Comments about ‘Letter: Protecting minorities’

Return to article »

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

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

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

'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.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

'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.

Phoenix, AZ

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.

Miss Piggie
Phoenix, AZ

@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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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?

Bob K
portland, OR

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.

Dietrich, ID

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.

Ogden, UT

@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?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

@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.

Chris Brain

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.

Phoenix, AZ

"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.

Miss Piggie
Phoenix, AZ

"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.

Kearns, UT

"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.

to comment

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