Quantcast
Opinion

Constitutional commitments trump tribal mentality

Comments

Return To Article
  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 29, 2014 9:10 a.m.

    JT: " the argument that some people use to cite that they must be made equal according to the 14th Amendment. If that is true, then I demand Obama's salary and equal use of Air Force One."

    --------

    You forgot the part "equal-Under the law-according to the 14th Amendment." That "under the law" makes a world of difference. It doesn't mean that everyone should be equal in money, things, and circumstances. It means that the laws of the land cannot treat citizens who are similarly situated differently. That is what Amendment 3 does. Geesh.

  • Mr. Bean Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 28, 2014 10:57 p.m.

    "But states that divide themselves into Republican, Democrat, Christian and secular tribes are destroying any hope of a constitutional republic form of government."

    I think I have a solution to your dilemma...

    Change the Democrat tribe into a Republican tribe.

    Change the secular tribe into a Christian tribe.

    Change all minority tribes into majority tribes.

    Change all female tribes into male tribes (well, perhaps you can skip that one).

    Change all illegal immigrant tribes into legal immigrant tribes.

    Change all same sex tribes into different sex tribes.

    Unfortunately, we see this idea actually playing out today in some mid-east countries where Muslims are telling Christians to either convert to Islam or die. And Sunnis convert to Shia or die.

    "The list goes on and on."

    True.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 28, 2014 10:40 p.m.

    @my_two_cents_worth:
    "Ruling a law of the State of Utah in violation with the Supreme Law of the Land IS the supreme court's job."

    Do you feel the same was about a federal law such as the Edunds-Tucker Act of 1887 which banned polygamy? If the Supreme Court were to rule on that law today, how do you suspect they would rule? Inquiring minds wanna know.

    "Invalidating an unconstitutional state law is not legislation no matter how badly you'd like to think it is."

    Utah's marriage law is mot unconstitutional. The law says that ANYONE can marry provided they marry someone who is not already married, of legal age, not closely related, and of the opposite sex. This applies equally to all citizens of the state.

    If you think Utah's marriage laws are discriminatory against same-sex attracted people, you also must say it's discriminatory against all other forms of marriage such as polygamy, siblings, mother/son, father/daughter, any other close relative, and even groups of people such as three females and two males. And any other marriage arrangements that can be conjured.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 28, 2014 10:06 p.m.

    @intervention:
    "And once again you are ignoring the other federal amendments including the 9th and 14th that more then 20 different judges and the subprime court have ruled do apply to gay marriage."

    Well, if the 9th and 14th amendment applies to SSM, it has to also apply to polygamous marriages... and siblings, close relatives, children, and any other combination that can be conjured. Perhaps even six guys marrying each other forming a sextet.

    @Tolstoy:
    "So how many times have we all ad this exact same conversation mike? how many more times do we need to have it before you realize that your selective reading of the constitution does not match up with the reality of the repeated court rulings...?"

    The court erred in using the 14th Amendment to rule on interracial marriage. The issue should have be remanded to Congress for resolution.

    'Equal protection of the laws' simply means that everyone is treated exactly alike under a given law. It says nothing about the validity of a law (such as interracial marriage). If a law is discriminatory it must be returned to a legislative body to correct, not the courts.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    Aug. 28, 2014 7:01 p.m.

    "The 1st Amendment prohibits a State from Legislating religion."

    Nope, the 14th Amendment is what prohibits a state from legislating religion. The reason for that isn't immediately apparent to the layman, but anyone who's actually versed in constitutional law and the history of church and state in the US would know why. Not helping your bona fides here.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 5:25 p.m.

    @ j Thomas

    As has been discussed before the first amendment protects people from using government to institute a theocracy that violates others rights to practice or not practice thier own form of religion and no matter how many times you ignore the actual arguements already made it does not change the fact that the courts are not legislating anything but rather ruling if the legislation passed violates federal law or the federal consitution which is thier responsibility as the third branch pf government.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 4:56 p.m.

    @JThompson,

    You just said the Supreme Court cannot rule in matters of Marriage because it is the realm of the State.

    So if Missouri were to pass a law prohibiting Temple Marriages, what would your recourse be? Remember, you said Federal Court was a no no.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 4:52 p.m.

    J Thompson sai: "Pick your side. You are either with God or you are against Him. No one who is against God has ever prospered. Eternal law is ETERNAL."

    That your for or against only works for folks who believe there are no grey areas in life, and don't seek to understand only to obey another man, whom they have faith in.

    Which God? There's so many, with different personalities, and different ideas on what they want from their flock.

    How come you get to type in caps all the time, and I can barely get comments thru following all the rules?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 4:31 p.m.

    Those who ask a question that has been answered show that they either cannot read or that they will not read. The 1st Amendment prohibits a State from Legislating religion. It is not nebulous. It is not subjective. It is explicit, not at all like the argument that some people use to cite that they must be made equal according to the 14th Amendment. If that is true, then I demand Obama's salary and equal use of Air Force One.

    The only question that is pertinent is whether we are subject to our creator or whether "Federal Judges" have the authority to legislate something that is not written in the Constitution. The Constitution explicitly assigns the authority to legislate to Congress. It expressly assigns all authority to the States unless the Constitution explicitly addresses the question, which it has done with religion.

    Pick your side. You are either with God or you are against Him. No one who is against God has ever prospered. Eternal law is ETERNAL.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 4:25 p.m.

    So these coversation do flollow the same perdictable pattern, almost like a poorly written soap opera:
    1 those that appose gay marriage make the same false claims they have made a hundrads times before.
    2 those that support gay marriage refute these falsehoods with the same facts they have posted hundrads of times before
    3. Those that appose gay marriage retreat to victimhood (despite the fact they are the ones aggressively seeking to deny others basic human dignity and rights).
    And like any poorly written soap you can tune out for years on end check back In for the first three post of one thread and be completely caught up on the coversation.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Aug. 28, 2014 4:15 p.m.

    @J Thompson

    "The creator has given no right to those who believe in samr-sex sex."

    My creators were a couple of teenage kids caught up in the passion of the moment. Both are cool with SSM.

    "THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT legislate"

    Ruling a law of the State of Utah in violation with the Supreme Law of the Land IS the supreme court's job. Invalidating an unconstitutional state law is not legislation no matter how badly you'd like to think it is.

    "Those who mock our Creator "

    Believe me, we are not mocking your creator.

    "God instituted marriage "

    Yet neither your God nor his representatives can marry anyone in Utah without Utah's permission. What does that tell you?

    "We have just been instructed by a prophet of God"

    If it is so darned important to your God why doesn't he just come on out and tell us all? Why the need to work through a middleman?

  • SuperNova Eagle, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 3:27 p.m.

    @JThompson

    So in your argument, Marriage is a total purview of the State, and absolute. So if Missouri passed a law banning Temple Marriages, that would be fine right? Isn't that the right of the State to define marriage as they wish, and if a State wants to define a marriage as such that it MUST expire upon the death of one of the parties; then they are under no obligation to recognize a marriage that claims to extend beyond that.

    Or, is it ok for a judge to rule against the State in that regard?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 3:27 p.m.

    @j thomas

    typing in all capitals does not make your claims any more valid then they were before. No one is mocking your creator, just disagreeing with your attempt to use it as a weapon in your disagreements with how our constitutional democracy, not theocracy, should functions.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 3:05 p.m.

    The creator has given no right to those who believe in samr-sex sex. Goverment cannot bestow rights. THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT legislate, unless it breaks the Supreme Law of the land.

    The Americas have seen the destruction fof at least two major cilivizations who were "swept off the land" because they made laws that contridicted eternal laws.

    Those who mock our Creator and claim that they are "superior" to Him will see their folly whrn they stand before Him.

    We have been warned of false and foolish teachings that will destroy us, if followed. Same-sex sex is ampoung those warnings. God instituted marriage for a specific purpose. Those foolish enough to argue against Deity will answer to Deity.

    We have just been instructed by a prophet of God to stand for marriage, as instituted by our Creator. Those who are faithful to Deity will stand for that instruction. Those who mock Deity will stand against it. Life is binary. Each choice has two possible choices. What we choose shows our character. We cannot avoid the consequences of our choices.

    Take a stand and accept the consequences.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 3:00 p.m.

    J Thompson
    1. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness - not agency to choose. Some people find happiness in a ss marriage.
    2. Governments enforce rights and protect them.
    3. Judges are to evaluate written laws to see if they are constitutional or not.
    4. Any right that the constitution does not give the congress is either the state's or the people as far as the follow the constitution - read amendment #10.
    5. Rules of marriage are left to the state if those rules follow the constitution - see Loving v. Virginia.
    6. Read Article III - the Judiciary: "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact,"
    7. Yep
    8. Not yet.
    9. Baloney! That is their job to see if laws that have been enacted pass the constitutional muster, right? Can you explain Loving v. Virginia? That is not legislating, but striking down an unconstitutional law that allows people to act differently than before. Are you telling me that a citizen of a state cannot have a law that impacts them, looked over by the courts to see if it denies them of a right?

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Aug. 28, 2014 2:19 p.m.

    @J Thompson

    "The Supreme Court cannot strike down Utah's law"

    They can, and likely will. What will you do then?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 2:18 p.m.

    Mike,

    First, we live in a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. Only by an amendment can the people change the constitution.

    Second,"On the other hand, the 14th Amendment specifically addresses a person's right to be free from slavery" - is incorrect. The 14th amendment says absolutely nothing about slavery and has been used for many decisions that have nothing to do with slavery. Your reading into it that it only dealt with slaves is incorrect per our judicial history.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Aug. 28, 2014 2:16 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    "It is not often that the majority of people will ever choose to do anything that is harmful to society."

    You mean like running the indigenous peoples off the lands they have occupied for eons? Or trading in humans brought forcibly from their own home lands? How about treating women as chattel? Or purposely imposing voting laws to keep "undesirables" from the polling place?

    "yet slavery was allowed because of 1.4% of the people."

    This is deliberate dishonesty on your part, and I suspect you know it. Slavery was allowed because the majority allowed it.

    "We learned once that when 1.4% of the people choose the wrong thing, "

    Be careful throwing your numbers out--they could bite you. 1.7% of US Christians are LDS. My money says 98.3% of American Christians think that 1.7% have it wrong.

    "A Constitutional form of government allows the majority to set the rules. "

    And the Bill of Rights protects the rest of us from that majority when they get it wrong. Deal with it.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 2:13 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    Something like 90% of Americans are not in an interracial marriage, does that mean society rejects interracial marriage? 98.3% of Americans are not LDS, should their rights be restricted because society rejects that faith as being true? Society's generally always right, right? Or perhaps we live in a nation where we're supposed to have a strong constitutional foundation to protect the rights of people including minority groups.

    Oh, and stop trying to put people like me in with your ilk. I support same-sex marriage even if I don't want one for myself.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 2:09 p.m.

    @TwinLights
    "Second, elected leaders with the backbone to tell their constituents no when their demands interfere with the long-term welfare of their state and nation.”

    George Bush and congressional Democrats when they passed the bailout bill is perhaps the most recent big example I can think of.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 2:04 p.m.

    @j J thomas

    So then your answer is at least one more time then.
    It is one thing to read the constitution and another to not willfully misrepresent it.

    1 the rights are protected by the state both for your right to believe in a creator and my right to live without your beliefs infringing upon my choices.
    2. your right but I really do not understand your point since government is merely protecting gays rights in this situation.
    3 and 9 Judges are not writing laws in these cases they are determining if the laws written square with the federal constitution which is their role as the third branch of government.
    4. The courts have ruled that the denial of gay marriage is a violation of the constitution and therefore is a matter for the courts.
    5. The rules of marriage are left to the state provided they do not run foul of the federal constitution. does anyone else see a pattern here?
    6. federal judges have not only the right but the duty to "interfere" when states pass laws violating the federal constitution.
    7. and 8. ultimately the supreme court has final judiciary say over such matter but only if a case is appealed to that level.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 1:26 p.m.

    Those who will not read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will claim that those insist that marriage be only between a man and a woman are in error.

    Let me write plainly so that no one can twist my words.

    1. God, our Creator, gave us our rights, among which are life, liberty and agency to choose.

    2. Governments have no rights to bestow on us. Government is instituted to protect our rights.

    3. Only Congress can write law. Judges cannot write law.

    4. Any issue not specifically addressed by the Constitution is left to the States or the people.

    5. Marriage is licensed by the State. Rules of marriage are left to the State.

    6. No Federal Judge has authority to interfere in a matter of the State.

    7. The Supreme Court decides Constitutional matters.

    8. The Supreme Court has not ruled on Utah's right to define marriage.

    9. The Supreme Court cannot strike down Utah's law without legislating. The Court is prohibited from legislating.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 12:57 p.m.

    had not ad, sorry

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 12:43 p.m.

    @mike richards

    So how many times have we all ad this exact same conversation mike? how many more times do we need to have it before you realize that your selective reading of the constitution does not match up with the reality of the repeated court rulings, including the supreme court? It does not matter if its 1 person or the 5 million people the constitution guarantees protection of the individual from the tyranny of the majority. You have the right to practice your religious beliefs and I for one will always fight to ensure that happens but your rights do not extend to stripping others of their rights.

  • SuperNova Eagle, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    Everyone is entitled to marry someone...of their own race.

    Everyone is entitled to drink from a drinking fountain...as long as it is designated for their race

    An African American can sit anywhere on the back of the bus that he wishes.

    You are free to worship...in any Catholic church you like.

    You can vote for whomever you think the best candidate is...Any democrat on the ballot that you like.

    Or we can flip this around entirely...

    You can marry anyone of the same gender you please. My 5 year old thinks boys and girls kissing and holding hands is icky.

    See how easily this can get out of hand?

  • intervention slc, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    And once again you are ignoring the other federal amendments including the 9th and 14 th that more then 20 different judges and the subprime court have ruled do apply to gay marriage. You also seem to have this idea that religous freedom some how extends to dictating how others live and trumps all other rights which frany makes no sense to me.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 28, 2014 11:52 a.m.

    The Founding Fathers valued religion so much that the FIRST part of the FIRST Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

    On the other hand, the 14th Amendment specifically addresses a person's right to be free from slavery and to enjoy the same rights of freedom as any other citizen of the United States.

    EVERY person in the United States has the "right" to marry someone of the opposite sex. There are no laws that restrict that except in cases of close family members marrying. There is no "same-sex" clause in the 14th Amendment. ALL PEOPLE are allowed to marry, but marriage is not defined by the U.S. Constitution. That definition is left to the State.

    Some people don't get that concept. Some people think that rights come from government. They are in error. The Declaration of Independence declares that rights come from our Creator. He has specifically stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is an eternal truth that cannot be changed just because 1.6% of the population disagrees with Deity.

  • SuperNova Eagle, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    @Mike Richards

    Roughly 2% of the US is LDS...so by your logic, if Missouri passed an amendment to their Constitution outlawing the practice of Temple Marriages, that would be fine.

    As you like to articulate, the First Amendment only prohibits Congress from acting in the Religious Square.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 28, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    We live in a Democratic Republic where we elect Representatives to represent the will of the People and Senators to represent the States. The President is elected by the States (electoral college). When our Representatives will not represent us, we have the right to change our Constitution. We did that in Utah. Marriage between a man and a woman ONLY was ratified and is part of our State Constitution. Amendment 10 states that everything not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution is left to the States or to the people. There is no marriage definition in the U.S. Constitution; therefore, it is a matter left to the States or to the people. There is no RIGHT to married someone of the same-sex in the U.S. Constitution; therefore, it is a matter left to the States. No one is being denied the right to marry. People can marry anyone of any race.

    When 1.6% of the people try to undermine marriage to suit their sexual preferences, the people have the right to step in and define marriage.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    So do you understand why we have a consitutional form of government with a bill of rights instead of a simple democracy? It sounds like you would prefer a simple democracy. Even if the number of people that identify as LGBT was 2 people those people still have rights under our form of government.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 28, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    The Constitution is the voice of the People that limits the authority of government. It is not often that the majority of people will ever choose to do anything that is harmful to society. The minority, on the other hand, often want to change things so that they can do whatever they want without recrimination.

    Only 1.4% of the people in the United States owned slaves. 98.6% of the people DID NOT own slaves, yet slavery was allowed because of 1.4% of the people. It took the death of 618,222 Americans before slavery was abolished.

    Today 1.6% of Americans practice same-sex sex. 98.4% do not practice same-sex sex, yet from the rhetoric of that 1.6%, you would think that we need to change the definition of marriage to accommodate them.

    We learned once that when 1.4% of the people choose the wrong thing, that lives are ruined and society suffers. A Constitutional form of government allows the majority to set the rules. The majority seldom makes the wrong choice. Marriage is not a right defined in the Constitution.

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    It is precisely this kind of airy exercise in ideological essentialism that Mary Barker tore apart so artfully in her piece today. Meanwhile, back in the real world, parties exist, and need to be worked with.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 8:19 a.m.

    @Twin Lights

    After George Washington, when has this actually been the case?

    ----------------------

    George Washington was an excellent example of a Paragon American. The man who could have been King. The man who told us to avoid political parties. The man who told us to refrain from entanglements with Europe. The man who set the two term precedent of President, for fear that if were to die in office a precedent would be set that a President be elected for life. A man who almost single handedley funded the Revolution. A man's whose mere presence at the Convention allowed the Constitution to come forth.

    I wish we could have one today.

    By today's standards he had character flaws (owning slaves) but it is important to not judge the morality of previous generations with ours of today. I would certainly hope that we continue to progress in this area, and I know I would not want my grandkids judging me by their morality in the decades to come.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Aug. 28, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    “constitutional law, if followed, yields the following: First, elected leaders, free from partisan politics. Second, elected leaders with the backbone to tell their constituents no when their demands interfere with the long-term welfare of their state and nation.”

    After George Washington, when has this actually been the case?

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 6:00 a.m.

    Chaos; to control the people and punish the unruly.
    Liberty; is to choose what you want and freedom from bondage.
    I understand Nathan Hail.