Comments about ‘My view: Shelby's jurisprudence is lacking’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 15 2014 3:56 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

Loving v Virginia is a precedent for federal judicial intervention in state marriage laws.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

Judge Shelby's decision in KITCHEN v HERBERT was soundly based on long-standing law and precedent. It accurately stated the law and accurately construed and applied the US Constitution. If Butler truly believes the things he says in this article, he has a lot to learn.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

Its informative to hear scholars speak in legalese about Utah's opposition to gay marriage, but I think many of us would like someone to explain, in plain language, how gay unions will hurt society.

Whatever you think about gay people, wouldn't the conservative position be to give them the benefits of stable, loving relationships?

UTAH Bill
Salt Lake City, UT

Yeah, we know... another judge, another "rogue" decision. We hear this tired response every time a judge makes a decision Conservatives in Utah don't like.

micawber
Centerville, UT

"Adolescent judicial immaturity", "insubordinate chutzpah", "brazen disregard", "judicial malfeasance."

It's good to see the Deseret News and the author are committed to civility.

Ranch
Here, UT

States are allowed to regulate marriage and determine what benefits and such apply, they're STILL BOUND by the 14th Amendment to apply those regulates EQUALLY to ALL US Citizens.

higv
Dietrich, ID

@furry1993 When has the right to marry someone of the same gender been a right. Why are people just now "finding that right" in the constitution? Marriage always has been between a man and women and government officials do not have a right to redefine it.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

Well, I see the regularly assigned prop-gay posters are the first on board as usual.

All one has to do is check out what has happened in Massachusetts to learn about the damage gay so-called "marriage" has done in that state. It has effected schools, churches, business, employment and freedom of speech in wholly negative ways. I encourage everyone to take the time to find out what has happened there.

Esquire
Springville, UT

This political science graduate is stating nothing more than opinion. His views don't have much support in the 200+ years of American judicial tradition.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

It would be helpful if the people expressing their disagreement with Judge Shelby's decision would show some evidence that they actually grasp the key elements of his decision, and acknowledge the legal significance of established precedent and the application of the 14th Amendment in civil rights cases.

Judge Shelby is not the first federal judge to make a sober assessment of state laws that discriminate against gays and find them to be unconstitutional, and, as we've just seen in Oklahoma, it won't be the last.

Shelby's decision will stand. Utah's Amendment 3 will not.

Sal
Provo, UT

Now give us another article Mark on how to remove rogue judges.

liberal larry: we are willing to give gays stable loving relationships through civil unions. How will your side show tolerance towards those who favor traditional marriage as the gold standard for society? Is tolerance a one-way street in your world?

EDM
Castle Valley, Utah

I am a graduate of the University of Utah, where I studied Political Science.

My view: Shelby's jurisprudence is amazing!

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

Those opposed still haven't filed a valid legal reason why two adults, being minorities, cannot marry when the majority can.

Cincinnatus
Kearns, UT

This was an argument that could have been made far fewer words.

It seems this was written more to impress a college professor than make a coherent argument to the public. Pulling out a thesaurus and using multiple meanings and big words doesn't make an argument any more valid.

Simply said, "the judge was wrong because he didn't follow years of legal precedent and logic."

Unconvincing, in long or short form.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

When the rich have so much money, why would anyone think that stealing just a handful would hurt society? So says every bank robber. Some would agree. They would see the bank robber's "needs" and justify him for taking something from someone else. Others would clearly see that if everyone were allowed to decide for himself what is "free for the taking", that society would unravel.

Judge Shelby told us that he is the law of the land. That he would decide for the citizens of Utah what their Constitution allows and what it restricts. He decided for himself that the recent ruling from the Supreme Court, that States had the right to implement marriage as their chose, was wrong, and the a dissenting opinion on that ruling was right. Judge Shelby acts much like that bank robber who justifies robbing a bank because he intends to do some good with the money. The 14th Amendment clearly states, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". The law states that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is equally enforced in Utah.

PolishBear
Charleston, WV

DEAR HIGV:

Is there a “right” for anyone to get married? Not in the Constitution. The word “marriage” does not occur in the Constitution. However, the federal government has complicated things somewhat. According to Government Accountability Office, there are at last count over 1,100 separate laws, benefits, protections, and opportunities that are bestowed by the federal government on married couples. So unless the Constitution only applies to people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual), the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law demands that law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples have the same opportunities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

But if it will make you feel any better, marriage equality for Gay couples will have precisely ZERO impact on Straight couples. For people who are Straight absolutely NOTHING is changing or being “redefined.” Straight people will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will change when Gay couples tie the knot also.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

I don't know much about the process of law, but I do know this: If this same process had led to a decision against same sex marriage, this editorial would not have been written. Secondly, the decision as it turned out was a great thing for Utah and ultimately the nation.

Steve C. Warren
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Re: "comparatively novice judge" "adolescent judicial immaturity"

In making the above statements against Judge Shelby, Mark Butler's timing couldn't be worse. That's because in today's paper we also read that in Oklahoma, Judge Terrence Kern ruled against that state's ban on same-sex marriage and, in doing so, cited Shelby's ruling. Please note that Kern is a "senior" district judge who has nearly 20 years on the federal bench and who was chief judge for seven years before assuming senior status.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

At least the judge who made the similar decision in Arkansas had the foresight to know that his decision was going to be controversial and almost certainly challenged, and didn't pretend that HIS decision was final and no stay or appeal would be accepted, causing the rush the the alters in Utah.

He knew the decision would be appealed, so he issued his decision AND a stay until it could be appealed and a higher court agree or disagree with his individual decision.

I think the Judge in the Arkansas case was wise. I think the Judge in the Utah case was full of pride and his perception of his power.

I think the Judge who overruled the Utah Judge allowing the stay that eventually was granted had more wisdom than the Judge who refused it while his decision was on appeal.

IMO the US Supreme Court needs to decide this once and for all. Until then... State decisions should be stayed awaiting the Supreme Court decision.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Furry: Your so-called understanding of the Constitution is convoluted. The constitution was written as it was for a lot of reasons, one being that it was simple to understand. It takes a century of lawyers and judges getting into the mix to make it into something only recognizable to those who think that it can mean anything you want it to mean, regardless of the words. I sometimes ask my children what part of "no" don't they understand and it appears that many who are conflicted about the Constitution's meaning need the same question asked "What is it that you don't understand about the Constitution?" If you aren't looking 'beyond the mark' it really is simple. Hopefully, the will of the people of the state of Utah will be upheld in their constitutional right to define marriage.

Liberal Larry: If you don't view the actions that naturally accompany an intimate relationship such as marriage as inconsequential to God's plan, or to the virtues that make for a stable society, then there is absolutely nothing I could do or say to persuade you otherwise.

to comment

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