Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Insignificant votes’

Return to article »

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Phranc
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Again and again we see the game plan of those that oppose gay marriage, repeat the same false claims often enough and maybe people will start to believe it. James these same claims have been made dozens of times in the last few weeks and refuted dozens more can please move on?

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

Because they found DOMA to be unconstitutional. That's how the courts work, they strike down things that are unconstitutional. I assume you wanted them to go after Obamacare because you believed it was unconstitutional, right?

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

So Utah's dismal partipation rate is the fault of the federal government? In particular, the judiciary branch? And what scientific evidence supports this?

The bottom line: states cannot make laws which violate the Constitution. No matter how many people in that state vote for it. Sorry

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution. We either have a Constitution or we don't.

ClarkHippo
Tooele, UT

On the flip side, a lot of people would argue our nation's democratic process has been damaged due to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizen's United case, which stated corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. They would also argue the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore in 2000 was a severe overreach by the judiciary which aided the Republican party for close to a decade.

Clearly both the right and the left in this country have a love/hate relationship with the judiciary. When the left wins, the right describes the specific ruling as the actions of "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench."

But when the right wins, the left describes the specific ruling as the "actions of a fascist judiciary."

Perhaps the best type of judiciary is the type no one loves 100% of the time or maybe even 75% of the time.

Curmudgeon
Salt Lake City, UT

James, suppose the residents of the state of Utah voted to allow slavery, or to shut down all churches except the dominant one, or to allow only wealthy, conservative Republicans to vote or hold office? Do you still think the courts should not intervene and declare those actions unconstitutional?

I don't think you understand how our Constitutional system of government works, with its built-in checks and balances.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

It's sad to see how many people fail to realize or recognize that laws passed by the people (even if passed by ALL the people) are null and void if they violate the US Constitution -- the supreme law of the land. the laws that were struck down violated the Constitution, and were properly dealt with.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

The most votes wins?
Really?
Where were you when Al Gore won the Presidential Election?

And as for State's rights over Federal...
Gov. Lilburn Boggs used that same thinking when he sent an State Extermination Order against a minority group in Missouri.

God bless Abraham Lincoln for seeing to it that that can kind of abuse can never happen again.

Ranch
Here, UT

Equal protection under the law.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

An idea's popularity has never been a guarantee of the idea's truthfulness.

Or shall we hold an election for all the world's religious believers to settle once and for all which religion is "true?"

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Do they not teach civics in schools anymore? Perhaps more time spent in history or civics instead of seminary would help.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

There sure have been a lot of constitutional experts since the election of 2008. Of course most of them have never read the constitution.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Exactly the same argument was used to deny interracial couples the right to marry. It was invalid then and it's invalid now. The reason Utahns don't vote is that the outcome has already been decided by a handful of rabid tea-party delegates to the state Republican convention. Why vote?

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Ah, the 'majority' claim.

1) Amendment 3 passed in 2004. It's 2014. The tide in support for gay marriage is clear any every poll since 2011. If you want to claim the 'majority' passed Amendment 3…

then we should vote on it agin, today. Not cite a poll from a decade ago.

2nd, I was having this discussing with a LDS friend of mine. She said that since I moved into Utah, I should adhere to the 'majority' in Utah.

I pointed out that # 1 Mormonism is a clear majority in utah and Utah is one of 50 states in America. # 2: There are more christians than Mormons, so Mormons should 'adhere' to the will of Christianity. #3: There are more Catholics than Christians in the world, so we should 'adhere' to Christianity. And…

# 4: There are more followers of Islam than there are Catholics in the world. So if we followed this flawed logic, we should 'adhere' to the will of the majority, and she should have then (satirically) converted from Mormonism to Islam to follow the 'majority'.

She never brought this up again.

Citing majority to remove protections of the minority…

is Tyranny.

RFLASH
Salt Lake City, UT

the vote of the people does matter and it is wrong for someone to say this just because Amendment 3 was overturned! People just choose to see what they want to see. The author of this article feels that gay people have no rights when it comes to marriage and so does 66% of all the people in Utah. The issue is about whether or not our constitution gives the same rights to gay people or if Mormons get to take it away based upon their beliefs! Look at slavery! How many thousands of people died because of all the good Christians who felt that some people should be slaves! Amendment 3 is unconstitutional! It denies good American people their rights to live and have the same opportunities as everyone else. All people are made equal. So, our constitution does have more power than the 66% of those who voted for Amendment 3 and it should have more power. It is our constitution that protects the minority from the majority that would deny them their rights. I thank God for the Constitution that overturned a law that denied me my rights.

RFLASH
Salt Lake City, UT

Our votes do matter and so do people! It is sad that so many people choose to believe a great deal that is not true! We are good people and we care a great deal about the people around us. We have no control of what others believe about us! What can we do, sit back and accept so much that is bad for us? Should we live a lie? Are we evil for believing that God has a place for us on this Earth? No, we are not, and I will never accept the degrading things people choose to heap upon us. I truly respect the beliefs of those around me, but don't expect us to believe things that are wrong. Give us more credit than that! We have a voice and a knowledge that we are part of whatever plan God has for all of us! Why is it so hard for people to look beyond themselves and try to truly understand someone who is different? Don't you think that we should all reach out? We may never realize how many great things we can learn when we reach out past our own little world!

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

James,
If you are assuming that the two issues are related... I think you are wrong.

We have historically had now voter turnout (even before the decision to negate the Proposition 3 vote in Utah).

I think we would have low voter turnout regardless of this situation.

They are both problems, but two unrelated problems IMO.

Trying to link them makes it sound like a stretch.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

The question is not "Should judges nulify laws". Sometimes they should, if and when the law in question is unconstitutional. Every judge takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. Were they not to nulify unconstitutional laws, they would be in violation of their oath and the constitution.

The question here is, 'does the constitution require gay marriage'? It is a bit is a stretch to say that it does. And it is probably unconstitutional for any state to give a child to a gay couple when the child could have had a mother and a father.

SCfan
clearfield, UT

What with the seeming low information to ignorance of much of this country, I would prefer that those who really don't know anything, not vote. I wish I could know the political leanings of judges, since it is almost a sure thing that the political leanings of judges translates into how they will judge. Or I should say legislate, because in many court cases that is what happens, new legislation, overturning either a legislature or the vote of the people. Therefore activist groups "shop for judges" to get a favorable ruling. Such a travesty that the country operates like this. Who's kidding who?

micawber
Centerville, UT

@SCfan,

Which cases are you talking about where judges are creating new legislation or overturning the votes of legislatures or people? What cases are you aware of where activist groups "shop for judges"?

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@ James Stoddard: The State of Utah was told they needed to ban polygamy - no one ever said it needed to be "a man and a woman" (which is why so many Utahns thought Amendment 3 was needed).

to comment

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