Published: Friday, June 20 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment applies to US citizens.
It explicitly forbids states from applying the law unequally to different groups
of citizens. You are arguing that its true meaning is exactly the opposite of
what it says; that states have the right to treat different groups of citizens
in an unequal manner.
"Of necessity, there is a check on legislative powers — judicial
review of laws for constitutionality. When a court considers invalidating a law,
it must proceed with great restraint and deference to the will of the people
expressed in the law before them. "Every law was passed with a
majority, either from a legislature, or by a vote from the people. what's
the point of judicial review if it can't counteract the "will of the
"Equal protection is a principle essential to the rule of law."And yet, you WANT to deny equal protection of marriage laws to LGBT couples?
Isn't that exactly the opposite of what you just said, Mr. Bell?"..When a court considers invalidating a law, it must proceed with great
restraint and deference to the will of the people expressed in the law before
them."--- No sir, they must consider the Constitutionality of
the law ONLY. It doesn't matter if 99.999% of the people want a law that
violates the rights of the .001%, if that law is unconstitutional, it is the
responsibility of the court to rule on that issue alone, the "will of the
people" doesn't trump the US Constitution."By holding a
law unconstitutional, the court takes the matter out of the people’s
hands."--- The courts are there to protect ALL the people, Mr.
Bell, not just the majority.However, none of us knows the effects of
same sex marriage —... and a millions other things. "---
So, you're willing to discriminate against LGBT AMERICANS over an
"unknown"? Pathetic attitude actually.
Wow, if there was ever a stretch and distortion in the battle over same sex
marriage, this is it. You know, this same piece could have been written 60
years ago in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education. Talk about exaggerated
hand-wringing that, after all is said and done, is nonsense.
Perhaps.But I have a feeling that we will all regret the
court's decision on bribery being a form of free speech a lot more. Yet, I
haven't heard any conservatives complain. Until I see conservatives
complain about that, don't expect liberals to complain about the equal
Throughout this debate I have found it disturbing to see government officials
and lawyers show an inability or an unwillingness to view the law objectively
despite their personal biases. As I understand it, lawyers who
reviewed Amendment 3 prior to it being placed on the ballot informed leaders
that the law could be unconstitutional. A Google search tells me that the
author was a member of the Utah state legislature at this time and presumably
was aware of this analysis. Yet now that this very conclusion is being reached
by judge after judge after judge, Mr. Bell is concerned that equal protection
will be "diluted"? Sir, what in your legal training tells
you that prohibiting law-abiding, tax-paying citizens from exercising rights
afforded to others serves to weaken rather than strengthen equal protection?I'm really disappointed that so many of my fellow Americans believe
that their religious beliefs come before the laws that protect their right to
practice those beliefs. I really think you've gotten things out of order
and that this is weakening us as a nation.
Mr. Bell says that: "Equal protection is a principle essential to the rule
of law." Then he turns around and tries to justify denying equal protection
to a minority group of citizens.Does anybody else see the cognitive
I think the dnews needs to take a basic citizenship and government class.What's the point of having a judicial branch if it cannot overturn
the sometimes unjust "will of the people?"If we are to be
ruled by "the majority" then let's cut out the judicial branch and
save us a lot of money.What exactly is the role of the judicial
There needs to be a way to remove activist judges who make law instead of
interpret law. Perhaps lower judges could review the rulings of higher judges
and vote to retain or remove them. Too many higher judges today are ignoring
the will of the people while imposing their personal will.
The trouble with our judicial system today is that judges have become the law
makers instead of just the law reviewers. And, too much power ends up in the
hands of too few. Just look at that patent office decision about the Redskins.
A two to one vote, and the Redskins lose their protection. One person. Even
the President does not have that kind of power. Roe/Wade. One vote on a ruling
that had to create constitutional rights not found in the written constitution.
Look at many of the 5/4 decisions and see the politics. Bottom line. Whether
conservative or liberal, judges are really nothing more than political action
arms, not true judges who just use the constitution as their guidline. A true
judge will rule against his or her personal opinion. That seems to rarely
happen these days on any court. Look how predictable the Supreme Court is.
Liberal and conservative judges. You can predict about 90% of the time how a
ruling will come out just by the political standing of the judges. Definately
one of the weakest parts of how our country runs, and one I don't think was
The irony is that marriage laws could hardly have been administered in a more
equal manner than they were. There was no test for sexual attraction or whether
the two applicants loved each other. Yet the argument for same sex marriage is
that same sex couples ought to be allowed to marry because they are sexually
attracted to each other and they love each other. How is that in any way related
to the laws governing marriage?We live in a post-rational age.
A couple of comments about the contents of this essay:“When a
court considers whether equal protection requires changing an important legal or
cultural institution or practice such as traditional marriage, judges typically
consult such things as established legal precedents, national and community
mores,... and relevant public practices when the Constitution was
adopted.”That statement would seem to conflict with the
findings of the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Brown vs. The Board of
Education which stated in the Sace brief Summary:“The question
presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions
existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but in the light of the role
of public education in American life today”And:“Judicial confirmations will become mere political vettings. Presidents
and senators will pick political loyalists rather than great jurists. The rule
of law will increasingly become the rule of men and women in black
robes.”That is exactly what the process involves today. If
that were not the case would the Supreme Court have ruled in favor of George
Bush in the 2000 election? Would Rhenquist, Thomas and Scalia have pushed that
issue if it favored Al Gore?
Had Mr. Bells logic been in force our religion would have been exterminated by
the "will of the people" This is an insulting letter. Mr. Bell has the
right to his opinion and we have the right to give ours. My opinion is that I
would not want to work with this man in a business as he openly discriminates
against a portion of his own employees. He shows a lack of empathy, and he
shows a lack of knowledge of the legal and judicial systems. I may
not agree with what they have done, but I'm sure proud the judicial system
is protecting the rights and privilege's of ALL citizens.
So far, from this liberal's perspective...no. In fact, I'm grateful
for the constitution and judges that protect us and our rights from the tyranny
of the local mob, or the state. In this case, we need to get some standards in
place such that people married in one state are married in all.
The author is projecting.He is attributing to his opponent one of
his own bad habits."Conservatives" do that a lot.Projection and Denial are their two favorite Freudian Defense Mechanisms.The author who seeks to deny equal protection to others is claiming that
it his opposition, not he, who is engaging in this unsupportable, unethical,
unacceptable, and un-American behavior.. . . Textbook projection.
Greg Bell is going through some rather strenuous contortions to persuade us that
legalizing same sex marriage weakens constitutional government and dilutes
rather than extends equal protection to a group of citizens that has no other
remedy than courts of law.
By invalidating these laws judges are not diluting equal protection they are
strengthening it. These laws were in violation of the amendment and the judges
did the job they were supposed to by declaring them unconstitutional. This is an
example of our system of government functioning exactly how it is meant to.
The Founding Fathers deliberately created an independent judiciary. It was to
protect from what can be in some cases, "the tyranny of the majority."
And an issue has to have a long tradition to be a valid in the courts and that
long history gives it more weight? The slave trade, slavery and segregation had
a long history. Women not voting was a long tradition. I find it ironic that
Bell touts rule of law over the arbitrary rule of man. Is not Amendment 3 the
arbitrary rule of man (the voters) to deny equal protection under the law?
You would think that a people kicked out of Missouri and Illinois would know the
risks of letting the move rule.You would also think that a people
which relies on the equal protection clause to preach the gospel 2 by 2 and
perform temple ordinances would value the protection of the constitution.My how far we've come.We're essentially betraying
our ancestors. We were once the bullied. Now, we're quickly becoming the
"By holding a law unconstitutional, the court takes the matter out of the
people’s hands."This is emphatically not true. The People
and their elected representatives are free to try and persuade a significant
majority of their fellow citizens to pass a Constitutional amendment to overrule
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments