Comments about ‘Former Arizona sheriff blasts ruling that allows gay marriage in Utah’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Jan. 4 2014 10:25 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Draper, UT

I read a post on a previous article regarding this particular case. The author's argument in support of this judge's ruling was that Utah's Constitution was amended in 2004 to exclude gay marriage, but that people don't have the same opinions towards gay rights now (inferring that most of Utah supports it now). My argument to that is, if it is indeed true, the proper course of action is to vote on amending our Constitution again, not have our Constitution and the will of the people trampled on by some activist judge.

Bruce Alder
Corvallis, OR

The Deseret News MUST be desperate if they've resorted to covering this guy...he single-handedly ignored the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments, recommends we espouse the Bible as law (legalizing slavery, marginalizing women, etc.) and seems basically the opposite of anything Christian as evidenced by his extreme hatred (a regular modern-day George Wallace).

It's the job of the Courts to support civil rights (not the legislature and most definitely not the majority vote of the people…if it was we’d still have desegregation in the South). We live in a Constitutional Republic where civil rights are NOT up for popular vote. This same protection applies to any minority in the U.S....including Mormons (of which I am an active one).

Salt Lake City, UT

Apparently we as citizens can pick and choose what Amendments we decide to apply. Mr Mack seems to blatantly ignore the 5th and the 14th. Possibly why he is an ex- sheriff? Leaders of The South attempted to use the same argument to legalize slavery. Just seems like a lot of hate and very Un American. We are all talking about equal rights. Correct? How strong is your marriage to begin with if another marriage can weaken it so easily?

Bruce Alder
Corvallis, OR

Grammy3 posted "I just believe that with marriage it is how God intended it to be between a Man and a Woman."

The Bible itself highlights that marriage between one man and one woman is anything BUT the way God intended (see the entire 4000 years of Old Testament where the common practice was polygamy and concubinage...not to mention requiring women to marry their rapists…it was anything BUT monogamy...and more akin to slavery).

Your notion of Biblical marriage being one man and one woman is fantasy (even the polygamous history of Utah itself discredits your claim). If you happen to be Mormon then you know the church still believes in Polygamy in the afterlife and practices it in the sealings of subsequent spouses in our temples (the practice of polygamy on the Earth was all that was stopped by Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto in 1890). Joseph Smith engaged in both Polgamy and Polyandry which in no way would agree with the definition you hold so dearly as the definition "God intended".

nampa, ID

This quote is from the brilliant Dr. Benjamin Franklin, referring to this nation’s government and our constitution. It applies to this whole situation going on not only in Utah, but in our entire nation:
“We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little partial, local interests, our projects will be confounded and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, or conquest.” (Benjamin Franklin)

Medical Lake, Washington

Thank you 'Cats',

I do not hate the GLBT community, I just am not in favor of Gay marriage - my opinion I realize and I'm not trying to force it down anyone's throat. However, I do see concerns in the way that many laws are being not only enforced, but also installed and too many are coming from the Judiciary bench and from the Executive office. I keep hearing that the ACA is the 'law of the land' get used to it, and yet the President has no qualms about changing the law on a regular basis (only the legislature may change the law of the land).

Our constitution is a delicate thing. It was created with checks and balances and those need to be maintained and the proper balance ensured. We have a right to become concerned when we see any legislation from the bench or the White House, or if congress is over stepping their bounds. Perhaps we read too much in to it, but we need to be vigilant or we stand to lose a great deal.

Salt Lake City, UT

Thinking about it some more I want to give a lot of credit to the Deseret News for publishing this article even though that event does not put same-sex marriage opposition (the stated opinion of this paper's editorial board) in a favorable light at all and even though it awkwardly contradicts with an editorial on the matter today. Selective journalism would've ignored it.

boise, id

I think all the people that want to use legislative power to sustain their right to have it their way need to consider a few seemingly forgotten historical events.

In Roman times, Christians were fed to lions and killed out of hand.

In US history we founded our country with slavery firmly entrenched and only men able to vote.

State and Federal governments sat by as the Mormons were killed and driven out of NY, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois until they were out of the US.

Governments role is to protect and serve its citizens, all of the citizens, no matter whether they are of the vocal minority or not.

Start living the golden rule and do unto others as you would have done unto you.

Live and let live is still a good way.

Park City, Ut

Our rights as US citizens not granted to us by "God" they are granted by the Constitution of the United States of America, which ironically fails to mention "God" or any other deity for that matter. We're not a theocracy, we fought a little war... the Revolutionary War, to make sure of that. The constitution doesn't existing to make sure your heterosexual marriage remains "Sacred" - that's your business. Heterosexual couples can be married by the church of Satan, nothing anyone can do about that, it doesn't invalidate your marriage. Neither does same sex marriage.

Taylorsville, UT

Hitler dehumanized gays, lesbians, jews, and others who were physically disabled during WWII. We know what happened there. Trying to change the gay people to be straight has not been successful, Gays are human, they cry, laugh, tell stories, just like you and I and God created them to be here on Earth. Apparently, there is no way to stop babies from being born gay, we all must accept this and not treat them as sub-humans or second-class citizens. The former sheriff seems to dehumanize them and wants to see them out of the picture, sadly, he does not have the power to turn gays in straight folks.

aunt lucy
Looneyville, UT

Isn't common sense alone enough to know that same sex marriage is wrong. Just objectively look at the human body and the conception process and if you believe in god, then it's common sense. Quit making this so hard!

san antonio, TX

Ref: bereal & byufootballrocks

Jim Crow laws once were the standard for most of the country. Your responses indicate a desire to return to such a society.

spring street

I feel like I stepped back in time a washed up old country sheriff shows up railing against equal rights to get a bunch of locals all riled up, that has never ended badly, right?

Phoenix, AZ

Aunt Lucy,
If you are going to bring god into the issue then you are going to have to answer the.question of who created the issue if not god. So is he a imperfect god. Please explain.

Brigham City, UT

The Bible is more important than the Constitution; one has been around much longer and will last much longer. Religion is more important than politics and university study (Peter was a fisherman and Paul a tent maker and both more bright than the scholars of their day) The Bible encourages the "un-enforceable". (we can't force people to have pure thoughts) The Bible says it is a good idea to marry and have children and be one with community. If we were always one with community (through art and dance and song and poetry and service and through commerce and invention and science), we would not need laws. Love and obedience is the law. The Law is not a piece of paper, it is a Person (perfect and pure).

aunt lucy
Looneyville, UT


Oh I only wish you were truly and sincerely seeking that answer. Just know in our perfect Heavenly Father's plan, we agreed to come to an imperfect world and accept the challenges and adversity that comes with it. This means our bodies will be susceptible to illness, addiction, and deformity. Our savior promised no matter how great our challenge, he would not forsake us and we were all in. In these troubling times, there is a great effort to legislate what is sin to non-sin.

spring street

Not sure what you are basing your "insights" on other then maybe the same old propaganda but as someone that has spent a significant amount of time in Massachusetts and other states that allow gay marriage I can assure that they are doing just fine. There is the very occasional person or group that want to ignore public accommodation laws but that is nothing new or unique to gay marriage.

spring street

@ aunt Lucy

" In these troubling times, there is a great effort to legislate what is sin to non-sin." You mean like the desire to remove free agency? How exactly does that fit into Gods plans?

Bruce Alder
Corvallis, OR

@ Aunt Lucy
I second Spring Street's point...you forget that many many things are 'legal' and 'allowed' which are not necessarily agreed to by our church (and we aren't out fighting to bring back prohibition). Just because something is legal does not mean that our church has to condone it. Nor do others need to agree with your beliefs and be compelled to follow them (it works both ways).
What we're talking about here is supporting someone's right to choose and not enforcing the majority's opinion on the minority. If gay marriage was in the majority wouldn't you want the freedom to have a heterosexual marriage? If polygamy was in the majority wouldn't you want the freedom to have a monogamous marriage?

Glendale, CA

Mr. Mack says the US Constitution gives us innate rights. I agree, they are called life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. He further insinuates that the US Constitution does not provide gays and lesbians the right to marry. But it also does not say anything about cell phones or motor vehicles. Then how can the SCOTUS seemingly answer constitutional questions on these issues. This is why have courts staff with our most seasons jurists. I hope one day people like this will stop hurting other tax paying citizens.

to comment

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