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

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mcallen, TX

There has never been a free, and prosperous nation with half, or more of its people engaging in gay behavior as the norm. Never!

Lets follow the will of the people, not the few.

Somewhere in Time, UT

Thank you, Governor Herbert.

Brigham City, UT

What would you propose to replace the right of the people to get together and decide who will govern them and what their laws will be? Why do we hold elections?

Oh wait. Certainly we can all come to an agreement of a single person or judge that we can give that simple and all encompassing power to, right? That person can then make the laws and decide what is good and right, and we'll all just sit back and enjoy the beauties of life in his or her loving care.... Because we all know we could trust the assigned person to decide everything for us, right?

Sarcasm aside, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of "will of the people". However, remember that is why we have more than one branch of government, allowing for a correction when the "will of the people" moves in a direction contrary to the established constitution of the people, or removes constitutionally granted rights.

Can we knock off the rock throwing, name calling and innuendo and let this thing play out now that it is on track to be decided as the system was built to decide it?

Salt Lake valley, UT

This is an interesting thread. Usually, liberals are clamoring for democracy and conservatives are clamoring for representative government. In this thread, things are reversed. Conservatives are clamoring for democracy and liberals are clamoring for representative government. Looks like each group has its own agenda and chooses the type of government that supports its preconceived views.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT


Provo, UT

The citizens of Utah decided at the ballot box to define what marriage is and the Supreme Court upheld that States can decide on the definition of marriage.


They did not decide that the states could decide on the defination of marriage. They stated that the states control marriage - meaning that they can regulate it. They still cannot go against the constitution. If, in regulating marriage, you treat a group differently than others who are simularly situated, you have made an unconstitutional law. It is brought before judges and they decide whether or not it passes. If you do not like their decisions, take it to the Supremes. This is what we are in the midst of doing.

The constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Period. You cannot expect a law that treats law abiding, tax paying citizens differently than other citizens to pass muster with those who hold the constitution in one hand and our Amendment 3 in the other.

Mr. Smitty
Salt Lake City, UT

@Sal: You wrote, "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."

No, the bizarre weather patterns has nothing to do with a supernatural being showing his displeasure with the growing majority. Even if this were true, why would such a deity create such large scale collateral damage to his supposed followers.

At any rate, science, not superstition, provides the answer regarding bizarre weather patterns.

Idaho Falls, ID

Some on this forum think that children's rights don't matter or that commandeering the educational system is "funny"? Look at what's happened in CA and MA. Participating in Gay Celebration Week isn't optional for public school kids. Not only do kids in CA have to hear from their teachers that homosexuality is healthy and normal, they also need to learn the sexual orientations of great people in the past. It's all just wrong.

Yes! Children should have rights, but selfish adults who engage in sex before marriage, have extramarital affairs, who physically and psychologically abuse the child or one of his parents, and who feel their attraction to the same gender is more important that raising kids with a mother and father, have destroyed those rights. And not only do children suffer, but future generations will also suffer the consequences. Nothing to be giggling about.

Mr. Smitty
Salt Lake City, UT

@Grammy3: I am an Atheist, and I am happily married. I had no problem having my marriage license issued to me by the state. It's not any state's business to define marriage as something to do with God. It would be unconstitutional to do so.

Leesburg, VA

@ worf

You wrote: "There has never been a free, and prosperous nation with half, or more of its people engaging in gay behavior as the norm. Never!"

Dear Worf,

There has never been a nation with half, or more of its people engaging in gay behavior as the norm. Never!

My question to you is, What is your point?

The regular rate of Homosexuality in society ranges between 4% and 10% . Since homosexuality is "NOT" a choice and is not contagious, the percentages should remain very much the same. Unless, we underestimated the people who are in the closet.

Regardless, your statement would still be correct, no nation (free, wealthy, poor, democracy, empire, colony, etc. ) have had more than 50% of homosexuals in its population.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

worf, of
Mcallen, TX says:
"There has never been a free, and prosperous nation with half, or more of its people engaging in gay behavior as the norm. Never!"

It would be nice if people who wanted to comment here had at least some grounding in reality and were prepared to make sensible arguments.

Out of every 20 people, about 1 is gay. How do you calculate that to be "more than half"?

Nobody who's straight is hankering to be gay. What a ridiculous notion! By the time we're adults, everyone knows who rings their chimes, so to speak.

Gay people are a small and disadvantaged minority, with a much smaller dating pool and a largely hostile society. They're constant targets of violence and discrimination and outright acts of hatred. Messages like yours, for instance.

It's time that people grew up, stopped worrying about other people's love lives and learned to treat their neighbors with respect.

Other than that, your statement is factual, and will still be true after we allow gay people to marry each other. There will still only be about 5% gay people in the population.

St. George, UT

.....and codifying discrimination into law based on religious morality is a step toward theocracy. Utah, the Mormon equivalent of Saudi Arabia.

St. George, UT


So there is no discrimination in current law because gay people are not forbidden to marry.....they just have to marry someone of the opposite gender?

Does that mean that you believe inter-racial marriage bans were not discriminatory either? After all, no one was forbidding black people from marrying, as long as they married another black person. Is that the "logic" you want to stick with?

Provo, UT

Lane Meyer,

The Supreme Court, by deciding to put a temporary stay on Judge Shelby's ruling that strikes down Amendment 3, has effectively, ruled that States get to decide on the definition of marriage which Amendement 3 does.

I'm not saying I agree with the ruling, but what I will defend is the States to exercise their 10th Amendment (US Bill of Rights) rights. The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment doesn't list nor should it be interpreted to mean that marriage is defined by the US Constitution.

Again, as I stated earlier, that is the beauty of our Representative Republic - to allow the citizens of the States to decide matters that aren't covered, nor would or should be covered by the US Consitution or by Federal Law.

St. George, UT

So if the will of the people was to re-institute slavery, the Governor would support that? Come on Governor. Lead or get out of the way!!

Liddle Bruda
Salt Lake City, UT

"No one is being discriminated against. The laws do not prevent gay people from getting married. Everyone has to marry someone of the opposite gender, straight or gay. If two bisexuals of the opposite gender want to marry, I don't think anyone would object and most would wish them a happy life and throw rice (which is based on a wish for fertility), so where is the discrimination?"

This statement shows that you truly do not understand this argument. Marriage is a right pursuant to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Telling a person that they have to marry someone they do not love nor is attracted to, is contradictory to this pursuit. The only legitimate reason to deny a right afforded by the Constitution, there has to be proof that this discrimination is in the bests interests of the State. Any argument using religion automatically is disqualified because although people can state their beliefs, they cannot create laws on those religious beliefs if they are in contridiction to the Constitution. Outside of that, there hasn't been any compelling argument to deny marriage to gay couples, and likely never will be as there is no compelling reason.

Salt Lake City, UT

To those that use Christ as the basis for their opposition to same-sex marriage equality, please provide the chapter and verse from the New Testament where Christ specifically speaks/taught about homosexuality.

The Apostles documented the direct teachings of Christ - such as the Sermon on the Mount where he is given direct attribution for many things, including the "Blessed are..." statements or when Christ directly teaches how to pray in what is termed, "The Lord's Prayer."

And yet, he is not recorded as saying anything on the subject of homosexuality. There's not one direct, first-person teaching by Christ on the subject.

If it was so important - and he abhorred it as much as so many Christians claim - wouldn't he have directly spoken about it? Wouldn't the Apostles have documented the very words?

Gandhi said it best:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Salt Lake City, UT

@Worf - From your post, I gather you are referring to the often perpetuated myth regarding the Roman Empire. No modern scholar cites homosexuality as one of the causes of the Empire's fall.

Homosexuality was not something that was embraced or "accepted" by the Empire when it fell. In fact, the first law against homosexuality was passed by the Roman Empire in the year 342 AD by the Emperors Constantius and Chlorus, who ruled jointly in the 4th century AD.

Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and subsequent emperors began to crack down on homosexuals in general. In 390 AD homosexuality was made illegal, with the penalty for engaging in such acts being burned alive in a public execution. Interestingly, one of the same penalties previously used for those that converted to Christianity.

Later emperors would use gays as a convenient scapegoat for all kinds of problems. Emperor Justinian blamed homosexuals for things ranging from famines to earthquakes and gays have been used as scapegoats for all of societies ills ever since.

What was embraced and accepted by the Roman Empire leading up to the time of its fall was Christianity.

Salt Lake City, UT

@Karen R. in Houston

Our children are well aware of the difference between families that have a regular mother and father compared to those who have two "mothers or fathers". They recognize the distinct advantages of the complimentary influences by having a mom and a dad. They harbor no ill will toward folks that are different, they simply want to continue with the heritage they have experienced in their own families.

We don't need to keep them locked up in their rooms or at Church. In fact our Church teaches our children to be compassionate and understanding of others with differences and to be respectful toward them. They also want to honor those principles they know to be true, positive and healthy. If anything they would freely share their knowledge of what has brought them and their families so much peace and happiness.

If others choose not to want to live like our children do, that is their choice. We simply request that you respect our differences and accept that we can never agree with you on everything and we don't expect you to agree with us either.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Thinkman: I totally disagree with your interpretation of the stay. To me, it was a "wait a minute," let's see what more than one judge says. It has absolutely no other meaning.

I do agree that a state can define marriage as long as they do not treat one segment of the population differently than a simularly situated group. In other words, they may pass laws that agree with the constitution.

To quote the Supremacy Clause, "This Constitution...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

That is pretty plain. All laws (whether or not they are rights enumerated in the constitution) MUST abide by the rules set forth in the constitution. In other words, they must treat everyone Equally Under the Law. Amendment 3 does not do that.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

We are beginning to see that irrational same-sex marriage bans based on vile animus, hate and prejudice do not pass constitutional muster. Much like the historical demand of folks to "value and respect the will of the people" who held strong beliefs about where African Americans should sit on public transportation, who they should marry, their use of separate drinking fountains and educational institutions. Like the opposing "opinions" on same-sex marriage today, they were eventually shown to be undeserving of any value, respect or tolerance whatsoever in civil marriage and public accommodations law.

to comment

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