Published: Saturday, Jan. 11 2014 12:00 a.m. MST
"created by an overreaching decision made by a single U.S. district court
judge."State laws that violate the federal constitution are
supposed to be struck down. Otherwise what's the point of challenging any
law? "include not only a prohibition on performing same-sex
marriages "About that... for a newspaper that cares so much
about freedom of religion, doesn't it bother you that churches can be hit
with criminal charges for performing merely symbolic same-sex marriages? Both Reyes/Herbert and Holder made the right decisions since Amendment 3
is currently Utah law so they can't recognize them but since those couples
have marriage licenses the federal gov't post-DOMA does need to recognize
Ten years ago I would have agreed with this article. Not today. I know too
many loving, wonderful gay couples who deserve a strong, stable marriage as much
as I do. Some people deserve loving family relationships, but others do not?
Reminds me of Orwell's Animal Farm: All animals are created equal, but
some animals are more equal than others. Really?
If this is the case, then why do states no longer have Jim Crow laws? The answer
is that courts have ruled that separate can not be equal in issues where a state
law adversely affects a minority group. The constitution provides relief for a
minority in the event that a majority, through democratic means, has forced
beliefs or opinions upon them. The case in hand only serves the law firms that
stand to benefit from a contract for taking this case through the appeals
process. Meanwhile, the state stands to possibly lose several civil class-action
lawsuits. It will be interesting to see how things go in the legal courts, but
in the end it is the Utah tax payer who both foots the bill and the aftermath
'Democracy should be the preferred method of peacefully resolving political
controversies when attitudes about marriage differ from state to state under our
federal constitution.' Funny that this article cites
Democracy… and advocates Amendment 3, passed in 2004. ‘70% of Episcopalians support accepting gays’ - SOURCE: Pew
Research Center – 05/20/10 – DSNews. 'Poll: More
Americans favor same-sex marriage' - CNN - 04/19/11 'Poll:
MAJORITY backs same-sex marriage' – By Paul Steinhauser and Bill
Mears – CNN – 06-26-13 'Same-sex marriage
legalization seen as INEVITABLE to most Americans' – By Anjani
Trivedi – TIME Magazine – 06-07-13 'Gallup Poll:
Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews
- 05/20/2011 I would be fine with anyone citing the will of the
'majority' from Amendment 3, if it did not pass in 2004.
Today, is 2014. Democracy, also does not mean the majority run amok
on the legal protections of the minority. That, is Tyranny.
This is really tough stuff, isn't it? The family is the basic unit of
society, and it is the basic economic unit of society. I have always argued
that the natural structure of society is the commune - family, extended family,
clan, etc. It is very hard to raise kids with just one parent. Two parents are
much better, both economically and socially. The most stable family type is
probably that with 2 gender parents. That said, what about the sizable
homosexual population? Are they to be denied family life? What about children
in families with single sex parents? Are they to be denied the stability of
sanctioned marriages? What if this life is the only life they have? These
families have a whole lot on the line. While I favor 2 gender
marriages, I find it hard to join hands with conservatives because their views
are so retrograde otherwise. I think to deny these unorthodox families
legitimacy is a big mistake. Utah will rue the day it did this.
Your article reminds me of American history and how the democratic process
worked in the past1.jews and otehr non xtians (which would probably
have included Mormons, could not marry in a number of states,eg Maryland until
1864 because only a regular xtain minister could do a marriage ceremony2. Blacks could not marry in the south until 1867. Then the marriage license
came forth as a ssam like the poll tax because most blacks were destitute and
could no pay the fee - re result of the democratic process etc.3.
Same with inter-racial marriage - at one time 41 of 48 states banned it. In 1967
Scotus trashed the last 16 with htose bans - to the howls of the conservatives
claiming they could no longer protect the sanctity of the white raceThe church has no business using religious beliefs to impose their beliefs on
others. Many xtian denominations to same sex marriages which is their right and
choice bu we are talking her about equality under the law and the 14th
amendmenHow soon the Mormons forget they ended up in far away Utah
because they were persecuted for their ideas, now they do the same to others.
Shame on you.
A complete waste of the taxpayers dollar. Your gonna lose HUGE!!!!!!!!!
"....promote the benefits of gender complementarity in marriage policy."
What does this mean? Is this the new focus-grouped term the state should be
using to describe what it hasn't been able to make a legal case for? This
is a religious concept. It's certainly OK for this paper to promote it -
even encourage legislation based on it. But religious marriage concepts get
trumped by the Constitution as this stated learned in the 1880s.
What is so benevolent about Utah trying to protect an unjust law that denies gay
people marriage equality? The Church should tone down its sugar coated
characterizations that this battle is a referendum on religious freedom and the
protection of children. And by the way, if you don't think marriage
equality for gay people is a civil right, then there will never be any room for
reconciliation between the gay community and the Church.
We need to elect people with high standards.
Well said. Right on target. Utah has the right to determine its own marriage
laws in accordance with the will of the people. The Supreme Court made this
clear when it struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. That is that the
regulation of marriage is a matter for each state to decide and not for the
federal government or courts to impose. This country is based on the rights of
"We The People."
It is ridiculous to call for support of "Utah laws" without discussing
the merit of those laws!
The state of Utah and the DesNews fail to recognize the fact that states'
rights are limited by the fact that they cannot violate other provisions of the
US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. In fact, Section 3 of
the Utah Constitution states "The State of Utah is an inseparable part of
the Federal Union and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law
of the land." Utah's right to define marriage is limited by the
provisions of the US Constitution. Utah's definition of marriage violates
the 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. The
federal constitution trumps the Utah constitution. When a provision in the Utah
Constitution violates the US Constitution, it will not prevail. That is what
happened in the Kitchen v Herbert decision, and why Judge Shelby's decision
was correct and well-supported by the Constitution, precedent, and the law.
Oh, how soon we forget our own history. Do we not remember that the Utah State
Legislature passed a law in 2011 requiring schools to teach that the U.S. is a
compound constitutional republic and not a democracy? One of the key components
of a constitutional republic is the protections of minority rights; we just
can't vote or legislate unconstitutional laws. I honestly
understand the LDS Church's stance on this issue, and I understand
people's religious convictions, but we need to also allow room for people
who are different. We get that many people in Utah consider us to be vile,
godless heathens; we read the comments on here. I truly believe, however, that
you will come to a different conclusion once you allow us to have the same legal
benefits and protections that many of you take for granted.
Utah does not have the right to discriminate against US Citizens. Period. Judge Shelby's ruling was accurate, just and well within the law.
I applaud the Deseret News' strong stance in protecting democracy. In this
state, where the term "compound constitutional republic" is preferred
over the term "democracy" by many in the Legislature, standing up for
the will of the people is very welcome.If the Legislature is now
similarly minded, perhaps we'll see the threshold for citizen initiatives
lowered. Unlikely, but the general sentiment is appreciated.However, if there's one thing we've all learned from the gun debate
is that even the majority can't deny fundamental rights to the minority.
The courts have consistently stood up for the Constitution, and individual
rights.Eric Holder's announcement yesterday sets up a classic
legal showdown: We'll see a newly married same-sex couple in Utah file
their 2013 federal tax returns jointly, and also file them jointly for the State
of Utah, and their tax rate in filing jointly will be lower than if they filed
separately.The State of Utah will seek to enforce their tax laws and
force the married couple to file separately, and litigation will ensue, based on
unequal treatment under the law.Utah, of all places. This is
Should the State of Utah have the right to "protect its laws and democratic
processes"? That depends.It would be great if all of Utah's
voters were so well-informed about the Constitution of the United States
(specically the 14th Amendment) that they knew that there was no justification
for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits and
opportunities that Straight couples had always taken for granted. THEN perhaps
they would not have approved Amendment 3, knowing that it clearly conflicts with
our Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.I
would rather not believe that, in approving Amendment 3, Utah voters acted out
of any sense of fear or animosity toward their Gay neighbors. Perhaps they felt
they really were upholding "traditional values." Nevertheless, federal
judge Robert Shelby had no choice but to overturn Amendment 3 as
unconstitutional. No one ever said the "democratic process" was
foolproof. But if there's a light at the end of this tunnel, it's the
fact that if Amendment 3 was put to a popular vote TODAY, it's passage
would be doubtful.
The premise of this editorial is wrong. Democratic processes cannot
"undo" any person's individual rights. If you want to, argue for
the benefits of "traditional marriage." But don't pretend that any
majority can deprive anyone of his or her rights under our Constitution. That
wrong-headed view of democracy has led to much suffering in our history.
The American Constitution: Godly or Godless?"Despite ...
intermittent controversies implicating the Constitution, the more usualresponse of religious people to the nation’s founding document has been
unqualifiedsupport. Given the successful history of the Constitution in
action, this fact should comeas little surprise. By crafting a document
that took seriously the fallibility of humannature, the Founders created a
government that has withstood the political passions that have destroyed so many
other regimes throughout human history. By refusing to sanction even the hint of
an official state religion in their new Constitution, the Founders encouraged
the conditions necessary for religion to flourish free from government
regulation. Finally, by recognizing the need for civic virtue in
order to make their constitutional system work in practice, the Founders opened
the door for religion to act as a vibrant moral force in American public
life". From - Religion and the Constitution by John G. West
Those Utahns are married. You can't change that. Let it go and spend the
2 mil somewhere useful.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments