Quantcast

Comments about ‘In our opinion: As marriage dispute heads toward Supreme Court, judiciary should not invalidate state laws’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 25 2014 5:05 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Vanceone
Provo, UT

A good editorial. Sure to be slammed as "bigoted, hate mongering, sexist" and probably racist by some of our leftist commentators, who, apparently, cannot bear to hear of any dissent to their "gay is the greatest, bestest thing ever and anyone who doesn't tolerate--by which we mean fully embrace and celebrate-- the gay ideology is a bigot who should be shunned, fired, prosecuted and jailed if possible. Because we want everyone to be tolerant, so we cannot tolerate dissent from our positions."

You would think that our crop of leftists would be content that the entire rest of the media is 110% on their side, and comment there, rather than try to suppress and tear down one dissenting paper.

Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

I assume the editorial writer(s) must also believe that the courts were wrong to strike down state bans on interracial marriage.

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

@Deseret News wrote: "The opponents of traditional marriage..."

That phrase is intellectually dishonest, DN. Those seeking marriage equality are not opposed in any way to "traditional marriage." What we are opposed to is excluding same-sex couples from marriage.

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

I know conservatives hate to admit it, but the 14th Amendment exists specifically to limit the 10th Amendment. States don't have free range to pass laws in violation of the Constitution and the equal rights of all citizens.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

Kelly is a former state legislator and brings a unique perspective to the case that deserves to be heard. I happen to disagree with him, but he actually makes a better case than Utah's lawyers made.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

Who are these "opponents of traditional marriage" these DN editorials keep mentioning? I've been in a traditional marriage for almost 32 years now. I live in a marriage equality state. I've had no one oppose my traditional marriage and I see absolutely no evidence of "opponents" of traditional marriage. None.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

I stand with Mormon Prophet Monson and Pope Francis.

When you think about who they speak for - its good company!

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

I have no issue with listening to dissent.

I do have an issue when the motivation behind legislation on my, is not true.

In the decade since marriage was afforded to LGBT Americans since MA in 2004, zero losses of legislation and legal protections have happened to Heterosexual marriages.

Sure, you can claim your 'morals' and your 'beliefs' are being effected.

But that can also happen if I eat Bacon for lunch.

As such we need quantifiable things were to base legislation upon. Facts. Effects. Real Vs. Rhetoric.

Everyone is trying to cite Amendment 3 that 'the people' have spoken.

Sure. In 2004.

It's 2014 today.

So, if you are so secure in said belief, put it up for a vote again.

You believe, that you have nothing to loose, correct?

Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011

'For the first time since Gallup started studying the issue in 1996, the polling organization found a majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex marriage.
Fifty-three percent of Americans answered yes to the question...'

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ

Well said Vanceone. The one thing I keep coming back to is that as a society, somehow we view marriage as far easier to redefine than the benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. Far easier to re-write the laws of God than the tax laws. Far easier to redefine the eternal institution of marriage than to include civil unions in the group of individuals receiving state and federal benefits and legal protections. Far easier to lay aside the scriptures than lay aside our pride. I know that sounds a lot like "separate but equal", which in today's world is a taboo phrase. But then again, when has SS marriage ever been equal with traditional marriage? It never has been, it never will be, regardless of how many federal judges side with you, regardless of how you interpret the US constitution.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

“...we should be reluctant to invalidate state constitutional or legislative enactments,” is more persuasive...".

We(?)spent a great deal of time reluctant to invalidate state constitutional enactments.

Then along came Loving v Virginia.

June 12, 1967 is a day which began the end of America...or so we(?)were told by those who oppose interracial marriage.

June 25, 2014 we(?) are still plugging along.

What happened?...

Or... is this just the new beginning of the end?

BTW...

"...the majority leapt to the conclusion that same-sex marriages need to be accorded the same legal recognition as man-woman marriages...".

Leapt?

"...December 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Utah repeatedly cited Loving in its decision Kitchen v. Herbert, which held unconstitutional Utah's ban on same-sex marriage. February 2014, Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, writing for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Bostic v. Rainey (which struck down Virginia's ban), not only cited Loving, but also prefaced her opinion with Mildred Loving's above-mentioned statement of 2007. May 2014, Pulaski County Circuit judge Chris Piazza likewise cited Loving as precedent when holding Arkansas's ban unconstitutional in Wright v. Arkansas...".

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

You're wrong. If a law violates the Constitution it needs to be invalided regardless how the law came into being. Amendment 3 violated the US Constitution. Judge Shelby, and now the 10th Circuit Court, did the right thing. Good for them.

Kings Court
Alpine, UT

Yes, the judiciary should invalidate state laws if they are found to be contradictory to the guarantees found in the U.S. Constitution or contrary to the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. I don't know who wrote this op-ed, but they are advocating to get rid of judicial review--a foundation pillar to the checks and balances of our government system.

Starry starry night
Palm Springs , CA

The fourth estate, which you represent in Utah, is a sacred public trust in our democracy.
Your editorial represents a dying point of view. The preponderance of evidence and the forward march of justice on this important human issue should have shed light on this news organization. You do your readers and the LGBT community a disservice by trying to maintain the status quo. The frightening history of prejudice and abuse that gay people have suffered in Utah and which has irrefutably come to light in recent years should have made you walk forward on this issue with careful steps. History will be embarrassing for this editorial board. What's right is right and your position is wrong.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Frozen Fractals "I assume the editorial writer(s) must also believe that the courts were wrong to strike down state bans on interracial marriage."

You assume incorrectly. The writer dealt with those cases. I suggest you go back and read it again:

"In all those cases, the marriages at issue were marriages between a man and a woman." That's the difference.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Individual state kingdoms couldn't exist in today's world, our nation and its people would be much better off and have a better chance for survival if we could get rid of the redundant state governments. State governments are too easily controlled by local business interests even to the destruction of the American Constitution. Criminals who flout the laws of the American government are given safe haven and encouragement by the other local business people.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@Nate,

Frozen Fractals actually raised a valid point. Before Loving v Virginia, all those marriage cases in courts were marriages of same race, no interracial marriage. In fact SCOTUS even affirmed anti-interracial marriage ban in Pace v Alabama, only reversed themselves in Loving v Virginia.

So Frozen Fractals' point is, even if traditionally marriage was between two people of same race, does not make it self evident.

Similarly, even if marriage was traditionally between one man and one woman only, it does not make it self evident or self approved, it still needs rational reasons to justify.

Unfortunately, in the past year, even though all kinds of rationales have been argued in courts, and 22 court decisions have been delivered, none of those arguments were found valid.

Befuddled
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

In our opinion: In marriage dispute, judiciary should not invalidate state laws or God's.

bribri86
Phoenix, AZ

Every time I read the Constitution, I have yet to see anywhere where it says Marriage is a constitutional right. Someone point me in that direction so I can better judge whether I should go against God and Nature and side with the philosophy of man.

Daedalus, Stephen
ARVADA, CO

A useful editorial would explain to readers how the outcome of this case hinges on these two different ways to frame the legal question:

== Utah/Appellants: Must Utah recognize and validate a previously unrecognized right to something called “same-sex marriage”?

== Kitchens et al/Appellees: Can Utah infringe upon any U.S. citizen's fundamental right to marriage, using the characteristics of some citizens to create the classification upon which the infringement is based?

An honest editorial would then explain how SCOTUS precedent supports the latter articulation of the legal question before the 10th Cir., but not the former.

Finally, a persuasive editorial, if advocating the position DN holds, would explain why SCOTUS was wrong in those instances or how the 10th Cir. erred in applying them.

Congratulations to Kitchen plaintiffs and their legal team.

Opponents of SSM in Utah and elsewhere in 10th Cir: please don't despair...this case isn't quite done yet, but remember life does and will go on, and not as badly as you may now fear.

Supporters of SSM: try to be graceful in this recent victory, and tread with gentleness even in those places where you have found none.

jbman
Boise, ID

The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to Marriage, Heterosexual or Homosexual. What it does guarantee is equal protection under the law. There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. Once we decided to bestow rights, benefits and protections on marriage those same rights, benefits and protections have to be extended to everyone that chooses to enter into a marriage.

Lastly, if I hear one more Mormon tell me that God has always defined "traditional" marriage as one man and one woman I am going to lose it. We literally left the country to practice polygamy, a practice that we believed was ordained of God.

to comment

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