Comments about ‘In our opinion: Decision about validity of marriages during 17-day period of chaos should be delayed for now’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 22 2014 6:51 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
John Charity Spring
Back Home in Davis County, UT

The issue that keeps getting ignored in this debate is the fact that a bunch of judicial activists have ignored the Constitution in an effort to legislate from the bench. The Founding Fathers would turn over in their graves if they saw what is going on.

The federal judiciary has taken it upon itself to completely subvert the other two branches of the federal government, and all three branches of state governments. Essentially, a pack of rogue federal judges has established a brand of anarchy in which their will is the only thing that matters.

If laws are to have any legitimacy, they must be established in a legitimate fashion. That is not what has happened here, and it stains the creation of same sex marriage with illegitimacy.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

It seems strange to me that any judge would rule on a measure that is being fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. What is his purpose? Does he think that risking a reversal on his decision will NOT hurt those who are in limbo? The Supreme Court has already ruled that STATES have the right to set the terms and conditions for marriage. The Supreme Court is certainly aware of the 14th Amendment, and yet, it told the nation that STATES have the right to define marriage. Could anyone really claim that the Supreme Court is so incompetent that it has not read all of the Amendments to the Constitution or that it misunderstands the limits to which those Amendments can be applied?

Judge Kimball needs to let the system work. Waiting does no damage, but hurrying to rule may cause hurt and heartache that could easily have been avoided had Judge Kimball thought more of the Supreme Court and of their role.

Northern Utahn
Northern, UT

I'm pretty certain that in our system of checks and balances, that judges can be impeached, and are appointed, by the legislative and executive branches, respectively. It's comical that we keep hearing about "activist judges." I'm tired of "activist legislators."

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

I agree. We should delay giving citizens their constitutional rights so that we can be ruled by a vicious mob.

dell
San Antonio, TX

"I'm pretty certain that in our system of checks and balances, that judges can be impeached"

Please name the last federal judge that was impeached.

Quick review of how our government works since you post implies a good bit of confusion about the matter.

Legislators are suppoesed to be activists. They write the laws.

The executive branch executes/enforces the laws on the books, though going back severl presidents it increasingly decides to write new laws or selectively enforces.

The judiciary is supposed to ensure that legislation is not unconstitutional and clarify execution of the law for the executive. Federal judges are appointed by the executive branch with senate confirmation(in that order, as opposed to your post). A federal judge could be impeached, but the process is similar to that required for a president and impeachment is for crimes, not unpopular rulings. The last 5 federal jusges impeached were for bribery, sexual assault and tax evasion.

In short the people of Utah have no direct legal avenue to change the individual, unelected federal judges that have been taking upon themselves the powers of legislatures.

logicandtruth
OREM, UT

When Utah became a state in 1896, Congress required Utah to permanently ban polygamy in its Constitution before it would grant the territory statehood.

As the Washington Times put it, "It's more than a little ironic that Utah, which was forced to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman as a condition for statehood, has been thrust into the role of traditional marriage by two pivotal cases involving same-sex couples and polygamy."

Given it's history, Utah is in a somewhat unique position to argue that it can define marriage as between one man and one woman. The State isn't trying to "ban gay marriage" as so many headlines say. Rather, there are many other forms of marriage, that Utah in particular is uniquely familiar with. As a result, in 2004 Utah clarified it's form of marriage.

logicandtruth
OREM, UT

Comment Cont'd

Shelby used the Equal Protection Clause (14th amendment adopted in 1868) and Due Process Clause (5th amendment adopted in 1791) to override the State's Constitution and require that Gay Marriages be allowed in Utah. Over a hundred years ago, in a time much closer to the meaning and context of those two clauses the Federal Government forced the State (as well as other western States) to ban certain forms of marriage.Note, the SC ruled in Reynolds Federal Govt COULD ban polygamy and rightly recognized the due process and equal protection clauses had nothing to do with it.

Mark l
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

It appears all the courts are ruling the correct way on the same sex marriage issue, because of fairness. But the Supreme Court is wrong on the issue of free speech in the Citizens United ruling.

Perhaps, the courts can be wrong.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@JCS
"The issue that keeps getting ignored in this debate is the fact that a bunch of judicial activists have ignored the Constitution in an effort to legislate from the bench."

We're at something like 17-0 in court cases since Windsor. Are they really all judicial activists? Some of them were Republican appointees and many are from states that are hardly liberal (Utah, Oklahoma, Idaho, Kentucky).

@Mike Richards
"The Supreme Court has already ruled that STATES have the right to set the terms and conditions for marriage."

As long as it's not unconstitutional, otherwise Loving v Virginia wouldn't have gone that way.

@logicandtruth
"As a result, in 2004 Utah clarified it's form of marriage."

By doing something that among other things bans gay marriage. Don't pretend that wasn't the core motive of Amendment 3.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Delaying the inevitable, (this is going to happen) with more desperate actions that only further exacerbates their obvious position of animus by hurting those who were married.

MR said: "Waiting does no damage, but hurrying to rule may cause hurt and heartache that could easily have been avoided"

–Completely backwards, Mike. You are not effected at all, Those in limbo have to worry about hundreds of possible scenarios from medical to legal and any of those 1200 other "Special" rights you have. Explain how the marriages of those during that brief time (soon to permanent) has caused harm in any tangible way to Utah and or it's citizens.

As it stands the "Justices" are doing their job, and the lack of reasonable evidence presented by the state(s) is making it easy.

Tradition and Dogma are a poor excuse (no matter how many times they're used) for bad behavior, they were wrong when used to...
justify slavery
treat women and children as property
Manifest destiny
Start War
Hate people you've never met

Very few scriptures, even mention this "sin" as compared to the ones mentioned over and over, though out old, and new testaments, and apparently acceptable.

Shaun
Sandy, UT

People getting married was chaos? I would like to use words to describe situations where the word is not used to describe the actual situation.

I was at the Salt Lake County building when that activist judge struck down amendment three. It was complete anarchy. There was an epidemic of people patiently standing in line to receive a marriage license.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

These same-sex couples should not have to suffer the consequences of a mistake the State of Utah made. Utah did not get a stay because their lawyers did not ask for one until after marriages had taken place. That means that the status quo had changed. The following is from the court record:

"The court’s Order did not include a stay of its judgment as none had been requested by the State. The court had a telephone conversation with counsel from both parties a few hours after it issued its Order.

"The State represented to the Court that same-sex couples had already begun marrying in the Salt Lake County Clerk’s Office and requested the court to stay its Order of its own accord. The Court declined to issue a stay without a written record of the relief the State was requesting, and asked the State when it was planning to file a motion. The State was uncertain about its plans..."

Kitchen v Herbert "Order on Motion to Stay," December 23, 2013.

Kings Court
Alpine, UT

Does this opinion surprise anyone? Really?

bobdc6
park city, UT

"We believe that marriage is a matter of state law, not federal law."

but state law can't violate constitutional law, in this case, equal protection, so the choice is for the state to either outlaw the contract of marriage altogether, or follow the Constitution by honoring the right of any two consenting adults to marry.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Chaos? No, there was no chaos. Only hundreds of happy couples seeking to get married. The state asked for a straight up/down ruling and got it, and they'll get the same ruling after the stay is heard. Congrats, Utah! We truly are the family values state.

Tiago
Seattle, WA

"Attorneys for Utah have presented a powerful case in court for the rationality of the state’s decision to favor the man-woman definition because it furthers a culture that encourages parents to put the needs of their children above their own emotional fulfillment."

I've read the state's brief, listened to the oral arguments and heard no powerful or even understandable case. The state's arguments are circular and self defeating and not rational at all. How does discouraging stable gay relationships encourage adults to be less selfish? Please someone explain the nexus. If gay relationships are normalized/destigmatized, gay people who would otherwise stay in the closet and try to marry an opposite sex partner will then be more likely to come out and marry another gay person instead? It is better for gays to not be open about it and try to act like straight people? That is better for kids? I seriously can't understand how the state thinks stigmatizing gay relationships will strengthen families and help kids. 17+ intelligent judges can't seem to understand it either. Please explain the "powerful case."

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

"Attorneys for Utah have presented a powerful case in court for the rationality of the state’s decision to favor the man-woman definition because it furthers a culture that encourages parents to put the needs of their children above their own emotional fulfillment."

That's actually an incredibly weak case because it operates under the completely unproven assumption that same-sex married couples are poor parents.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

"We believe that marriage is a matter of state law, not federal law." But,

in 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the remaining anti-interracial marriage laws were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. Are you saying that the Supreme Court acted inappropriately in Loving v. Virginia? If so, you can't be serious.

Marriage is a federal matter, because couples simply cannot be married in one state but not another. Get real.

UT Brit
London, England

I have a feeling we are going to see another apology in 10-20 years time written on some obscure page of the lds.org website about the churches opposition to gay marriage.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

The only "chaos" is that facing LGBT married couples. All Utah has to do is treat them exactly like every other married couple in the state and, ta-da, no chaos anywhere for anyone.

The DN editorial staff are really twisting themselves into pretzels in order to continue to support bigotry.

"We believe that marriage is a matter of state law, not federal law."

What happens to each of you editors when you cross state lines? Are you suddenly single again, or are you still married? Why should your marriage be valid when you cross state lines and not that of an LGBT married couple? I guess it is a Federal issue, isn't it.

"Attorneys for Utah have presented a powerful case ..."

No they haven't.

State law may not violate the US Constitution. Period.

to comment

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