Published: Wednesday, Jan. 15 2014 12:00 a.m. MST
Loving v Virginia is a precedent for federal judicial intervention in state
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.
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?
Yeah, we know... another judge, another "rogue" decision. We hear this
tired response every time a judge makes a decision Conservatives in Utah
"Adolescent judicial immaturity", "insubordinate chutzpah",
"brazen disregard", "judicial malfeasance."It's
good to see the Deseret News and the author are committed to civility.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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
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?
I am a graduate of the University of Utah, where I studied Political Science.
My view: Shelby's jurisprudence is amazing!
Those opposed still haven't filed a valid legal reason why two adults,
being minorities, cannot marry when the majority can.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments