make their decisions based on feelings and emotions
wrapped in religious speeches and false patriotism seeking to deny rights given
by their fellow man to all men, not just those they see at church on Sunday.What protects society against citizens who "feel" that they can
define marriage, that they can define family, that they can freely teach
children that "religion", not the constitution, determines rights
granted to Americans? Who rushed to define the above only a few
years ago and were so hateful they couldn't even leave wiggle room for
Unions, because the law was nothing but animus toward one group of people. Laws
like this, are nothing short of "I hate you and will deny you any and all
rights I can, because I think I can.
Lemme see if I understand your argument, Rep. King. You were surprised by this
ruling from a Federal Judge. And because you were surprised, it should go to the
Supreme Court first?You haven't been paying attention, sir.
Progressives have been talking considerably about marriage equality in Utah over
the past 6 months. Heck, within minutes of the DOMA decision, the president of
the Human Rights Campaign stated on national TV that he was flying to SLC to
discuss this case. It was even in TIME magazine in November. Where are you
getting your news? I assure you, for those of us fighting for equality, this was
no surprise and definitely is not premature.No one "owes"
you advance notice. The AG's office knew of the case. It was in all the
media. Why didn't you know?I suspect you did. But like the
state of Utah, you were too cavalier regarding the outcome.So
here's a hint for your conservative buddies: Oregon, Ohio, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado and Nevada are next. Just a
In denying a stay, the federal district court and the appeals court sent a
message that the state of Utah does not have a significant likelihood of
prevailing on appeal. Had the courts felt otherwise, I suspect a stay would have
@4601:Potter Stewart actually wrote: "I shall not today attempt
further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that
shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could
never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the
motion picture involved in this case is not that."A much
different meaning from your paraphrase.
Re: "So... you mean to tell me that an unelected federal judge . . . is
doing this for political vote gathering purposes?"Yep. He's
doing exactly what he was appointed to do.On the hustings, candidate
Obama promised, regarding his judicial appointments, "We need somebody
who's got the heart, the empathy . . . to understand what it's like to
be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -– and that's
THE CRITERION [my emphasis] by which I'll be selecting my judges."He has been true to that promise, if none of the rest.Using
that single criterion, Obama's judicial appointees have established an
unblemished record as the most leftist, the most doctrinaire, the most
agenda-driven "judges" since Jim-Crow days.Shelby is just
one of way, WAY too many appointees that proves, yet again -- liberals
can't be trusted with political power. Their rigidly-enforced orthodoxy is
just too destructive of America and Americans.
I read the 53 page decision also and I saw a lot of opinion, citing cases in
different Federal Courts in different circuits which would not apply in Utah. I
also saw that he cited the dissenting opintion on the DOMA from Judge Scalia,
which by the way, has no force of law. I saw that he didn't cite Justice
Kennedy's majority opinion stating that it was still up to the states to
determine the definition of marriage. I agree that this Judge overreached.Had the Utah Legislature voted to allow homosexual marriage, I
wouldn't have liked it but it would have been the people speaking just like
in Hawaii. A federal judge imposing his will? Not good. And in these
types of cases, generally stays are issued while the case winds its way through
the courts. But, it's all about the agenda.
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.
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?...
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.
Shelby's opinion is reminiscent of the judge who noted, "You can call
it pornography if you want, but I know what I like."
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.
@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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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