It's odd to hear conservatives use the word "democracy", since they
don't really believe in the concept to begin with. The Legislature has
made it repeatedly more difficult to get initiatives on the ballot.Our great Legislature decided to help Utah's school children understand
that people, the public, have very limited and specified powers, even
considering a law that would teach the children that we don't live in a
democracy, but a "compound constitutional republic". We
hear on a regular basis that the highly restrictive caucus system in Utah is a
more proper way than a primary, much less an open primary where more people can
participate.And now, with Judge Shelby's decision, Utah has
been transformed into a full blown democracy, where the little people's
opinions should carry the day - even if they're found to be in violation of
the US Constitution, (which is another topic of endless lecturing from our
conservative friends, as if nobody but them *truly* understands the
Constitution).On behalf of the Democratic Party, I would like to
welcome this new influx of champions of democracy. May your enthusiasm endure
through the next Legislature and election cycle.
@ James Stoddard: The State of Utah was told they needed to ban polygamy - no
one ever said it needed to be "a man and a woman" (which is why so many
Utahns thought Amendment 3 was needed).
@SCfan,Which cases are you talking about where judges are creating
new legislation or overturning the votes of legislatures or people? What cases
are you aware of where activist groups "shop for judges"?
What with the seeming low information to ignorance of much of this country, I
would prefer that those who really don't know anything, not vote. I wish I
could know the political leanings of judges, since it is almost a sure thing
that the political leanings of judges translates into how they will judge. Or I
should say legislate, because in many court cases that is what happens, new
legislation, overturning either a legislature or the vote of the people.
Therefore activist groups "shop for judges" to get a favorable ruling.
Such a travesty that the country operates like this. Who's kidding who?
The question is not "Should judges nulify laws". Sometimes they should,
if and when the law in question is unconstitutional. Every judge takes an oath
to uphold and defend the constitution. Were they not to nulify unconstitutional
laws, they would be in violation of their oath and the constitution.The question here is, 'does the constitution require gay marriage'?
It is a bit is a stretch to say that it does. And it is probably
unconstitutional for any state to give a child to a gay couple when the child
could have had a mother and a father.
James,If you are assuming that the two issues are related... I think you
are wrong.We have historically had now voter turnout (even before
the decision to negate the Proposition 3 vote in Utah).I think we
would have low voter turnout regardless of this situation.They are
both problems, but two unrelated problems IMO.Trying to link them
makes it sound like a stretch.
Our votes do matter and so do people! It is sad that so many people choose to
believe a great deal that is not true! We are good people and we care a great
deal about the people around us. We have no control of what others believe about
us! What can we do, sit back and accept so much that is bad for us? Should we
live a lie? Are we evil for believing that God has a place for us on this Earth?
No, we are not, and I will never accept the degrading things people choose to
heap upon us. I truly respect the beliefs of those around me, but don't
expect us to believe things that are wrong. Give us more credit than that! We
have a voice and a knowledge that we are part of whatever plan God has for all
of us! Why is it so hard for people to look beyond themselves and try to truly
understand someone who is different? Don't you think that we should all
reach out? We may never realize how many great things we can learn when we reach
out past our own little world!
the vote of the people does matter and it is wrong for someone to say this just
because Amendment 3 was overturned! People just choose to see what they want to
see. The author of this article feels that gay people have no rights when it
comes to marriage and so does 66% of all the people in Utah. The issue is about
whether or not our constitution gives the same rights to gay people or if
Mormons get to take it away based upon their beliefs! Look at slavery! How many
thousands of people died because of all the good Christians who felt that some
people should be slaves! Amendment 3 is unconstitutional! It denies good
American people their rights to live and have the same opportunities as everyone
else. All people are made equal. So, our constitution does have more power than
the 66% of those who voted for Amendment 3 and it should have more power. It is
our constitution that protects the minority from the majority that would deny
them their rights. I thank God for the Constitution that overturned a law that
denied me my rights.
Ah, the 'majority' claim. 1) Amendment 3 passed in 2004.
It's 2014. The tide in support for gay marriage is clear any every poll
since 2011. If you want to claim the 'majority' passed Amendment
3… then we should vote on it agin, today. Not cite a poll from
a decade ago. 2nd, I was having this discussing with a LDS friend of
mine. She said that since I moved into Utah, I should adhere to the
'majority' in Utah. I pointed out that # 1 Mormonism is a
clear majority in utah and Utah is one of 50 states in America. # 2: There are
more christians than Mormons, so Mormons should 'adhere' to the will
of Christianity. #3: There are more Catholics than Christians in the world, so
we should 'adhere' to Christianity. And… # 4: There
are more followers of Islam than there are Catholics in the world. So if we
followed this flawed logic, we should 'adhere' to the will of the
majority, and she should have then (satirically) converted from Mormonism to
Islam to follow the 'majority'. She never brought this up
again. Citing majority to remove protections of the
minority… is Tyranny.
Exactly the same argument was used to deny interracial couples the right to
marry. It was invalid then and it's invalid now. The reason Utahns
don't vote is that the outcome has already been decided by a handful of
rabid tea-party delegates to the state Republican convention. Why vote?
There sure have been a lot of constitutional experts since the election of 2008.
Of course most of them have never read the constitution.
Do they not teach civics in schools anymore? Perhaps more time spent in history
or civics instead of seminary would help.
An idea's popularity has never been a guarantee of the idea's
truthfulness.Or shall we hold an election for all the world's
religious believers to settle once and for all which religion is "true?"
Equal protection under the law. What is so hard to understand about
The most votes wins?Really?Where were you when Al Gore won the
Presidential Election?And as for State's rights over
Federal...Gov. Lilburn Boggs used that same thinking when he sent an State
Extermination Order against a minority group in Missouri.God bless
Abraham Lincoln for seeing to it that that can kind of abuse can never happen
It's sad to see how many people fail to realize or recognize that laws
passed by the people (even if passed by ALL the people) are null and void if
they violate the US Constitution -- the supreme law of the land. the laws that
were struck down violated the Constitution, and were properly dealt with.
James, suppose the residents of the state of Utah voted to allow slavery, or to
shut down all churches except the dominant one, or to allow only wealthy,
conservative Republicans to vote or hold office? Do you still think the courts
should not intervene and declare those actions unconstitutional? I
don't think you understand how our Constitutional system of government
works, with its built-in checks and balances.
On the flip side, a lot of people would argue our nation's democratic
process has been damaged due to the Supreme Court's ruling in the
Citizen's United case, which stated corporations can donate unlimited
amounts of money to political campaigns. They would also argue the Supreme
Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore in 2000 was a severe overreach by the
judiciary which aided the Republican party for close to a decade. Clearly both the right and the left in this country have a love/hate
relationship with the judiciary. When the left wins, the right describes the
specific ruling as the actions of "activist judges" who "legislate
from the bench."But when the right wins, the left describes the
specific ruling as the "actions of a fascist judiciary."Perhaps the best type of judiciary is the type no one loves 100% of the time
or maybe even 75% of the time.
So Utah's dismal partipation rate is the fault of the federal government?
In particular, the judiciary branch? And what scientific evidence supports
this?The bottom line: states cannot make laws which violate the
Constitution. No matter how many people in that state vote for it. SorryDon't like it? Amend the Constitution. We either have a
Constitution or we don't.
Because they found DOMA to be unconstitutional. That's how the courts work,
they strike down things that are unconstitutional. I assume you wanted them to
go after Obamacare because you believed it was unconstitutional, right?
Again and again we see the game plan of those that oppose gay marriage, repeat
the same false claims often enough and maybe people will start to believe it.
James these same claims have been made dozens of times in the last few weeks and
refuted dozens more can please move on?