Comments about ‘Letter: Thank heaven for the Supreme Court’

Return to article »

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

Uh... that was a stay they issued, the Supreme Court didn't say anything about the validity of Amendment 3 and could still ultimately vote to strike it down, which seems likely considering the utterly unconvincing arguments that have been made for it and similar laws so far.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

States are free to write laws that are Constitutional.

States are not free to write laws that are un-Constitutional.

Utah's ban on gay marriage violates the 14th amendment and is therefore un-Constitutional.

It's that simple.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

This was only a stay, get ready to overreact when the Tenth circuit Court rules.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

It sounds like you would prefer that the ccourts violate the 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments. To puit it bluntly, the 10th Amendment allows for state action ONLY if the other Amendments aren't violated. Judge Shelby's decision, the DOMA decision, etc., were correct and properly supported the Constitution. State law does not prevail when Constitutional rights are violated.

Ranch
Here, UT

Jim Green clearly doesn't understand that the ONLY thing the SCOTUS did was issue a stay until the 10th Circuit can review Judge Shelby's ruling. They've already indicated that they're not likely to rule in favor of Utah and discrimination.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Jim, a couple points...

1. The Supreme Court did NOT make a ruling. They simply put a hold on it.

2. States are subject to make laws UNDER the United States Constitution.
Was it OK for Missouri Gov. Lilburn Boggs issuing an Extremination order?
Was it OK for Southern States to Rebel?
Was it OK for Southern States to have Jim Crow laws?
Was it OK for States to ban marriages based on race, age, religion, or now sexual orientation?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Lets pretend for a minute that State rights about marriage were left to the states.
Many interracial couples could not travel safely to other states. (as is still the case in many states)
Utah (Deseret) would still have "Traditional Marriage" since the feds couldn't ask them to drop polygamy.
This too would be problematic for a man with 20 wives to leave the State (I've seen "Paint Your Wagon")
A single family cul de sac with a dozen homes the norm.

Nope not for me.

Ya see folks we live in a Nation or United States not some loosely associated confederation of countries.

Let go your self righteous pride and arrogance.
You will not be held responsible for allowing others their free agency.
You will, according to your doctrine be responsible for judging others, unless your perfect of course.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

No. Thank the founding fathers for the supreme court. It is going to put this issue through it's proper process, and in the end same sex marriage will prevail as an individual right, because no one can show harm from it.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Using religious arguments to claim that every judge who struck down unconstitutional laws targeting LGBT…

thanking 'Heaven' for the supreme court.

When those against marriage equality have a standard…

could someone let me know…?

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Mr. Green's exact argument was used to keep interracial couples from marrying. Then the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Yes indeed, thank heaven for the Supreme Court.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

Especially for the Citizens United ruling...

nonceleb
Salt Lake City, UT

Jim, a stay is not overturning. Don't be surprised if the ruling is upheld in the appeal. No matter what one may argue about the religious, moral or social consequences, imaginary or real, there is not even one valid constitutional argument, to deny due process and equal protection under the law to all citizens, which could overturn the initial ruling. In the meantime, while we waste time and money on the appeal, same-sex partner couples and their children will suffer, as their now recognized and protected families are in legal limbo.

RFLASH
Salt Lake City, UT

No state has the right to take away the constitutional rights of any person no matter how much of the population wants to do it! That is why it is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! The federal government does have more power, in some things, than the states. If it were not so, we wouldn't have a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! It does not matter if 90% of all Mormons want to take away my right to marry, the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES gives me that same right which all of you enjoy! It does not take away your beliefs. Believe what you want. I certainly shouldn't be denied my right to marry because others don't believe it. Don't tell me that it is that hard to understand. The 66% of the population that voted for Amendment 3 did not have sufficient reason to deny us the right to marry. You people demand others to respect your sacred marriages and your sacred beliefs. Why don't you learn to have some respect for gay people. We deserve a lot better than what many of you dish out!

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

Mr Green, don't get excited yet. As has been explained more than adequately previously, this is just temporarily. I suggest you use the time wisely getting use to the fact that there will be marriage equality when this is settled and the state will be acknowledging them. Take a few minutes to also read the 6th Article of the Constitution and remember Utah agreed with this before we ever became the 45th state. Join us Mr Green, it's time to concentrate on the issues that harm us all, not the ones that a few feel offended by.

to comment

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