Comments about ‘Letter: Bending laws’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 8 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
spring street

A great example of how people will see what they want to see.

Salt Lake City, UT

"there is consensus that what Judge Shelby has done concerning the definition of marriage in Utah is bending the laws and rules to the breaking point."

You must only be looking at sources that are against same-sex marriage seeing as the other half of the nation considers Shelby's ruling to be correct.

Ogden, UT

It's sad that this author thinks a (correct, strongly based, and well-reased and argued) decision is "bending the laws and rules to the breaking point". It's not. It's defending an attack against the rights protected by the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Judge Shelby did what he was supposed to do, and did it well. Good job, Judge Shelby.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

You mean in a newspaper owned by a church who is adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage there is consensus? Shocking.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

The State of Utah set out to "define" marriage,
Judge Shelby simply ruled thumbs up or thumbs down on the Constitutionality of that "definition".
The only one's bending anything are the one's bending facts and reality.

Here, UT

Shauna, you have NEVER had the right to vote on the rights of other American Citizens.

Salt Lake City, UT


What you derisively call "Obama's America," the rest of the country simply regards as "constitutional protections applied through evidence-based reality."

Regarding Shelby:

“Whenever we have a judicial vacancy in Utah, no matter who occupies the White House, I look for a candidate to recommend who is widely respected in the legal community and who can be widely supported in the Senate. Bob Shelby certainly meets that test.” - Utah Senator Orrin Hatch

During the confirmation process, Utah Senator Mike Lee also described Shelby as "pre-eminently qualified" and predicted he would be "an outstanding judge."

Shelby's own words: "I do not believe it is the proper role of a judge to seek to protect interests of any parties, irrespective of whether those parties might be described as 'big guys' or 'little guys.' To the contrary, I believe it is the judge’s responsibility to reach decisions based exclusively on the application of established precedent to the specific facts presented."

Which is exactly what he did, and is exactly why Utah's Amendment 3 is not long for this world.

Murray, UT

The pro SSM folks are going after the wrong group.

The government is the one who gives legal privileges to married couples that they don't give to single people. It is called discrimination. Why don't you sue them instead of a little cake baker, or a photographer? The government is big, and where the money is. Of course there are also marriage tax penalties too, which is also discrimination. It is the government that needs to quit discriminating, and make laws more fair to everyone.

Then there is the privilege to bring children into your family, which God designated to couples comprised of a man and a woman. He told them to commit in marriage first, for the good of all society. Marriage and the making of children was God's doing. Who are we to say he is wrong? How do you expect your fellow man to change what God has done, and why is it your 'right' to expect society to do so?

Isn't it hard to fight against God?

Yes, look how war torn and miserable our society is becoming because of our long war on God.


Shauna, you should diversify your reading list; there is no such consensus.

Secondly, no Constitutional amendments were ignored by Judge Shelby. He basically stated that the State of Utah had no right to ignore the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

And none of us has the right to vote on whether or not others have equal rights. Ever.

American Fork, UT

This consensus of which you speak does not exist. The 'bent laws' are those that deny same sex couples marriage in the first place.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

As a committed, believing LDS I reject the idea that my religious doctrines have any standing in law. My scripture (DC 134) specifically says that religion should not be "mingled" in constitutional government. Legal arguments based on religious belief are NOT VALID.I wish my fellow LDS would read our own scriptures...

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Can same-sex "marriage" be shown to damage society? Clearly it can. If same-sex "marriage" became the normhuman life would cease to exist. Would a halt of procreation harm society?

Let's look at other rules that society has put in place where the "rights" of a few were "denied" to preserve society. Society has dictated that I must wear a seatbelt when I am in a vehicle. If I choose to disobey the seatbelt law, I will be fined. If I refuse to protect children in that vehicle, I will face much more than a fine. Where is the outrage over seatbelt laws?

How about smoking laws? A businessman cannot declare that his business is a smoking zone, even if 100% of his customers want to smoke. Society has ruled that smoke, even second-hand smoke, is a danger to society. Where is the outrage?

Having childless marriages, by definition, is a much greater danger to society than are refusing to use seat-belts or smoking. Marriage and families are more important than seat-belts and smoking. Marriage and families need protection.

Far East USA, SC


You are confusing the "right" to engage in SSM with a Mandate allowing only SSM.

Do you sincerely think that the allowance of SSM threatens the population of our planet?

Are couples who cannot have children also "a much greater danger to society" than smoking?


Personally, I cannot see how allowing SSM or not affects me one iota. Looks more to me like wanting to mingle religion into our laws.

Salt Lake City, UT

Obama didn't 'bother' with DOMA…?

'Judge Rules Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Is Unconstitutional..' - ABC News - By Jake Tapper - 01/08/10

'Prop 8 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ – by Michael De Groote – Deseret News 02/07/12

"Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the Ninth Circuit said in its ruling on appeal in the case of Perry v. Brown.'

'Federal judge OVERTURNS Utah Same-sex marriage Ban' - By Emiley Morgan and Marjorie Cortez KSL - 12/22/13

Welcome to 'Obama's America…

I mean, seriously.

I think somewhere along x15 judges have already ruled on marriage equality. From the 9th circuit on Prop 8, to the Supreme court on DOMA.

But hey! Here in utah, let's blame ONE judge!

And then blame Obama for it!

1, Obama is the President. Not a judge. 2, Senator Orrin Hatch voted for Judge Shelby.

3, as I have pointed out, Shelby is factually not, the only judge to rule like this in the past.

Read a book.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah
Can same-sex "marriage" be shown to damage society? Clearly it can. If same-sex "marriage" became the normhuman life would cease to exist. Would a halt of procreation harm society?


Clearly it CAN'T

Who said anything about the "halt" of humanity?

97-98% of human reamain heterosexual - always have, always will,
you are just crying a bunch of "what if" crocodile tears.

Talk about hyperbole and quantum leaps in logic...

Salt Lake City, UT

Could anyone be so callow as to assume any judge of any stripe would rule based on just his or her personal view? Shauna, Badger and MR see a through a different lens than many of us do that see this as a non partisan issue. Badger sees a "war on God" here and ignores that gay people have been serving in our military for two years now defending his right to make that argument about war. MR wants to make the line for marriage be procreation but ignore those heterosexuals who cannot have children or that every day gay women are being inseminated with donor sperm or by test tube fertilized ova. All of these views ignore logic to make their point. Can they really hope to persuade anyone with such thinly veiled personal prejudice cloaked in a Constitutional arguement?

Salt Lake City, UT

@Mike Richards
"If same-sex "marriage" became the normhuman life would cease to exist"

Gay people are still gay regardless of whether or not they marry. Gay marriage effectively increases human life since they're more likely to consider things like in-vitro or adoption as a couple than by themselves.

"Having childless marriages, by definition, is a much greater danger to society than are refusing to use seat-belts or smoking."

Bigotry is a much greater danger to society than any of the things you're talking about.

And besides, you're not pro-marriage, you're pro-sex. Marriage is completely unnecessary when it comes to making children which you seem to believe is the most important thing. Are you married? I wouldn't want to be married to you (for several reasons, one being that I don't swing that way) since you seem to be obsessed about sex rather than what marriage actually is based on, love.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Some of you are arguing that something that is far more dangerous to society than NOT wearing a seatbelt should be allowed because? Because YOU want it that way. You're telling us that if you and all of your friends could convince society that same-sex sex was the defacto norm, that you couldn't care less about the effects YOUR desires had on civilization. You can't say that you're not trying to convince us that same-sex sex should be taught in your homes. You're can't say tht you're not trying to convince our children in our schools to accept same-sex sex. Your history precedes your rhetoric.

It is not in society's interest to harm the families which are the bedrock of society. Teaching children that God made a mistake when he put you in the wrong body teaches total disrespect for our Creator and tells the child that only his "feelings" should be considered, not his actions and not the effect of his actions on society.

The same-sex "marriage" position is untenable. It is harmful to society. If lived, there will be no population.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

IMO what Judge Shelby did was much less egregious than what's being done by the White House and the Federal Government daily.

Just ignoring the laws they don't like.

-Don't enforce immigration law (because you need their votes)
-Run guns to Mexico and then just deny it and refuse to investigate when you get caught.
-Let the IRS and the NSA abuse people's rights, and then ignore it when it comes to light.
-Push ACA through (before legislators voting on it can read it) and then just wave parts of the law by Presidential Fiat (no vote of Congress) if you decide you don't like parts of it after it's the law.
-Wave the results of State Elections (if one of your key support groups got the short end of the election).
-Ignore rights of car company shareholders and just give ownership to the Union bosses.

Selective enforcement of the law is always distressful to people who accept that the law is the law (for everybody). But it is normal and just fits the way they run their life for people who think laws are for everybody else (but not for them).

Salt Lake City, UT

Mike: "It is not in society's interest to harm the families which are the bedrock of society."

Agreed. So why do you want to harm the families of same-sex couples?

"The same-sex "marriage" position is untenable. It is harmful to society."

That claim has been made many times in court, and not once has it survived legal scrutiny. As was noted in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger (Prop 8) case, "The witness stand is a lonely place to try to lie."

"If lived, there will be no population."

Hyperbole much there, Mike? Seriously?

I have two neighbors, a same-sex couple, who've been together for at least a decade and are now raising their second adopted child. They are both fantastic, loving, dedicated and effective parents.

Please explain to us exactly how human procreation will grind to a halt if my neighbors are allowed to have their mutual commitment receive the same state recognition that you take for granted.

to comment

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