Comments about ‘Letter: Overstepping authority’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Jan. 13 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

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

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Here, UT

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.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I sure wished we had "judical tyrants over-stepping authority" to stop Gov. Lilburn Boggs Extermination Order.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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?

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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?

Sandy, UT

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 "Sealing's".

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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?


Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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.

What "equality"?

Pleasant Grove, UT

@Sam Blue Ranch

We 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.

Eagle Mountain, UT

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?

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

You 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 union

Will 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?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

@Mike Richards
I 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.

Eagle Mountain, UT

@Mike Richards

Anyone 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.

Salt Lake City, UT

@Mike Richards
In-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?

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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.


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 sisters.

to comment

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