Quantcast

Comments about ‘Shelby's unfair, unnecessary overreach can only serve to further exacerbate political tensions’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 31 2013 12:19 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Gail Fitches
Layton, UT

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 old switcharoo
mesa, AZ

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.

Starry starry night
Palm Springs , CA

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.

Saguaro
Scottsdale, AZ

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.

ksampow
Farr West, Utah

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.

FT
salt lake city, UT

ksampow
What 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.

Bob K
portland, OR

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 citizens.

Michael_Haskins
Salt Lake, UT

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)

James Whistler
Chicago, IL

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.

James Whistler
Chicago, IL

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.)

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments