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

Craig Clark -

"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."

Thanks for the correction.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Redshirt1701;

FYI; Amendment 3 is NOT legal per the 10th Amendment, which PROHIBITS states from violating the US Constitution.

@Mike Richards;

Your logic is still a complete failure. You make the claim that LGBT marriages "MAY harm children - so they shouldn't be allowed". Then turn around and say that it doesn't matter that heterosexual marriage DO harm children and they should be allowed. Not logical, in fact, quite hypocritical.

Also, FYI. LGBT couples are not "ravenous bears"; we're human beings just like you and your spouse. "God decreed" is irrelevant and as I said, if you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.

Tiago
Seattle, WA

@HaHaHaHa
Bank robbing does harm. It involves somebody acting against another party against their will and depriving them of property. Our laws protect us against that.

What is the actual harm to society of legalizing gay marriage? How are gay people worse off when their relationships are legally recognized? How are straight people worse off when their gay neighbors marry? How is any specific child worse off because gay people can marry? Please use actual scenarios. Since gay marriage has been legal for years in many areas, you should be able to share very specific cases.

The cases of harm that keep getting told are business owners who can not legally discriminate against same-sex couples and people who feel bad because their views about other people's sins are no longer as popular as they used to be.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Ranch,

We live in America, the land that God has allowed to be a beacon to the world. God permitted you to live. He permitted me to live. He created all things through his Son, Jesus Christ. He, and He alone, set the rules of mortal life. He decreed that marriage is between a man and a woman. He, our God, our Creator, our Master, made the rules. It doesn't matter what you think about God. Your thoughts do not change His doctrine. He told us that sex outside of marriage is wrong. He told us that marriage is ONLY between a man and woman. He told us that He will not accept rebellion against His doctrine. You have the right to tell us that fewer children are destroyed by gay "families" than are destroyed by those who live in traditional families. That argument is ridiculous. God does not accept the destruction of children, no matter who destroys them. If 2.5% of the population uses the excuse that they are not "harming" children, compared to others, God will reject that comparison.

Greg Bell is correct. Your comments prove that he is right.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

Oh, I get it! So, if we grant equal protection to some people, we'll use it all up and won't have any left for anyone else, right?

Or perhaps, if we grant equality to someone you disapprove of, it somehow diminishes the equal treatment someone else got?

Or maybe... If too many people are treated as legal equals, then we won't need the equal protection clause at all any more? Yeah, that must be it! Well, I suppose we can cross that bridge when we come to it. We're sure not there yet.

Tiago
Seattle, WA

@Mike Richards
"You have the right to tell us that fewer children are destroyed by gay "families" than are destroyed by those who live in traditional families. That argument is ridiculous."

I don't think you understand how this works. There are gay people in the world and straight people. Straight people can legally get married. Lots of them have kids. We should do everything we can to support them.

Gay people can only get legally married in some states. No matter where they live, lots of gay people still have kids. Kids of gay couples who can't get married have less rights and protections than kids of married parents.

Kids of gay people are not harmed by gay marriage. Kids will not be taken from straight couples and given to gay couples.

Marriage helps protect kids. If you want to protect and support kids of gay people, you should support marriage equality.

The Wraith
Kaysville, UT

I have asked this question several times but no one is able to answer.

I would like a detailed list of the damaging things same sex marriage will bring to society. Please keep in mind when you answer that same sex marriage has been legal in several countries for over a decade so anything item you list must be backed up by evidence of that damage in one of those countries. I look forward to reading your list.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

There are law abiding citizens in this country who would never rob a bank and there are those to whom the laws of this country, at least to their way of expressing their "feelings", don't apply. Some of them think that they have the "equal right" to have all that they want without abiding by the rules that govern that acquisition. They would tell us that they "feel" that they are being denied the "right" to have wealth and that they "feel" that they are being singled out because of their "feelings".

The law is the law. It tells us that we cannot rob a bank, no matter what our feelings are.

The law of marriage is absolute. Our Creator, God the Father of us all, told us that marriage is between a man and a woman. No matter how we "feel" about marriage, the definition is absolute, unchangeable, and eternal.

The argument is between people who reject God's authority, and God, our Father, who has already given us that definition. Until those who want to redefine absolute laws can show us their authority, their arguments are moot.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mike Richards
"You have the right to tell us that fewer children are destroyed by gay "families" than are destroyed by those who live in traditional families. That argument is ridiculous."

Statistically, children are better off (grades, juvenile crime etc) with upper middle class income families than poor families. Should we ban poor people from marrying? Should we accuse poor people of destroying children? Why do these statistical averages only get used against same-sex couples? Shouldn't they be used against other things too to be consistent? Or is this just an excuse rather than a reason?

HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

@ Tiago in Seattle...what a shock

"Bank robbing does harm. It involves somebody acting against another party against their will and depriving them of property. Our laws protect us against that."

Again it really comes down to you placing your morality above others. Taxation is a perfect example of everything you mention in your preachy rebuttal. It is an act against another party and their private property, and they may not agree with it or find it immoral. Your precious environmental rules regulations and takings are all part of an act against others and their property. Bet you don't find any reason to protect those rights? And yes your business owner scenario is another great example. Show me one example of any business owner, be it a photographer, florist, or baker (you name it), who really denied business or discriminated against a gay person. I think they all willingly sold goods and services to gay patrons for years. The tipping point is always when the gay person, proceeds to force the business to become part of their perverse ceremony.

FreedomFighter41
Provo, UT

@ Red Shirt

What's wrong with cousins marrying and polygamist marriages? As long as they're consenting adults, how do their marriages affect your own?

Are you jealous? Are you afraid that they will suddenly be a rush to marry cousins? Who do you think Adam and Eve's offspring were marrying?

As long as they're consenting adults, why do you care? Will you suddenly stop loving you wife?

the truth
Holladay, UT

To have equal protection, Gay MUST show they are group that should have equal protection.

They have failed to do this.

There is NO genetic proof of homosexuality, there is no proof you are born that way. Science has no idea what causes homosexuality.

They are not a protected group.

The judges are wrong.

The 14th amendment does not apply here.

The writer is correct.

The judges are not using law but simply enforcing their own opinion onto everyone and against the people's will that was constitutionally made into law.

Calcommenter
San Jose, CA

These comments miss the very message Mr. Bell is making; "equal protection", used excessively, becomes nothing more than a club to enforce one's pet political project -- get the "right" judge on the bench and on the "right" case and voila, you've circumvented the whole democratic/legislative process. Could not "equal protection" be used to strike down the income tax? (those that have income vs. those that don't) the progressive tax structure? (some pay higher % than others) Welfare? (some receive some don't) ObamaCare (differing levels of care) and bigamy? (if same sex, why not multi-party?). It seems even "equal protection" needs some boundaries lest it become a meaningless concept altogether.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

Part of the problem with courts overturning law is it exacerbates underlying animosities.

For example, in 1967 the Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage, but many states continued to have laws against interracial marriage afterward, even though they were unenforceable.

The last state to officially repeal its ban on interracial marriages was Alabama, in the year 2000. The repeal was enacted by direct vote, but strikingly, the repeal only passed by 60%(!), with 40% of Alabama voters supporting keeping their interracial marriage ban on the books!

There is a vein in our society that is very, very strongly defiant, even 33 years after the Supreme Court overturned what turned out to be a widely opposed law, an affront to basic human rights.

Greg Bell is suggesting that if Alabama, in the year 2000, voted to keep their ban on interracial marriages on the books, they should be allowed to maintain that ban.

Greg Bell is certainly not appealing to younger generations. He's pandering to stubborn and defiant older Americans.

higv
Dietrich, ID

@nonceleb slavery and woman'suffrage were passed as constitutional amendments they were not legislated from the bench.

higv
Dietrich, ID

No child is raised by his two parents in a same sex union. No childhood equality there. @thewrath you are probably hoping no one finds any damage in so called ssm situations so you can defend it. Same Gender Attraction I don't know what causes it, but why are many people entering those relationships after leaving a faithful spouse? Don't care about STD's probably either. And why have many gay people with therapy became straight? Gay people will always exist until the millennium, but many have been married to members of the opposite sex and you can still marry anyone of age of the opposite sex that consents. There are major biological differences between gender's that kids need, There really are none in race that I am aware of.

booyakashaw
Murray, UT

This was written by the former Lt. Governor...yikes.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Roland Kayser:
"The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment applies to US citizens."

The 'equal protection' clause simply states that States must apply laws equally to all. It says: '... nor shall any State... deny any person within its jurisdiction, equal protection of the laws.' That does not mean laws are to be changed to accommodate some faction of society. It means that all laws on the books will be applied equally to all citizens.

For example, State law prohibits childhood, polygamist, and brother/sister, mother/son, father/daughter marriages, among others. This applies to all citizens equally. It does not mean, because someone can't marry (such as a child), that the law must be changed to accommodate.

The (State) law also says that only marriages between one man and one woman are legal. That law applies equally to all citizens thus meeting the 'equal protection' requirement. You don't change laws that might exclude some types of marriages such as children, polygamists, brother/sister, mother/son, father/daughter, and same-sex attracted to make them happy.

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

@wrz wrote: "The 'equal protection' clause simply states that States must apply laws equally to all. It says: '... nor shall any State... deny any person within its jurisdiction, equal protection of the laws.' That does not mean laws are to be changed to accommodate some faction of society. It means that all laws on the books will be applied equally to all citizens."

A Supreme Court justice once wrote "A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews." A law forbidding same-sex marriage is a law abridging the rights of LGBT citizens, and is a violation of the Equal Protection clause.

Alfred
Phoenix, AZ

@MaxPower:
"Cases of incest, pedophilia etc has shown demonstrable harm, therefore the State has a legal reason to deny these marriages."

Incest and pedophilia are not normal conduct. Neither is same-sex conduct.

"... but in a secular society there is no legal basis to deny this segment of society the same rights you and I enjoy"

There is no legal basis for allowing many types of marriages such as polygamy, adult/children, mother/son, father/daughter and many, many others. You can't look to federal law for approval of these types of marriages since there is none... nor the US Constitution. Same goes for SSM.

to comment

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