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
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.

desert
Potsdam, 00

Praxis I thought we are not discussing religion on here ?

But well you ask for a quote of Christ, here it is plain and simple :

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
(MARK 10)

Just use common sense what the girl is supposed to do, that you did never marry ?

Liddle Bruda
Salt Lake City, UT

@IsaacsTM

I don't believe all religious people hate gay people at all. But your opinion is just that, your opinion. It might be based in religious history, or context but our Marriage laws are based on secular history and the government hands out benefits for those that are married. The problem is you are trying to require people to live by your morals, you find homosexual activity immoral, but other people do not. Why should your morals have precedance over my morals. We live in a secular society run by a secular government and unless there is a legitimate reason for denying a right to a minority, it cannot be denied.

Liddle Bruda
Salt Lake City, UT

@ WRZ

"Was that law actually ever officially removed from the books?"

"No. The law is still on the books. The Gov should never have allowed those gay marriages because they are against state law."

An invalidated law is not a law any longer. Judge Shelby ruled that the law is Unconstitutional and had no good argument from the State to stay his decision, therefor for 2 weeks, the law was removed from the books. Those marriages, regardless of what happens next, will be declared valid as they were entered in good faith under a federal court order.

brotherJonathan
SLC, UT

Is a civil union a biblical marriage? Not in my opinion. To allow other citizens the right to chose for themselves what lifestyle they would embrace is not the same as teaching their choice as a recommended way of life to your children. So we walk a delicate path of protecting individual rights of choice and defending our own right of choice in our schools and other places of gathering.
Tolerance for others rights with respect for our choice when it comes to teaching our own children the principles of a happy fulfilled life, obeying the commands of our conscience. Because of the fact that children are impressionable and do not have founded psychological beliefs in experience and outcomes, we who have the responsibility to nurture and guide belief structure have the ultimate say in what should be and not be taught as a viable lifestyle for them until they are adults. Homosexual partnerships without science intervention cannot produce offspring, this is the facts. So nature has female and male as a parent structure and is the natural means of raising young humans to adulthood. Beyond those facts this is fairly new territory, protecting freedom of choice for both.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

What about the religious liberty of those churches who want to honor and perform same sex marriage? Shouldn't they have the same religious liberty to decide for themselves, just like the LDS church to perform same-sex marriages or not?
Affirming Pentecostal Church International
Alliance of Christian Churches
Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Community of Christ
Conservative Judaism
Ecumenical Catholic Church
Ecumenical Catholic Communion
The Episcopal Church
Evangelical Anglican Church In America
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
Inclusive Orthodox Church
Metropolitan Community Church
Old Catholic Church
Progressive Christian Alliance
Reconciling Pentecostals International
Reconstructionist Judaism
Reform Judaism
Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
Unitarian Universalist Church
United Church of Christ
Unity Church

VST
Bountiful, UT

@Lane,

You said that, “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.”

How does that interpretation “square” with Amendment 10 when it states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people?” Does not Amendment 10 also apply?

Liddle Bruda
Salt Lake City, UT

@Thinkman

"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."

Actually it doesn't mean any such thing. It means that the Supreme Court believes that there needs to be further evaluation than anything. Two courts have already said they don't believe the State will win this argument which is why they didn't stay the decision. There was no explination as to why the Supreme court ruled as it did, therefore you cannot claim the Supreme Court has already ruled.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

VST

Of course 10 applies. But the states must STILL pass laws (under Amendment 10) that conform to the rest of the constitution. It isn't hard.

Look at Loving v. Virginia. Virginia had a law that stated that blacks were to marry blacks and whites could only marry whites. Nothing in the constitution says anything about marriage, so one would think they could do what they wanted per Amendment 10...

Nope. Virginia's law was declared unconstitutional. The 14th amendment was violated. They now are still defining marriage, but without harming a segment of the population, and are treating all citizens equally. They actually will NOT be defending their SSM ban, btw.

Marriage was declared (not for the first time, btw) a right. So now marriage is looked at under Amendment 9, and 10 - it has been reserved to the people---All people, not just the ones that some people think are worthy. If you want to deny some people marriage, you better have a good reason - not just a religious belief. This is where all cases have been lacking.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Lane Myer:
"In other words, they must treat everyone Equally Under the Law."

Utah's marriage laws treat everyone equally... That marriage is to be one man/one woman. Applies to all citizens of the state equally. Any divergence from that law will introduce inequality. For example a polygamist having feelings for several women cannot marry all of them. And there are many other loving combinations that would have to be dealt with.

@Liddle Bruda:
"An invalidated law is not a law any longer. Judge Shelby ruled that the law is Unconstitutional..."

Shelby did not rule on Utah's marriage law... He ruled on a State Constitutional Amendment. The state's marriage laws are still on the books.

"Those marriages, regardless of what happens next, will be declared valid as they were entered in good faith under a federal court order."

They were against state law, thus invalid.

@Lane Myer:
"Of course 10 applies. But the states must STILL pass laws (under Amendment 10) that conform to the rest of the constitution."

The state's law do conform. One man/one woman marriages... Apply to all citizens equally. If you have feeling for a frog... sorry that won't pass muster.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ O'Really

You wrote:" 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."

Children around the world, already "know" that homosexuality is healthy and normal.

How wonderful that children can learn that our society needs all kind of people. The LGBT child can have great role model for them, Leonardo Da Vinci, Socrates, Michael Angelo, Etc. etc.

It's all just wonderful!

O'Really and Brother Jonathan,

You as a parent have the right to teach your children your own principles. If you feel that Homosexuality and/or SSM is wrong you have the freedom to teach them that at home and church or any other private place.

The role of society however, is to treat all members with respect and equality. Schools in all nations work as a socializing agent to unite the nation under certain common threads we call culture. In the U.S.A. for centuries we have claimed to believe in diversity, now we are trying to live by those words. That is wonderful!

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ Desert:
I think Jesus would reply to you with what he said in Matthew 23:23
"
Matthew 23:23

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former"

Jesus taught against divorce and made heterosexual marriage sacred. But that is not the same as saying that Jesus "spoke against" homosexuality, which was Praxis point.

I brought up Matthew 23:23 because may be religious people are focusing their energy in the wrong fight. There are several examples in the New Testament that we can use to make an argument of Christ supporting homosexuals and homosexual relationships. But this is not the place or time.

The point as mentioned in Matthew as well as in Ezekiel 16:49"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

Social Justice seems to be very important!

Commodore
West Jordan, UT

The Constitution cares not whether the majority support a particular viewpoint. The Constitution will overthrown the will of the majority time and time again, until the majority get their particular belief enshrined into the federal constitution itself through the amendment process. Herbert is pushing a position that is currently unconstitutional and he is doing so for political points with his constituents. He knows his position is untenable....at least I hope he does.

Really???
Kearns, UT

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

Simple reason: there has never been a nation where more than half of its people engaged in gay behavior. Never!

VST
Bountiful, UT

Well Lane, here is the situation the way I see it.

Neither you nor I have seats as Associate Justices on the United States Supreme Court, therefore what you think and what I think is Constitutional when defining marriage (along with everyone else pontificating their opinion on this board) is moot.

Whether Utah’s Amendment 3 is declared constitutional or unconstitutional will be decided by the nine members who currently hold seats on that Court. What anyone else says is pure speculation.

worf
Mcallen, TX

@Baccus0902--By legalizing gay marriage, spewing equality, and calling non-gays haters, it signals the want of having our population to except the behavior.--That's why I stated what I did. It's never worked in a society.

@praxis-- many leaders of the Roman Empire were gay.

Disagreeing with gay rights is not hatred. I've have gay friends who understand my position.

Here
Sandy, UT

Governor Herbert's point should be considered carefully. In this system of government, those who govern derive their power and authority from the people. In other words, the people are the ultimate source of authority which they lend to those who govern.

Governor Herbert and AG Reyes can legitimately do nothing else but defend the will of the people as already expressed by amendment three. Those who govern in other states should act the same. They should not fight to overthrow (or otherwise ignore) the will of their own people. Defending the people's will is their job, their commission, and their duty, whether they agree with the issues involved or not.

Conversely, if the will of the people had spoken in favor of SSM, then it would be the duty of those who govern to defend that instead. That, I believe, is the way our government is supposed to run.

In today's environment, the Supreme Court will likely have the final say. I personally think the legislatures (federal, state, and local) should have the say as to what is law and what isn't, but for a long time that prerogative has been taken by the judiciary.

O'really
Idaho Falls, ID

Baccus, Homosexuality isn't healthy. I suggest you research some of the many health issues associated directly with the gay lifestyle if you aren't familiar with them already. The problems cannot be denied. This lifestyle has been glorified of late but no one, especially in the MSM will talk honestly about all the dangers to the body and mind. Little kids don't need gay education in their curriculum. It's private choice that should be left up the families only. And what difference does it make if Napoleon was gay or straight? Lets find something else a little more uplifting besides ones sexual proclivities to focus on and learn about.

About homosexuality being normal...once you can show me a child conceived and born by two men or two women, I might agree with you. But that is and always will be impossible.

FREDISDEAD
Layton, UT

@Baccus0902

Being gay has ALWAYS been a CHOICE. God has never "made" someone gay. They CHOOSE to act that way.

End of story.

to comment

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