Published: Thursday, Aug. 28 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
Chaos; to control the people and punish the unruly.Liberty; is to choose
what you want and freedom from bondage. I understand Nathan Hail.
“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?
@Twin LightsAfter 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.
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.
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.
@Mike RichardsSo 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
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.
@Mike RichardsRoughly 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.
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.
@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 RichardsEveryone 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 raceAn 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?
@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
had not ad, sorry
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.
@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.
@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
@Mike RichardsSomething 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.
@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.
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.
@J Thompson"The Supreme Court cannot strike down Utah's
law"They can, and likely will. What will you do then?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments