Quantcast

Comments about ‘Greg Bell: Conservatives and liberals alike will regret dilution of equal protection’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, June 20 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Updated: Friday, Aug. 8 2014 12:08 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Ranch hand -

"the "will of the people" doesn't trump the US Constitution."

Well . . . That depends.

The will of the people can amend the Constitution.

So if "99.999% of the people want a law," then that law WILL take effect through amendment.

It only takes 2/3 of Congress to amend the Constitution.

Wonder
Provo, UT

Some of the mental gymnastics performed by supporters of marriage inequality make me question everything they say. If you can write something like this with a straight face, even though it makes absolutely no logical sense, how rational a person can you really be. Equal protection means we need to treat some people unequally? A judge's job is not to determine whether or not a law is Constitutional? It's Orwellian.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

From the article: "The purpose of our written constitution was to create government by the rule of law rather than the arbitrary rule of man. Equal protection is a principle essential to the rule of law."

Then, also from the article: "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."

So - the Constitution creates a government by the rule of law, not the arbitrary rule of man, but when determining if something is Constitutional, we should look at the arbitrary rule of man, not the law.

Yeah - that makes sense - NOT!

And, as a point of clarification - declaring a law unconstitutional is not legislating from the bench or making a new law. If a law is unconstitutional, the laws that were in effect before the new law was passed come back into effect - no new laws are created. This is a basic legal principle that anyone who understands (or even pretends to understand) the Constitution should have no problem grasping.

HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

Nice article, and again something that has been pointed out time and again, but falls on deaf ears. The three branches of government are a check and balance on each other, not the people. But more importantly, this op-ed points out that equal protection is a phony theory, because we have many situations within our society, where equal protection doesn't apply. Another great point, you know how karma works. Tic-toc, tic-toc, tic-toc.

FT
salt lake city, UT

The more opponents to SSM keep talking and spinning the worse they sound.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

Activist unelected lawyers/judges...

As long unelected lawyers/judges vote the way I want them to vote...

it's all good.

As long as unelected lawyers/judges protect the way I want things to be...

it' all good.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Let's try this...

I don't know anything about this but... I'm pretty sure it's an over-reaction.

Lets see how many likes this gets.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To the liberals out there. Please explain how the Utah Ammendment 3 violates the 14th ammendment in the US constitution. The utah constitution stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. Both of which are easily measured and are defined.

Your ilk wants to change it to be about love. If marriage is about love, can you put any limit on what the legal definition of marriage is? If gays must be included in marriage, then what about gay polygamists, what about heterosexual polygamists, what about a group of bisexual polygamists, are you going to deny them the same privelages?

Some say it is about benefits, if that is the case, why fight so hard to call it marriage instead of something else?

For a law to be enforcable, it needs to be measurable and/or quantifiable. Please explain how you measure love. So far I don't know how you can measure love, but then again I am a conservative and think about things using logic and not emotions.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

GaryO,

"....It only takes 2/3 of Congress to amend the Constitution."
______________________________

It take 2/3 of Congress to pass an amendment to send to the states, 3/4 of which must then ratify it in order to amend the Constitution.

FreedomFighter41
Provo, UT

"Your ilk wants to change it to be about love. If marriage is about love, can you put any limit on what the legal definition of marriage is? If gays must be included in marriage, then what about gay polygamists, what about heterosexual polygamists, what about a group of bisexual polygamists, are you going to deny them the same privelages?"

Why not? As long as they're consenting adults, why not?

Do you believe that polgamy is detrimental to the definition of marriage? If so, how can utah claim to be the champion of traditional marriage?

Do you believe that polygamy has a negative effect on the family? If so, then many prophets and apostles were then contributing negatively, actively working, against the institution of family, right?

As long as consenting adults love each other and desire to be married, why not?

Now before you repubs bring up cousins and animals... First of all, marrying cousins has proven to be negative towards society. Secondly, animals cannot give consent.

Sorry repubs, you lose this debate.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Mr. Bell's article was both accurate and informative. He posed the unanswered question of "harm". The same-sex crowd insists that same-sex marriage does not harm society. As Mr. Bell pointed out, we have thousands of years of experience with traditional marriage and no experience with same-sex "marriage".

Do those who support same-sex families think that raising children in that environment will NOT harm the child? Will that "family" teach children the proper role of men and women? I don't think so. I think that those families will "groom" those children to see homosexual sex as normal. I believe that doing that will cause great harm to the child and to society.

We are children of God. He made earth life possible. His instructions to us was to marry someone of the opposite sex and then, after marriage, to use the power of procreation to furnish physical bodies for His children who awaited their turn on earth. Same-sex unions destroy God's doctrine of family.

MaxPower
Eagle Mountain, UT

@RedShirt

Did you marry your wife simply because she was a woman, or because you loved her? Felt she completed you?

Unless harm can be shown to another person, or society, we have no legal basis to deny same sex marriage. Cases of incest, pedophilia etc has shown demonstrable harm, therefore the State has a legal reason to deny these marriages.

You and I may believe same-sex marriage is sinful, and we can continue to do so, but in a secular society there is no legal basis to deny this segment of society the same rights you and I enjoy, even if we disagree with their lifestyle. That is what America is about.

As far as the word "marriage", I fail to see the reasoning behind a "different word"... if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's a duck, even if you wish to call it "flying swimmer" because somehow you find the usage of the term "duck" offensive.

It seems most people who are opposed to Same Sex Marriage are really fighting the wrong battle. The battle should be against homosexuality; marriage or not, the rates and activities will not change.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Redshirt1701
"Please explain how the Utah Ammendment 3 violates the 14th ammendment in the US constitution. The utah constitution stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. "

The same way that laws against interracial marriage were struck down. One was considered an unjust exclusion based on race, the other on gender.

"If marriage is about love"

As it usually should be.

" can you put any limit on what the legal definition of marriage is?"

Sure.

" If gays must be included in marriage, then what about gay polygamists, what about heterosexual polygamists, what about a group of bisexual polygamists, are you going to deny them the same privelages?"

Yes. Love is a reason why people marry. I'm sure interracial couples in the early 60s said that it wasn't fair that they couldn't marry the person they loved. Would you use this argument against them too? Love is not the legal justification for same-sex marriage. The legal justification for same-sex marriage is that there's no legitimate basis for preventing consenting adults from marrying due to gender. Allowing that doesn't necessitate polygamy, incest, whatever.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Mike Richards;

I can show you thousands of mommy/daddy families where the children are ACTUALLY harmed. Should we then ban heterosexual marriages due to the fact that the vast majority of families harming children are heterosexual families?

And here you want to violate the rights of LGBT familes based on a "potential" harm? A harm that is not proven?

Do you see the lack of logic in your argument?

If you want so badly to live under a theocracy, please move to Iran or some place similar.

@Redshirt1701;

You've had it pointed out to you far too many times how A3 violates the 14th. You're just trolling

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "FreedomFighter41" what damage to society does it do to have cousins marry? If they love eachother, that is what you want to qualify. What if the cousins are the same gender, would you deny them marriage? If you can't deny gay cousins marriage, can you deny a straight couple marriage? Remember, it is about love, not genetics.

FYI, according to the DOJ when gay couples co-habitate there is an increase in violence and abuse. Is it beneficial to society to celebrate a relationship that results in an increase in violence?

To "MaxPower" show me in the law where love is a requirement for marriage. My spouse and I met the requirements according to the law. Nobody asked us if we were in love or attempted to measure it. They could see that we were a man and a woman.

The reason why the gays should pick a different word for their marriages is because they are NOT like heterosexual marriages. Two people of the same gender are not the same as two people of opposite genders. Declaring them the same is like calling a goat a dog because they both have 4 legs and a tail.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Schnee" if marriage is about love, how do you measure it? What about when you argue with your spouse, does that mean you are divorced if you are angry and don't feel the love?

Excluding gays from marriage is not a gender issue. Until we know why people are gay we cannot properly address gay issues. So far they have not found a "gay gene" to show that it is a genetic trait. Nor have they conclusively found that it is a learned trait. All we know for certain is that gays have a different brain chemistry than straigt people.

Until we know why gays are attracted to people of the same gender, we should proceed cautiously because we could en up creating more problems in the future based on a bad precident.

To "RanchHand" actually your ilk has never shown how it violates the 14th ammendment. Since marriage laws are not based on love, but on gender, there is nothing that prevents a gays from marrying people of the opposite gender. No discrimination is involved.

FYI, Ammendment 3 is legal per the 10th Ammendment

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Joseph Smith was acquitted numerous times by "judges" ruling against the will of the people.
The Mormons were later run out of America by the will of the people over these same Judges.

Lesson learned --
Who should we trust,
Mobs or Judges?

=======

BTW -- I agree with several earlier comment about Judges ruling in favor of granting Corporations and the Wealthy unlimited and open bribery of our Politicians.

I'm afraid that was the final Gadianton ruling they spells our doom.

HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

SSM excuse makers and promoters are just being lame now. It isn't the same thing as traditional marriage, and quit lying to yourself and everyone else. It doesn't "quack like a duck" so don't pretend.
I can stupidly make an argument that bank robbing does more good then harm. After all it spreads the wealth, promotes economic activity, provides employment, I don't need to go on. just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean I'm wrong, and your right. It makes for a good economic/social plan. It's just that you think your morality trumps my morality. Besides, what if my friend or relative or neighbor is a bank robber, I can gain sympathy for them, so I start making excuses or even start promoting it. That is the whole premise fir SSM promoters. They have a connection, so they have to start making excuses.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Ranch,

Your argument is moot. You claim that "your bear has eaten fewer children than "my bear" is not logical. Bears eating children destroys the lives of children. The goal us to stop the bears that eat children, not to allow your bear into society, just because you claim that your bear destroys the lives of fewer children than other bears.

Every child is precious. No child should be left to ravenous bears. Every child deserves a family with a male as father and a female as mother, just as God decreed.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Redshirt1701
"if marriage is about love, how do you measure it? "

The personal issue of who one marries involves love. That's different from the legal issue of marriage which doesn't require anything other than two unrelated adults of opposite gender deciding they want to form that legal union. The challenge is that there's insufficient reason to make opposite gender a requirement and that doing so is a violation of equal protections law. There's no quantification of love required.

"Excluding gays from marriage is not a gender issue."
"Since marriage laws are not based on love, but on gender"

Contradictory statements.

"according to the DOJ when gay couples co-habitate there is an increase in violence and abuse. Is it beneficial to society to celebrate a relationship that results in an increase in violence?"

Applying averages to everyone in a particular demographic is stereotyping. If we were to find that members of a particular religion or race had a higher average rate of violence we wouldn't stop them from marrying. Lesbians have the lowest child abuse rates, so should we ban straight couples from marrying?

to comment

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