Comments about ‘Letter: Protecting minorities’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 9 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

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

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


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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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.



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.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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?

salt lake city, UT

Great letter by a true American.

Sandy, UT

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.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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%.

American Fork, UT

Nicely written.

Charleston, WV

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.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

Charleston, WV

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?

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

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

Salt Lake City, UT

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!

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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.

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.

Here, UT


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.

Salt Lake City, UT


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

Anyone keeping track of the ones against?

Steve C. Warren

Three cheers for this well-reasoned letter.

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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).

Salt Lake City, UT

@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?

to comment

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