Quantcast
Utah

Prop. 8 judge, N. Randy Smith, still finds time for teaching

Comments

Return To Article
  • The Caravan Moves On Enid, OK
    Dec. 6, 2010 12:20 a.m.

    Article quote: "(Proposition 8 supporters filed a motion last week seeking Reinhardt's disqualification from the panel because his wife is the executive director of the ACLU of Southern California and a financial donor to the "No on 8" campaign, but Reinhardt declined to recuse himself.)"

    Nope, no conflict of interest there!.....

    Supreme Court, were we come!

    May God bless traditional marriage to survive the absolute chaos that selfish homosexuals are inflicting on America.

  • Gary Kinney Huntington Beach, CA
    Dec. 6, 2010 7:24 a.m.

    Couldn't agree more.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    Dec. 6, 2010 7:35 a.m.

    Of course it's constitutional to restrict marriage. Marriage creates culture, so this is one of the most important decisions our society has ever made.

    We should all be involved. 08 isn't racial; polygamy, homosexuality, etc are about sexuality, and we would never let one polygamist decide about prop08.

    08 affects each of us and creates the world our children will grow up in.

    Most gays argue that it is constitutional to discriminate against the others included in prop 08 (polygamists, bisexuals, children, etc (by stating one man, one woman)) and there is no more reason for gays to marry than these. Mainstreaming homosexuality through gay marriage has been shown to increase homosexuality and be harmful to cultures, and homosexuality increasingly destroys crucial heterosexual marriages and relationships. I know of no studies showing that polygamy between consenting adults is harmful, yet we restrict by moral feelings.

    Gays can love, work, and should be loved and protected, etc.

    King Walker and other activists exclusively demand the social message of marriage, but the social message of marriage is what must be kept, this sends a saving crucial message to our children about the necessity and sacredness of stable heterosexual marriages.

  • Furry1993 Somewhere in Utah, UT
    Dec. 6, 2010 7:48 a.m.

    To The Caravan Moves On | 12:20 a.m. Dec. 6, 2010

    If every judge recused himself or herself from every case about which s/he had an opinon, there would be no judges left to hear ANY case. The issue is whether Judge Reinhardt would properly pply the law and facts to the case, and I've seen nothging to indicate that he wouldn't. (I'd be curious to know if you'd also seek the recusal of a judge who had contributed to the campaign supporting Prop 8.)

    Defeating Prop 8 will not in any way cause chaos, or threaten traditional marriage. Traditional marriage will continue as it always has, changing over time to fit the needs of the times), and will not be impaired regardless happens to Prop 8.

    I'd be curious to know why you think it is "selfish" to want the equal protection of the law and equality under the law. Funny -- the same complaints were made shen the so-called "uppity" people of color wanted equality. I guess things never change.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    Dec. 6, 2010 8:54 a.m.

    Hopefully he has the strength to stand against the ACLU. This is one of the most important decisions our society has ever made.

    We should all be involved. We would never let one polygamist decide about prop08, why one gay?
    Marriage creates culture. 08 affects each of us and creates the world our children will grow up in.

    Of course it's constitutional to restrict marriage.

    Most gays argue that it is constitutional to discriminate against the others included in prop 08 (polygamists, bisexuals, children, etc (by stating one man, one woman)) and there is no more reason for gays to marry than these. Mainstreaming homosexuality through gay marriage has been shown to increase homosexuality and be harmful to cultures, and homosexuality increasingly destroys crucial heterosexual marriages and relationships. I know of no studies showing that polygamy between consenting adults is harmful, yet we restrict by moral feelings.

    Gays can love, work, and should be loved and protected, etc.

    Walker and other activists exclusively demand the social message of marriage, but the social message of marriage is what must be kept, this sends a saving crucial message to our children about the necessity and sacredness of stable heterosexual marriages.

  • Jolter Northern, Utah
    Dec. 6, 2010 9:43 a.m.

    Marriage in North America has been suffering as increasing numbers of heterosexual couples decide to simply live together rather than marry. Legalization of SSM across Canada on 2005-JUL-20 did not have a significant effect on existing and future marriages of opposite-sex couples. No existing or future couple, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, lost any of their marriage rights. The rights of opposite-sex couples to apply for a marriage license; to be married in a civil or religious ceremony; to obtain a pension, income tax, other financial rights; to be granted hospital visitation privileges; to be able to make medical decisions for their incapacitated spouse; etc. are not changed. These same rights are merely extended to same-sex couples.

    Most of the studies have concluded that same-sex parents are equal or better than opposite-sex parents.

    Most studies, as well as the Canadian model don't back up the claims that SSM is or will be detrimental to society. Before making claims pulled out of personal or religious opinion many of you that oppose it should read pro and con studies and view results of already existing SSM models before you make unsupported claims.

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    Dec. 6, 2010 10:22 a.m.

    The "Canadian model" for gay marriage has become a substantial embarrassment.

    In a court hearing over gay marriage the Canadian courts over-ruled an 1868 case from the British House of Lords. The case was Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee. Your have it Orson Hyde of the Quorum of the 12 was one party.

    That case had outlawed polygamy in all countries in the British system, as unacceptable in a Christian society. Then by over-ruling Hyde to allow gay marriage, the ban on polygamy was essentially removed.

    This is now the focus of an case in Canada right now. The case involves The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Bountiful, B.C.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Dec. 6, 2010 12:02 p.m.

    Should some of the judges recluse themselves from the judical proceedings. It is evident that in the end it is possible that with a three panel of judges that it will boil down to the third judge. If Randy Smith is who I think he is will probably vote against Judge Walker's assessment. Judge Reinhardt will probably agree with the assessment of Judge Walker. Therefore, it is up to the third judge to decide whether to agree or disagree with Judge Walker. Either way this will go before the Supreme Court and as has been the way things generally goes Judge Walker's decision will be overturned there once and for all.

    The Church has stated that it doesn't oppose civil unions but nor does it endorse them. It has on occassion stood against civil unions much to disagreement of the ACLU and LGBT groups. When anything that basically makes it a marriage the Church has opposed. As the Church has stated and I have stated this is not a civil rights issue but a moral issue. It is thus the only way to look at. To compare this to the civil rights of the sixties is ludicrous.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Dec. 6, 2010 2:10 p.m.

    So, what happens if Smith votes to overturn Prop 8? From listening to him today, it seemed the proponents of Prop 8 were having a difficult time convincing even him. Judges shouldn't stand against or for anyone. They should stand for the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 6, 2010 2:21 p.m.

    "Nope, no conflict of interest there!....."

    Oh sure, go after him for supposed conflict of interest but ignore the guy who belongs to a church that organized massive efforts for Prop 8.

  • ? Fort Knox, KY
    Dec. 6, 2010 2:35 p.m.

    I agree with you First Amendment. I do agree that whatever the outcome, we will be affected by it.

    It is often asked how same-sex marriage would affect another person's marriage. I don't know. The same question could be asked for polygamy. How would polygamous marriages affect another's marriage?

    Marriage should remain between one man and one woman. If marriage should change to allow same-sex marriage throughout the nation and that both partners are consenting adults then the same should be allowed for polygamy where all involved should also be consenting adults.

    Certainly gays should be loved and protected. We should remain friends with them as we would be for any friend where appropriate. Yet, what do you do when one of these chooses to no longer be friends with you because they decided to be gay and their family suggests that you move on? I say decided because this person was most definately not gay when first we met.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Dec. 6, 2010 5:28 p.m.

    Judge Walker erred in applying scrict scutiny to Proposition 8. Sexual orientation is not a suspect class, even the 9th Circuit ruled such in the "High tech gays" case.

    Thus proposition 8 only needs to pass the basic level of serving some government purpose. The government purpose served is encoraging more children, since man/woman marriages are most likely to do this. The state has a clear reason to work for this since the California pension system for state workers is set up in such a way that the population needs to keep rising to run the pension system.

    Whether the gains here are worth it, or the method used is the best, are questions of public policy, not of law. As such they are to be decided by the legislative power, which is vested in the poeople and at times delegated to their legislators.

    Put another way, the people through the referendum vote have the right, as it applies to due process litigation, to do anything that a legislature could do.

  • realitycheck247 Sylmar, CA
    Dec. 6, 2010 6:20 p.m.

    Those of you that think Judge Smith will rule to uphold Prop 8 - here's today's excerpt:
    "Judge N. Randy Smith, the panel's most conservative member, said California grants gay and lesbian couples the same rights as heterosexuals, including child custody and property rights, while denying them only the ability to marry. "What is the rational basis for that?" he asked."

    John Lambert - the people do not have that right if it strips a minority of its rights. And the state constitution should not be allowed changed with a simply majority vote. It was 51% to 49%, certainly not a majority.

    The appeals court will find Prop 8 unconstitutional. I can't wait for you all to complain about "those renegade judges" escpecially when one of them is from Utah.

    and for the record, I'm a heterosexual middle-aged caucasian male. I'm just missing the superiority complex most posters here have. I think everyone should have the same rights...

    same sex marriage hurts no one, and it builds families. perhaps not the kind of families you all approve of, but families none the less.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Dec. 6, 2010 8:29 p.m.

    To mcbillay: I didn't ask for Judge Reinhardt to recluse himself. What I stated is that it is quite possible that both Judge Reinhardt and Judge Smith's vote will cancel each other out. Either way it will go to the US Supreme Court where it is a 5-4 majority vote.

    To realitycheck: I expect the appeals court to find it unconstitutional. I also expect the US Supreme Court to uphold it. Also, this is not a civil rights issue but a moral issue. Nothing more and nothing less. It has nothing to do with a superiority complex. It has to do with a definition that man has no business changing. If it meant nothing beyond the grave then same-sex marriage would have a place but the family is not just for this life. This is the problem with same-sex marriage as the Lord has defined marriage and as President Packer and others have stated, no law by man can ever change that.

    Same-sex marriage hurts society as whole and will continue in the demise of society until the second coming of the Lord.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 6, 2010 11:12 p.m.

    JPL stated - Thus proposition 8 only needs to pass the basic level of serving some government purpose. The government purpose served is encoraging more children, since man/woman marriages are most likely to do this. The state has a clear reason to work for this since the California pension system for state workers is set up in such a way that the population needs to keep rising to run the pension system.

    Your logic fails. Consider this quote from the unanimous ruling allowing same-sex marriage in Iowa -
    While heterosexual marriage does lead to procreation, the
    argument by the County fails to address the real issue in our required
    analysis of the objective: whether exclusion of gay and lesbian individuals
    from the institution of civil marriage will result in more procreation? If
    procreation is the true objective, then the proffered classification must work
    to achieve that objective.

    IOW, unless you can show that banning same-sex marriage increases childbirths or that allowing the former discourages the latter, the stated government purpose, legitimate or not, is not addressed by banning same-sex marriage. It therefore fails to meet any level of scrutiny.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Dec. 7, 2010 9:39 a.m.

    re - Bill in Nebraska | 8:29 p.m.

    "this is not a civil rights issue but a moral issue. Nothing more and nothing less... It has to do with a definition that man has no business changing... the Lord has defined marriage... Same-sex marriage hurts society as whole... in the demise of society until the second coming of the Lord."

    wow. Bill... I cannot even believe you wrote that. So it is your opinion that we should have laws based on your religion, even when most people think your religion is hocus-pocus... Can you not see how your view is to force your religious beliefs onto others? Certainly you are firmly against something like Islamic law being implemented in the USA. But how is what you are saying any different?

    I understand most of you posting here being against same sex marriage. It is the way you were raised, and you think homosexuality is immoral. Fine - that is your belief. But how can you justify forcing that view onto people that think homosexuality is just part of nature and there's nothing "immoral" about it?

    marriage is about families. and same sex families are families too.

  • sfcretdennis Nice, CA
    Dec. 7, 2010 3:46 p.m.

    Well someone please tell me were in the constitution that states that anyone has a right to marry? I won't say people wonting same sex marriage to be selfish but they cannot expect me to go agent my "GOD". If that bothers people because I choose to try as hard as I can to follow the laws of God then so be it. I have no desire to have God mad at me for going agent his well, I may not be perfect but am trying and to agree to same sex marriage would be going agent the well of God.

    If you don't like it then take it up with God.

  • sfcretdennis Nice, CA
    Dec. 7, 2010 3:55 p.m.

    The ACLU have done some good and yet some bad, the very idea that those who serve in our nations military to insure everyone has the right & freedom to believe or not and the freedoms we do enjoy and yet the ACLU had the nerve to say that our military should not be allowed to worship God because they are in the Military needs to have their heads examined, were it not for the military then they would not be in business.
    Read this in the news the other day and I would love to know why they thank we should stop our military personnel from worshiping their God.

  • sfcretdennis Nice, CA
    Dec. 7, 2010 4:02 p.m.

    Jolter | 9:43 a.m. Dec. 6, 2010 Northern, Utah

    If I understand you said that SSM should be done in a church ceremony if the SS partners want it, but what if that church leader says no on religious grounds then what? It is feared that legalization of SSM could open up law suits if a church refuses to perform the marriage on religious grounds. Like I said before SS proponents are asking for churches to go agent their faith and the laws of God.

  • sfcretdennis Nice, CA
    Dec. 7, 2010 4:16 p.m.

    charlie91342 | 9:39 a.m. Dec. 7, 2010 Sylmar, CA
    It is the other way around marriage between a man and women as been around since the beginning of time, it is same sex believe that is being forced on to everyone ells. The Bible tells us that God is agent same sex relationships. No matter which way we all look at it God has the final say so and we it is time to leave this world we all, believe or not, well find out that there is a God and he has never and never well approve of same sex relationships.

    This is a issue that well haunt both side of the issue untill our Lord Jesus Christ returns.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Dec. 7, 2010 5:50 p.m.

    re - sfcretdennis | 3:46 p.m
    "I won't say people wonting same sex marriage to be selfish but they cannot expect me to go agent my "GOD". If that bothers people because I choose to try as hard as I can to follow the laws of God then so be it."

    no one is telling you to have a same sex marriage. If you think your God doesn't want you to have one, don't get one. What does that have to do with the people whose God thinks it is ok?

    "the ACLU had the nerve to say that our military should not be allowed to worship God because they are in the Military"

    this never happened. organized prayer was stopped. pray to yourself. your God can hear you, right?

    "It is feared that legalization of SSM could open up law suits if a church refuses to perform the marriage on religious grounds"

    that won't happen. it's called freedom of religion and it IS in the constitution...

    no one is forcing you to have a same sex marriage, yet you would deny it to those that want it, based on religious grounds. that's wrong.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Dec. 7, 2010 5:59 p.m.

    re - sfcretdennis | 4:16 p.m
    "marriage between a man and women as been around since the beginning of time"

    same sex marriages were legal and not uncommon in the Roman times. it was stopped because of the rise of Christianity. so your statement is untrue. It's just another case of christians forcing their morals onto everyone else.

    "it is same sex believe that is being forced on to everyone ells."

    why do you always say you are being forced? who is forcing you to participate? there are certainly laws against that. blackmail and coersion are illegal - I assume someone is doing something like that to force you to get a same sex marriage.
    you should report them to the police. that's just not right.

    if you are not being forced to have a same sex marriage, what do you mean by "forced"? you are being forced to accept it? no you are not. there are still people that don't accept inter-racial marriages. you can certainly not accept same sex marriages. but that shouldn't stop others from having same sex marriage any more than others are stopped from having inter-racial marriages.

    understand?

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 9:44 a.m.

    Bill in Nebraska stated, Also, this is not a civil rights issue but a moral issue. Nothing more and nothing less. It has nothing to do with a superiority complex. It has to do with a definition that man has no business changing. If it meant nothing beyond the grave then same-sex marriage would have a place but the family is not just for this life. This is the problem with same-sex marriage as the Lord has defined marriage and as President Packer and others have stated, no law by man can ever change that.

    Again, the scriptures condemn your mindset. 1 Cor. 10:29 denounces the idea that the religious opinions of some can be used to take away the rights of others. Will SOMEONEANYONEshow where Im wrong on this. D&C 134:4 also questions those who let their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others.

    Its one thing to set our own doctrine and rules for our own member, but when we seek to impose our views on others via the force of law, we are condemned.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 10:33 a.m.

    Questions SSM Opponents must address -
    *If SSM becomes legal, will heterosexuals stop having kids? If not, then allowing SSM will not doom the human race to extinction.
    *If the government provides legal rights to spouses (not roommates) to promote a healthy environment in which to raise children, shouldn't society revoke them for couples who can't/won't produce children? The gov. has limited resources and shouldn't grant expensive perks to those not providing kids.
    *Do kids in gay families get the same legal protections as kids in straight families? No. Why are we hurting innocent kids?
    *How is opposing SSM different from others opposing polygamy? Both are illegal due to majorities using the morals to harm the rights of others, violating the scriptures below. If a SSM friendly churches' doctrine commands their members abstain from sexual relations with anyone except their husbands or wives to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded, would opposing SSM be a denial of their religious freedom? We stated so regarding polygamy.
    *If we LDS can ignore 1 Cor. 10:29/D&C 134:4 here, what other scriptures will we ignore regarding future politcal issues?
    Think about it.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Dec. 8, 2010 1:00 p.m.

    To LDS4GAYMARRIAGE:

    Then what you are saying is that the Prophets through the ages disagrees with what is in the scriptures. Then you know what is the Lord's mind and NOT Thomas S Monson, Gordon B Hinkley, Spencer W Kimball. If that is the case I will follow them and their counsel long before I will follow yours. Yours is apostasy plain and simple. This is a moral issue and we as a Church and as a people have the obligation to stand up for correct and right principles. That is what this is all about. I know that this is correct and as long as our Prophet has stated that this is where we stand, as a Priesthood Holder I'm obligated to follow and stand as a witness to the Lord's mouthpiece on the earth. The Proclamation to the World, The Family is direct revelation from our Father in Heaven and nothing can or will ever change that.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 1:51 p.m.

    "This is a moral issue and we as a Church and as a people have the obligation to stand up for correct and right principles. "

    As it pertains to your own church sure. Imposing your rules on others is a different matter.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Dec. 8, 2010 5:06 p.m.

    To atl134: No as it pertains to society. That is my right as an American citizen and as such it pertains to society as a whole.

    Our Father in Heaven has spoken through his prophets that this is a moral issue and it is upon every Latter-Day Saint to stand up across this nation to be heard. We may be a minority as far as Churchs but we stand united in what is God's law. As President Packer stated in the last general conference, man can not change God's law through the ballot box, man appointed judges or man elected officials. The only one that can change God's law is God himself and we know that he has not changed his law. Marriage is between man and woman. That is God's law and nothing else pertaining to it matters.

    Again this is a moral issue not a civil rights issue.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    Dec. 10, 2010 5:20 a.m.

    Marriage affects all of us. I hope Judge Smith has the courage to stand up for truth and not go along with rhetoric to seem fair as so many do , we already know ACLU types will blindly go with their agenda regardless of logic or law.

    All important laws are feeling based.
    We legally enforce crucial heterosexual relationships for a reason. Most Americans (gays included) FEEL it's harmful to society to marry children, bisexuals, polygamist, etc, yet gays demand marriage for themselves without lawful logic.

    If equal protection means ALL should marry, then ALL should, not just powerful special interests. Children should marry, bisexuals should marry man and woman, polygamists should have equal protections, animal rights activists etc.

    Most Americans have the intelligence to keep marriage sacred, sending a message to our children that homosexuality, bisexuality, etc are equally ideal, sacred and crucial sends a message that will erode this sacred institution further, thus destroying lives.

    It is proven that mainstreaming homosexuality causes more children to become homosexual and more spouses and children to be abandoned for homosexuality.

    We cannot survive as a culture without idealizing enduring heterosexual relationships. Those who care, including gays, will lovingly stand for 08.