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.
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.
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?
Great letter by a true American.
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.
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%.
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.
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
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?
Paxton, you are a brave man. There will be a lot of people looking at you
askance this weekend in certain venues.
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!
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTLDS 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.
@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.
Wow. That is two (2) Op's in support of marriage equality. Anyone keeping track of the ones against?
Three cheers for this well-reasoned letter.
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.
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).
@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?
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.
'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.
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.
'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.
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?
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.
@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.
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
Mike RichardsSouth 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
bitsCottonwood Heights, UTLDS 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.
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.
@higv 7:32 a.m. Jan. 10, 2014The 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?
@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. Good intent and good deed lead to good Karma;
while bad intent and bad deed lead to bad Karma. 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.
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.
@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.
"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.
"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.