Published: Monday, Jan. 13 2014 12:00 a.m. MST
Actually, Mr. Anderson's original letter was right. While there's not
a constitutional amendment regarding marriage, many previous Court decisions
clearly enshrine marriage as a right, and the fourteenth Amendment applies that
right to the states. Judge Shelby ruled correctly.
Oh for Pete's sake!The US Constitution also doesn't say
that inter-racial couples have a right to marry, either. For that matter, it
also doesn't say that couples who are blue-eyed have a right to marry.Would Mr. Livermore argue that states may therefore ban those marriages
without worrying about judicial intervention?The fact is that the
right to marry _has_ been identified as a basic right of citizens, and thus
state laws that deny that right to citizens are unconstitutional.
Let me help you out, Greg: This IS explicitly stated in the US Constitution:Amendment 14:"All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws."I hope this
clears up your misunderstanding.
Has SCOTUS held that marriage is a fundamental right? Yes.Please
explain how sexual orientation has any bearing on this at all. Please explain how mixed-race marriage is also protected under this right if
the Constitution doesn't specifically mention it either. Please explain how sexual orientation differs from skin color when neither are
chosen. Please explain how certain religions' beliefs about
homosexuality can be codified into law without violating the Second Amendment
and threatening their own religious liberty.
I sure wished we had "judical tyrants over-stepping authority" to stop
Gov. Lilburn Boggs Extermination Order.
For those insisisting that "States" are the supreme authority regarding
"marriage", Please explain one stays married moving from
State to State, withour proper legal recognition?What if Texas
or South Carolina desides not to recognize Mormon marriages in Utah?
The fact that gay marriage is no mentioned in the Constitution is irrelevant.
The real issue at hand is personal freedom and most people will agree that
personal freedom is in the Constitution. How can anyone who argues
that a person may operate his private business operation according to his
personal beliefs and at the same time that a person does not have the right to
operated his own life according to his own personal beliefs?
LDS Liberal,It is pretty simple concept for marriages "going over"
state lines.Unless the state law specifically states it does not
permit a certain type of marriage (polygamy, gay marriage)it is recognized as a
legal marriage. Why? because there is an interstate compact between all states
that signed on to this.AS for you Mormon marriage (which I really
surprised that you don't know this by your moniker name), There is no such
thing as a Mormon marriage. The Church as the authority of the state to marry
couples, which all church has this right. What they do have is Temple
I've also heard the argument of State issued Driver's Licenses...If that be the case, Anytime you move you must re-new your license
within 90 days of the State to which you now reside.Is that what you
want to see happpen with Marriage Licenses?Getting re-newed or re-licenses
each and everytime you move?Silly.
Who is going to protect me against those who demand special privileges because
of the way that they think or the way that they feel? They expect me to read
their minds. They expect me to treat them as a lady when they have full facial
hair. They get offended when I hold a door for them, just as I would hold a
door for any woman, whether that woman is my mother, my wife or my sister.The 14th Amendment says, "nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.", yet they deny me equal
protection when they demand unequal protection. They demand that additional
penalties be applied to any crime that they "think" singles them out,
yet they they demand that they have full access to our schools, to our scout
troops, to our churches, and to our government to teach our children their ways.
They call those of us who respect the Doctrine of our Creator, homophobic. They
accuse us of hate speech as they parade naked through the streets of California.
@Sam Blue RanchWe also have a constitutional right to be secure in
our own property. Yet the law requires that I pay more for my health insurance
while someone else pays less for the same insurance. You can call this a lot of
things, but you can't call it equal protection. In this case we allow other
societal values to trump the 14th amendment.If a state amends its
own constitution by popular vote to define marriage in a way that protects any
children potentially born to a union, why may this not also trump the 14th
amendment? It's one core value against another.
The Constitution does not grant rights, it protects them. Our rights come from
our Maker. All people, without exception, have the right to life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. Whether a right is enumerated in the Constitution does
not matter.Who can argue that denying someone the right to choose,
be with, and commit to a partner of their choice isn't a breach of their
right to pursue happiness?
If we're actually paying attention to the truth and subsequent details,
marriage was first recognized as a right under the COTUS by the SCOTUS in 1888.
Gun ownership for an individual was not recognized as a right by the SCOTUS
until 2008. Marriage is far more established and, if judicial
activism exists here, it is the 5-4 decision in DC v Heller from 2008.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahYou know, It's easy
preaching this day-after-day in the Deseret news, in Utah.Try taking
your message to those who you think need it most.[i.e., SFGate, San
Fransico Chroicle, or the San Fransico Examiner.]
to define marriage in a way that protects any children potentially born to a
unionWill someone please explain this to me? I keep seeing it over
and over again, and it makes no sense to me at all. How does same sex marriage
relate to protecting any children? The two issues are completely separate. Whether you allow SSM or not, you still will have single parents, lazy
parents, child abuse and neglect, parents who throw their children away, dumb
parents, parents who don't value education, parents who don't value
their children - all the issue we currently have with children not living in
"loving homes with a mother and a father."What is the world
changes regarding this issue if we allow or don't allow SSM?
LDS Liberal, Your grave concern has been noted. Thank you. -----What is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Where
does your right to stop life from beginning end and society's right to
promote life begin? Anyone can clearly show irreparable harm to society if
everyone started living as same-sex couples. There would soon be no population.
No one would be bold enough to tell us that society would survive without
reproduction. No one would be bold enough to tell us that zero population is
good for a non-existent society, yet those who advocate same-sex unions reject
the harm of preventing life in their quest for "liberty" and their
pursuit of "happiness".There can be no liberty without life.
There can be no pursuit of happiness without life. Life cannot be created in a
same-sex "marriage".When does personal liberty trump life?
When does one's personal pursuit of happiness trump life? Our
creator gave us life. He gave us all liberty. He told us the rules to achieve
happiness. Without life nothing else can be accomplished.
@Mike RichardsI still think you don't know the difference between gay
and trans... and they aren't looking for special privileges. You could
marry a guy too if you wanted. You don't have any use for that privilege?
Well neither do they when it comes to marrying someone of the opposite gender.
@Mike RichardsAnyone can clearly show irreparable harm to society if
everyone started living as same-sex couples====================Will never happen. I like girls way to much to be attracted to a guy.
Just who I am. I believe I can speak for the vast, vast majority of all
humanity when I asy that. That argument does not work. Nature has done a
pretty good job to ensure we are wired to be attracted to those of the opposite
sex (I never even had to make a decision about which gender I prefer).===========================Life cannot be created in a same-sex
"marriage". No, it cannot. It also cannot be created in
some hetero marriages. My parents are well beyond their child bearing years,
and all of my brothers and sisters are now adults. Guess we no longer have to
recognize that marriage.Unless...maybe marriage is about love, and
having children is a product of that love in some marriages. Otherwise, if it
was only about kids, we could simply have the State pick a partner for us at a
reasonable age and then we could go make kids.
@Mike RichardsIn-vitro fertilization exists. Even if everyone were in
same-sex marriages, there could still be continuation of the species. Besides,
your argument is a strawman since the vast majority of people would still be in
opposite-sex relationships anyway. Do you really think banning same-sex marriage
is going to result in gay people having opposite-sex marriages? But
really what you're criticizing is women. They're the ones that have to
actually give birth, and you're the one calling people who don't have
kids selfish. Yeah, how dare they not want to go through something that
you'd never have to deal with yourself?
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahAnyone can clearly show
irreparable harm to society if everyone started living as same-sex couples.
There would soon be no population. No one would be bold enough to tell us that
society would survive without reproduction. ==== Reality
check:1. Homosexuals account for >5% of the population, so 95% of us
remain straight.2. Even IF your world of make-believe became reality
and somehow everything were swithed 180 degrees -- i.e., 95% was gay, and only
5% were straight -- I imagine that the remaining 5% of the males could still do
a pretty good job of pro-creating.3. You stated: "Life cannot be
created in a same-sex "marriage"". Using uyour own met and
measure -- I know you are an older gentleman, how can you possibly now
justify your own marriage?4. I got married for love and committment,
not for sex.I think these people are just trying live their lives the same
way.5. BTW -- I'm sure you have already read the statement
from the LDS Church about being civilized [tolerant] toward your brothers and
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments