Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Protecting minorities

Comments

Return To Article
  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 3:29 p.m.

    "The point is that the state has no interest in the marriage of LGBT people because the state receives nothing in return for the benefits it provides to married LGBT couples."

    Other than the money the county receives from a marriage license, it provides more stable families in our communities. It provides gay couples the opportunity to share insurance plans which creates a healthier community. It will also lead to a decrease in hate crimes against the LGBT population. These are benefits to the state.

    "The judge's ruling only dealt with same sex marriages."

    His ruling only dealt with same-sex marriages because that's what amendment 3 is about; it doesn't address those other relationships. Besides, many of us need to do research about logical fallacies and calm down a bit.

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 11, 2014 11:20 p.m.

    "Before criticizing Judge Shelby, people should read his ruling."

    The judge's ruling only dealt with same sex marriages. What of the other combinations of potential marriages? His ruling didn't address them. If his goal was to be fair to all marriages providing equal protection, he should have ruled on all other potential marriage combinations... polygamy, incest, sibs, close relatives, etc. Obviously, he couldn't think outside the box. He must been going into this with an agenda.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 11, 2014 7:43 p.m.

    @Furry1993:
    "What other unenumerated rights do YOU think the Constitution protects?"

    The right for polygamists to marry. The right for incestuous marriages. The right for groups of mixed sexes to all marry each other. The right for brothers and sisters to marry. The right for women to have more than one husband at a time. The right for a geezer to marry a nine year old (boy, girl, or both).

    The right for children to eat, drink (alcohol) and be 'marry.'

    The right for all to grow, buy, possess, and use marijuana.

  • Chris Brain SLC, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    Well done Mr. Guymon. Clear-headed, objective.......rings true. The point you make is irrefutable, a point that is high up above all the frenzied rhetoric and dogmatic lectures. A point whose time has come.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 2:15 p.m.

    @2bits: Karma (Sanskrit) means action, work or deed. Karma also refers to the principle of causality where intent and actions of an individual influence the future of that individual.[1] Good intent and good deed lead to good Karma; while bad intent and bad deed lead to bad Karma.[2] According to the theory of Karma, good Karma contributes to happier life, bad Karma contributes to suffering.

    As soon as someone can give a reason other than it offends their feelings because religion keeps changing the meaning of "Traditional" to mean more exclusive.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 1:19 p.m.

    @higv 7:32 a.m. Jan. 10, 2014

    The Ninth Amendmenet to the US Constitution states as follows:

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Do you recognize that not every right people have is listed in the Constitution? Tell me what you think those Ninth Amendment rights are. I'll give you a couple of them -- the right to privacy, on which Roe v Wade was based, and the right to marry, which has been determined to be a fundamental right for a very long time. What other unenumerated rights do YOU think the Constitution protects?

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 10, 2014 7:32 a.m.

    The church has always been against legalization of same gender marriage. Do you believe the leaders are inspired? As for courts giving equal rights, The right to marry is not in the constitution, discrimination on race was. It is the judges job to interpret the constitution, not legislate from the bench. Are they the only voiced to be heard in this country. Roe vs Wade another one where the courts ruled on things they had no right.

    People don't get there way at the polls so go to some judge that finds what they agree with to overturn the will of the people in things not in the constitution.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 10, 2014 12:06 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    "The family is under attack. Period. No "rights" can be granted that destroy the family."

    --- DIVORCE destroys the family.
    --- Marriage Equality destroys nothing (except perhaps a few marriages that are lies)
    ---

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    LDS Liberal,
    "Where in the scriptures did Jesus teach us about "Karma"?
    I don't think Jesus taught us about Karma."

    Perhaps with a bit of thought, one could see, the Golden Rule,

    "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You" -- as pretty close to Kharma.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 10:39 p.m.

    I think his letter is direct and to the point. There is no valid reason that the State should restrict marriage rights. It is really getting to be absurd. I have now watch amazing gay coupe with amazing children getting married and providing better homes and families.....What seem to be the problem except bigotry?

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 9, 2014 8:19 p.m.

    @Pops: "Possible benefits might include such things as more children, and children less likely to be dysfunctional..."

    The big, mega benefit is... preservation of the institution of marriage, itself.

    If marriage can mean any combination conjured by humankind (as described many times on this and other threads) it will disappear altogether as a meaningless exercise, as will the family. If marriage and the family have any benefit to the state (and it does) it should be aggressively defended and protected as currently constituted in Utah State law.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 7:37 p.m.

    PolishBear wrote: "No benefits have been demonstrated. Couples do not need to marry to bear children."

    Heterosexual couples do, in fact, produce and raise children, and the state wishes to incentivize the responsible (e.g. parents in a legally binding relationship) production AND the raising. And I don't believe that "countless gay couples are raising children" - that's hyperbole.

    Ranch wrote: "The state has no valid interest in preventing marriage of LGBT people"

    That isn't the point. The point is that the state has no interest in the marriage of LGBT people because the state receives nothing in return for the benefits it provides to married LGBT couples. It's the same thing with paving contracts - would you say that the state is preventing IT companies from paving roads because they don't award paving contracts to IT companies? Of course not. IT companies don't get paving contracts because IT companies don't pave roads.

    What logical reason exists for the state to award marriage licenses to couples that won't, on average, provide anything in return? That's why marriage is a discretionary status offered by states only to those who meet the state's qualifications.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 9, 2014 7:34 p.m.

    Well Paxton, would your comment be the same if the judge had ruled for polygamists, brother/sister marriages, sibs marriages, cousins and other close relatives marriages, incestuous marriages, even group marriages containing a variety of sexes and ages marriages, and all other marriage combinations that can be conjured?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 6:33 p.m.

    'It won't affect the straight population's birth rate, but the more gay marriage we have and the more acceptance of gay marriage grows... the overall birthrate will be effected, more than an iota (whatever that is).'

    *'World population hits 7 billion in record time' – By HayaEl Nasser – USA today – Published by the Deseret news – 10/30/11

    Gay marriage was 1st allowed in America in MA in 2004.

    7 billion humans just 7 years later.

    The faulty claim that gay marriage will somehow 'harm' the world population has been disproven 7 billion times.

    Every, iota.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 3:12 p.m.

    atl134,
    I don't think allowing gay marriage will affect the birth rate. But the encouragement and proliferation of the gay lifestyle and the acceptance of it as a social "norm" would.
    That's the only clarification I'd like to make.

    --

    I have friends and neighbors who had children (in a traditional marriage) and then realized they were gay and dumped their family to run off with their boy/girl friend. So from that personal experience I know gay people sometimes contribute to the birthrate (before they realized they were gay). But the point I was trying to make is that the more we encourage the gay lifestyle and the more people that are gay (and the numbers are increasing)... the more it impacts the birthrate. But this is pretty much an irrelevant point. I don't know why I even commented on it. It took us on a complete tangent. The birthrate is mostly irrelevant to this and it wasn't even my point, I was mostly commenting on somebody's comment on birthrate. Don't know how I became the defender of it.

    ----

    The point of the letter is protecting minorities... and I agree that is important.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 2:50 p.m.

    'Judge Shelby re-wrote the definition of marriage, as defined by the Constitution for several centuries…'

    America seceded from Britain in 1776 to form it's own country..

    238 years ago.

    Utah banned Polygamy…

    in 1890.

    123 years ago.

    If you are going to try to make a point…

    do not be ignorant of the facts.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 1:37 p.m.

    Judge Shelby re-wrote the definition of marriage, as defined by the Constitution for several centuries, as being between a man and a woman. The 14th Amendment allowed interracial couples to join that definition. It didn't redefine marriage. Nowhere in the Constitution was Shelby given that right. That's why all nine Supreme Court justices, without dissent, stayed the ruling.

    Judge Shelby also ignored the latest Supreme Court ruling against DOMA. It stated that states continue to have the right to define marriage.

    He is most certainly an activist judge unconstitutionally exercising his personal preferences over the will of the people of Utah.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    @2 bits
    "That kinda flies in the fave of all biology I've learned. It won't affect the straight population's birth rate, but the more gay marriage we have and the more acceptance of gay marriage grows... the overall birthrate will be effected, more than an iota"

    You think gay people are going to start making babies if there's no same-sex marriage?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,
    That's not what "Karma" means (as a religious concept). But if that's what you think of when you say "Karma"... then OK.

    ----

    RE: "LGBT couples getting married isn't going to change the number of children being born one iota"... (Ranch)

    That kinda flies in the fave of all biology I've learned. It won't affect the straight population's birth rate, but the more gay marriage we have and the more acceptance of gay marriage grows... the overall birthrate will be effected, more than an iota (whatever that is).

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    Would anyone like to tell me how examples like these without marriage protections 'help' families…?

    *'Report details inequities for kids of gay parents' - By David Crary - AP - Published by DSNews - 10/25/11

    'Carrigan is among a growing multitude of American children possibly more than 1.2 million of them being raised by gay and lesbian parents, often WITHOUT all the LEGAL PROTECTIONS afforded to mom-and-dad households.'

    *'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09

    '...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'

    And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive, Power of attorney and emergency contact information...

    Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond.

    They were together for 18 years.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    Three cheers for this well-reasoned letter.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    Wow.

    That is two (2) Op's in support of marriage equality.

    Anyone keeping track of the ones against?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    @pops;

    LGBT couples getting married isn't going to change the number of children being born one iota. Straight people aren't going to stop having kids because gay people get married.

    The state has no valid interest in preventing marriage of LGBT people; the only rational explanation has to be animus.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    LDS Liberal,
    Where in the scriptures did Jesus teach us about "Karma"?

    =======

    What is the Golden rule?
    [Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. = Karma]

    I spent 2 years in SE Asia as a LDSMissionary.
    Our discussions explained Jesus and Karma.


    Galatians 6:7…whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

    Job 4:8 - …they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.

    Matthew 7:12 - Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

    Matthew 26:52 - Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

    Proverbs 26:27 - Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him.

    ...the Curses Pharoah brought upon his own people.
    Karma.

    That's just using a Bible,
    The BoM, D&C, PoGP, and General Authorities give us even more.

    What goes around, comes around.
    [...you reap what you sow.]

    Just because you can't find the word "Karma" in scriptures,
    Doesn't mean the concept isn't right there.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    Can you imagine what it would be like if we didn't have a way to work these things out! People here should think about their own history and what was done to early Mormons, by the people who were the majority. They were ran out of their houses, tared and feathered and their prophet was killed! I believe there was some kind of law that allowed someone to kill a Mormon! The lovely majority of the state of Missouri,I am sure, felt like the majority in Utah feel today about amendment 3. They had the right to do those things to the Mormons! They were the majority and they had a right to drive them out! Can I just say that it is not the end of the World! We are not as bad as people think and it isn't going to hurt anyone! Come on! I grew up Mormon and we were taught the importance of others! Our lives are important! I am sorry people believe what they do, but surely it is not a bad thing for us to improve our lives!It is the hardest thing. People I love have so little respect! Come on!

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 9, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    Paxton, you are a brave man. There will be a lot of people looking at you askance this weekend in certain venues.

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Jan. 9, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    Pops writes, "The question is whether the state benefits by restricting marriage to heterosexual couples."

    No benefits have been demonstrated. Couples do not need to marry to bear children. The ability or even desire to bear children is not a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

    Furthermore, there are countless Gay couples who are raising their adopted children to healthy, well-adjusted adulthood. If marriage provides a more stable environment for the raising of children, what justification can be made for denying Gay couples who DO have children the option to marry?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    LDS Liberal,
    Where in the scriptures did Jesus teach us about "Karma"?

    Karma comes from Buddhism... in connection with the concept of reincarnation. Buddhism also teaches us the concept of "No Judge, No Justice". Kinda like Jesus's concept of "judge not"... but different... it's the concept that there is no pre-defined "Good" or "Bad" (kinda like what Korihor taught).

    Buddhist scholar Walpola Rahula said,
    "The theory of karma should not be confused with so-called 'moral justice' or 'reward and punishment'. The idea of moral justice, or reward and punishment, arises out of the conception of a supreme being, a God, who sits in judgment, who is a law-giver and who decides what is right and wrong. The term 'justice' is ambiguous and dangerous, and in its name more harm than good is done to humanity. The theory of karma is the theory of cause and effect, of action and reaction; it is a natural law, which has nothing to do with the idea of justice or reward and punishment."

    I don't think Jesus taught us about Karma.

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Jan. 9, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    Good letter. Laws need to applied equally across all affected demographic groups. You can have a situation in which the Straight majority gets to decide whether or not all the legal benefits and opportunities they take for granted should be denied to the Gay minority. If the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been put to a popular vote in the Deep South, I think we all know how THAT would've turned out.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 8:57 a.m.

    Nicely written.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 8:56 a.m.

    He has a good point.

    Democracy is one thing... tyranny of the majority is another. We need some rules that protect the minority from a majority that would vote to diminish others rights, or vote to oppress or abuse or tax the minority.

    That's the principle I was talking about when I denounced the move by Democrats in Washington to implement the "Atomic Option" and do away with any power the minority had to even slow down their agenda. That's Democrats voting FOR tyranny of the majority.

    And the Democrats who stood on their soap box back then and placed their hand over their harts and said, "But we believe in Democracy... and that the Majority SHOULD get what they want"... Where is your consistency now?

    We vote to determine popular preferences regarding our laws... but we don't allow the majority to vote to take away other people's rights or to silence or abuse the minority. If that's what the Judge was saying then I agree 100%.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 8:41 a.m.

    Paxton,
    The reason that the Governor and others are ranting that the Judge is an activist is based on two parts....

    1. They asked for a Stay until the full court could hear it and was denied. This is common practice by the courts to allow an appeal of their decision by the losing side. Shelby did not do that and now we have thousands of marriages in limbo because of it. If the Gay community had lost, would they "Accept" the decision? or would they want to appeal it to the full court? The answer is the latter.

    2. There is an issued of Federalism vs State rights that needs to be clarified. Does the State have the right to restrict marriage? Everyone points to the Loving vs Virginia case as their based for the Judge ruling. in that case it clearly ties the right to marry to a "Race" issue. That all races have the right to marry and not be denied because of they have different color of skin.

    There is also the issue Pops brings up as well.

    I think SCOTUS needs to stop kicking this can down the road and rule on it.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 8:10 a.m.

    Great letter by a true American.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 9, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    The family is under attack. Period. No "rights" can be granted that destroy the family. "Feelings" are not the basis of equality. If you carefully read his ruling, you can plainly see that he is allowing people to tell us that their "feelings" about who they are the basis for their demand for "equality". His ruling is preposterous. He used the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court to justify his ruling. The Supreme Court clearly stated that the STATES were the proper place to decide what constitutes marriage. Utah is a State. Utah has a Constitution. Utah's people clearly modified that Constitution to include the definition of "marriage". The 14th Amendment does not include "feelings" as a basis for determining equality. Any man can marry any woman regardless of race, religion or national origin. That is equality. That preserves the family. That protects children from being told that same-sex sex is normal and proper. Nothing is more important than protecting the family from those who would mock God and reverse His doctrine that marriage is between a man and a woman. Their argument is that God is irrelevant. What more needs to be said?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 7:10 a.m.

    It is inappropriate for Gov. Herbert and others to characterize Shelby as an activist judge and lambaste him for undermining the "will of the people.” Such tirades reflect a fundamental ignorance of the purpose of the Constitution — to protect the rights of those who are not part of the popular majority.

    =========

    Agreed.

    As a reminder --
    There are more than 13 million homosexuals in America,
    while there is less than 5 million Mormons.

    People who live in glass houses should not be throwing any stones.
    And what goes around, comes around.
    Karma - Jesus taught us about Karma.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 5:37 a.m.

    I understand the concept of a constitutional republic and how it protects the rights of minorities. However, I don't understand the logic that elevates the discretionary status of marriage to a fundamental right. People have a fundamental right to live together as they please. The state has the right to offer marriage licenses to whom they please, not unlike the dispensing of driver's licenses if certain criteria are met. The question is whether the state benefits by restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. If so, it is within the purview of the state to do so; otherwise, the equal protection clause dictates that it cannot (which is why laws against interracial marriage were overturned).

    If Amendment 3 is overturned by the Supreme Court, what it will mean is that the court believes that the state has no reasonable expectation of benefit by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. Possible benefits might include such things as more children, and children less likely to be dysfunctional, both of which I believe to be true but with which the court may not agree.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 4:23 a.m.

    Well said, Paxton Guymon -- you are exactly right.