Comments about ‘Herbert criticizes states that don't follow 'will of the people' on same-sex marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 23 2014 7:55 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
ChuckGG
Gaithersburg, MD

I am reminded of the "will of the people" in the South in the 1960's. Had that prevailed, segregation would remain the law of the land in the South. Sometimes, our duly elected representatives have to drag the electorate into the next century, albeit kicking and screaming all the way. Remember, we elect officials to represent us, not to act necessarily on the majority opinion. If the latter were the case, we could electronically vote and simply eliminate the middle-man. We would have the latest and greatest roads and infrastructure but majority vote would never raise the taxes to pay for it all.

No, "the will of the people" is not always the way the elected should vote. They are there to do what is best for us, even if we don't like it sometimes.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

I am pleased to read that Governor Herbert recognizes the love and mutual care in the lives of same-sex couples, that he calls them families, and that he urges Utahns to treat them with respect. I'm pretty sure that this is all that same-sex couples, and those of us who support equality, are asking.

However, the only way to actually fulfill that call is to extend to them the protections that would be available to a family joined together by marriage. Amendment 3 not only disallows every possible fulfillment of Governor Herbert's kind words, but makes contempt for same-sex couples a matter of State policy, setting them far outside the civil norm.

I don't see how his words are in accord with his actions.

Also, I fear he's confusing "will of the people" with American Democracy. What makes us American is our Constitution and Bill of Rights, documents that emphatically say that individuals can live unmolested within protected bounds of civility, protected from the government. Without those documents, and a strong Judiciary to interpret and apply it, we'd be a totalitarian state.

Amendment3 is clearly unconstitutional.

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Because if SSM becomes legal, the next step is to pass a law saying children are no longer allowed to live in a home with both a mother and a farther, male and female. That's going to happen. Sigh.

Itsjstmeagain
Merritt Island, Fl

I become frustrated when someone saus "will of the people". Who are you talking about? Do you have a scientific poll, asking the members of one church or just yourself.
The people you want to refuse a basic right of any Citizen is wrong.

freedomingood
provo, Utah

Really? Will of the majority over constitutional rights?

What would Herbert say if the majority of Utah wants to allow gay marriage as the majority of US citizens do?

If your principals only work on one foot, you have no principals.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

Every day the children of Houston, Texas wake up to a city run by a lesbian mayor. She was openly lesbian during her first run for the office and it simply wasn't an issue. It wasn't an issue in the two elections she won after that. This happened in Texas - a state equally proud to be out of step with human progress.

O'Really, unless you keep your children locked in their rooms or church, they're going to be exposed to messages that contradict what you believe. What they get taught at school on this subject may be the least of your worries.

BTW, Mayor Parker and her longtime partner recently traveled to another state to get married. I'm pretty sure this is why we're getting freezing rain in Houston this morning.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@O'Really: Are you really concerned about this "right" of children to have their natural mother and father living together as a married couple in their homes? How are you planning to enforce that right?

After all, nationally 41% of children are born out of wedlock. Not conceived, born. Nationally, the divorce rate is 50%. (Utah has a lower out-of-wedlock number, but a higher divorce rate.) The number of children affected by these two societal problems completely dwarfs, easily by hundreds of times, the number of children being raised by same-sex couples. Yet, you only seem concerned by that one handful.

What are you proposing?

Shall we implement laws against out-of-wedlock births? Criminalize not just girls/women, but the boys/men involved? Mandatory abortion? Mandatory birth control? Sterilization?

Shall we outlaw divorce? State-enforce shotgun marriage?

Shall we outlaw orphanages, fostering, and adoption?

Which fertility treatments should we outlaw?

Or, is the only thing that is important to you, something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the "rights" of children? You're just parroting focus-group-tested excuses for discriminating against gay people.

Jamescmeyer
Midwest City, USA, OK

There's nothing to gain in enforcing changes to marriage if it can only be done, as apparently the case, by ignoring, bending, or forcefully altering fundamental law. It doesn't draw the people's support, leading to discrimination.

I wouldn't have anything at all against those who identify as homosexual and would in no way discriminate against them if not for the bullying, hypocrisies, and tyrannies people have exercized to distort marriage, personally noting that they've only been able to do so at a point when people have been treating the institution with grave disrespect and selfishness.

It also leads to flimsy laws supporting it; if the people say "No", but a single maverick judge says "Yes", then who's to stop anyone from continuing to say "No"? Even if people changed their minds and supported it, what's to stop another maverick judge, a decade down the line, from bringing it all down? They would have every right to, if that's how it came about in the first place. On top of it you have, as mentioned, the confusion and anxiety following those "couples" now in legal limbo for using shady legal rulings.

Really???
Kearns, UT

"He is showing his displeasure with the growing majority, as manifested in bizarre weather patterns not seen in a century throughout the nation."

I will agree that those crazy weather patterns are partly caused by human actions. Of course, so many of us are in denial of those causes. It's because we have stopped being responsible stewards of our precious land. We complain about government involvement in providing better public transit systems. We think it's our God-given right to burn, burn, and burn without accepting the consequences of those choices.

That's the real issue our governor needs to focus on right now--not this tiring exercise in legalized bigotry. It's time we stop fighting one another and work on fixing the serious problems we have created in our communities--especially along the Wasatch Front.

airnaut
Everett, 00

Sal
Provo, UT
Utah is in step with God. He is showing his displeasure with the growing majority, as manifested in bizarre weather patterns not seen in a century throughout the nation. It will only increase as more and more people abandon His commandments.

9:50 p.m. Jan. 23, 2014

=========

Al'Queda is in step with Allah. He is showing his displeasure with the growing majority, as manifested in bizarre weather patterns not seen in a century throughout the nation. It will only increase as more and more people abandon His commandments.

[Do see anything different between what you believe,
and what the Taliban belives?]

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@truth in all its forms:
"Taking away someones right to love who they want sounds like a dictatorship to me."

I love my sister but I can't marry her. Does that mean that it is a dictatorship? If not, why not?

NedGrimley
Brigham City, UT

Robin: Certainly you know that what took place in Missouri was by Missouri Executive Order 44 in 1838, not by will of the people. Very similar to the things talked about in this article. Executives trying to dictate to the masses, rather than letting the masses, the legislative and/or legal systems do their proper jobs. But I have a sneaking suspicion you already knew that. Nice try, though.

And Maudine: In 1976, citing the unconstitutional nature of Governor Lilburn Boggs' directive, Missouri Governor Kit Bond formally rescinded the order. Took them a while to wake up, but they came around. I'm pretty sure you knew that, too, but I guess it was it was worth the try....

What is currently taking place in Utah, and the courts, is the proper order of things. The people vote or a legislative body acts, someone disagrees and requests that the courts rule, the appeals take place and the highest courts make the final determination. Patience, and a little civility please, while the sausage is completely cooked. Then we can proceed with what is right.

And one side or the other will need to buck up and learn to get along.

heavyhitter
Lehi, UT

Just because other states are caving in to the politically correct world and don't have the stomach to stand up for states' rights to decide these things and fight for morality in society, doesn't mean Utah shouldn't. Just like the United States used to be a beacon of standing up for right in the world, Utah can continue to be that for the other states and freedom-loving people.

Doug10
Roosevelt, UT

Be careful governor, you choose which laws to follow in your state so do not cast stones. The will of the people on immigration law does not make it through your doorways let alone be enforced in your state.

My house was stolen
Roy , UT

"The Will of the People" Big statement. Where do you begin? Violationg the Constitution because you are the majority? The Constitution protects minority.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

@Bubble

You wrote: "Of course, because you know same-sex marriage is the only commandment God cares if you violate. He is certainly not showing displeasure over the violation of the First and Great Commandment nor the second which is like unto it... And of course there are no explanations based on anything other than your specific religion".

To your assertion I would reply: "The model for a Christian response to homosexuals may be the story of the woman caught in adultery. When the crowd responded with violence, by gathering to stone her, Jesus said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Knowing that they were all sinners, the crowd melted away. But Jesus' words to the woman he saved were crucial. He did not say, "Go, for you have not sinned." Instead, he said, "Go and sin no more."

There is no contradiction between Christian compassion and a call for holy living. But the life which is holy (from a spiritual perspective) or even healthy (from a secular perspective) requires abstinence from homosexual conduct. We would do no one a favor if we ceased to proclaim that truth". Tony Perkins (a non-Mormon)

rightascension
Provo, UT

I suspect Sutherland will make it worth the attorney's while for being so generous to Utah.

TheTrueVoice
West Richland, WA

@A Quaker: excellent observations.

I would add that I would be thoroughly embarrassed if my governor displayed such egregious lack of knowledge regarding how the American form of government works. The "will of the people" does not enter into the equation when it comes to civil rights and equal protection under the law.

He is about to be taught what he evidently missed in civics class.

Among the lessons that will be taught include: the 10th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Establishment Clause, the Supremacy Clause under Article VI, and perhaps the biggest eye-opener: the process of how a constitutional republic actually works.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

This truly has to be the funniest thread on this issue so far.

confused children, schools commandeered, gods wrath, the garden of Eden.

A quick perusal of the supporters looks like they're not even trying to make a civil or constitutional argument anymore, it's all religious.

What an odd place.

FT
salt lake city, UT

I support LGBT marriage, equal protection and rights under the constitution. Unlike, a lot of posters here I do have empathy and for the most part agreement with Herbert on this issue. The people of Utah passed an unconstitutional amendment to our State constituion but the Govenor took an oath to defend that constitution. His only out is to say it's unconstitutional and will be overturned by the SCOTUS and take his case to the Utah legislature and the people. In other words, publically put his political neck on the line. What's the odds of that happening?

to comment

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