Quantcast

Comments about ‘Constitutional commitments trump tribal mentality’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Aug. 28 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Updated: Wednesday, Aug. 27 2014 9:19 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
george of the jungle
goshen, UT

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

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

“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?

MaxPower
Eagle Mountain, UT

@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.

E Sam
Provo, UT

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.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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.

intervention
slc, UT

@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

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.

SuperNova
Eagle, UT

@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

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.

intervention
slc, UT

@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.

SuperNova
Eagle, UT

@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?

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@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.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

had not ad, sorry

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

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

@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.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@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.

Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

@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.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

@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.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

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

@J Thompson

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

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

to comment

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