My owe my, some where in this favored land, the sun is shining bright, the band
is playing some where and some where hearts are light...because the spark of
liberty still thrives in a few hearts! The rest will need to read the
Constitution and actually come to the knowledge of its impeccable wisdom in
leaving the power of government into the hands of the people! don't wait
too long Utah or liberty will be just a memory!
It's people like this who will bring marriage equality nationwide.
It's clear they have a strong animus towards LGBT people. One only needs to
read Kennedy's ruling to see how he feels about that. Shelby's ruling
will stand and this sheriff will go down in the history books with the likes of
George Wallace. He only likes the parts of the Constitution that support his
beliefs, but he seems to ignore the 5th and 14th.
Graham County population: 38,000Salt Lake County LGBT population:
50,000Turnout to see the former sheriff: 200Turnout
seeking Utah same-sex marriage licenses: 2,000
No the state does not have the power to tell the federal gov't it
won't enforce the law. Nullification is in blatant violation of the
Constitution but these neo-Confederates can't figure that out (the
Confederates believed strongly in "states rights" and nullification,
it's what they say the war was fought for).
I guess this Sheriff forgot about the separation of church and state in the U.S.
Constitution. Like most religious people do with their scripture, politicians
also seem to pick and choose from the Constitution.
Richard Mack and his wingnut group that believes sheriffs are the highest
executive authority in a country and therefore constitutionally empowered to
keep overbearing fedrul gubnmint agents out. The Deseret News scrapping the
bottom of the barrel for opinion?
The economy is growing so everything is not negative in the world; there is
good and evil out there however. Just be patient, let the process work its way
out. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts gave a gracious gift to Mr. Obama
with upholding the health care law (and Mr. Roberts being a smart man made the
correct decision- to allow elections to make the decision), yet now after that
one gift, Mr. Roberts will show his conservative bend for the next 20 years,
and so there is much to hope for in the world.
I'm tired of this topic already.Can't we just move on?Or is gay marriage the only thing happening in Utah that the dnews will
report on?How about new pollution regulations? New legislation that
gets special interest money out of elections? Swallow? Shurtleff? How about new
legislation about payday loans? Or experiences from payday loans? How many
elections has Mr Powers influenced?Rome is burning and the Dnews is
fiddling spending all their time and energy on gay marriage.
I am not against the Gays and Lesbians I would like to see them have equal
rights like being able to go visit them in the Hospital or when they pass away
to be able to be part of all that needs to take place. I do though believe
totally that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. This is how God created the
World if one believes in the Bible and the creation. I have my rights as well
and when someone is trying to take away my rights I am not going to be quite
about it. To me I am sick and tired of them throwing this down my throat. Where
are my rights. So please do not take mine away. I have friends and family who
are gay and I love them all the same. I just believe that with marriage it is
how God intended it to be between a Man and a Woman.
I've read the bible, Mr. former Arizona sheriff. I've also read some
harry potter, and watched a few hanna barbera and bugs bunny cartoons. I am not
obligated by your opinion to take any of them as being true. Indeed, I am pretty
much required by the constitution to evaluate all of these things for myself,
and myself alone. And I am coming to different conclusions than you are.
That's OK; that's part of a functional system. I get to do that. And
to no less extent, so do you. But to no greater extent, either.
"Joe Wolverton, who described himself as a 'constitutional'
attorney, threw out words like secession and treason while talking about
states' rights and federalism in his remarks to the crowd.The
federal government does hundreds of things every day that are not in the
'contract,' so states have the right to rescind it, he said.'We are absolutely within our right to secede from a political union that
no longer answers to the demands of liberty and justice," he said.'If loose talkers like this actually got their way they would face a
revolution directed at them by people who are being crushed by contemporary
capitalism - stagnant wages, diminished opportunity for themselves and their
children - for whom the only possible relief can come from the Federal
government. Attorney Wolverton is indifferent to the concentration of wealth at
the top. I guess he likes it.If Wolverton succeeds in dismantling
the system he's in for some big surprises, like a socialist United States.
danO: At some future date will those who are breaking the 7th commandment be
"Gulbrandsen said the governor and state lawmakers have the power to tell
the federal government that Utah will not enforce Shelby's ruling."
Really? "'Governor George Wallace had vowed at his inauguration to
defend, 'segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation
forever.'" In 1963, Governor Wallace stood in the path of two black
students in defiance of a court order. "President Kennedy federalized the
Alabama National Guard", and that was the end of that. "We are
absolutely within our right to secede from a political union that no longer
answers to the demands of liberty and justice." -Joe Wolverton. Mr. (or
should I say President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis) was a Mississippi
slave holder claiming,"...that each state was sovereign and had an
unquestionable right to secede from the Union." 670,000 dead Americans paid
that claim.Mr. Mack, a former sheriff, is interpreting Bible verses to
determine what rights your gay children/grand children should or shouldn't
have. I wonder if Gulbrandsen, Wolverton, and Mack will testify before the
Supreme Court as expert witnesses for the State of Utah. If you believe what
they say, put them on the stand.
@ banderson...I'm sure you meant "my, oh my" and not "owe
my" but it does speak to your position. The problem with most is that they
don't understand the constitution at all...nor do they recognize that the
affairs of today can not be meant with the same thinking that was prominent 230+
years ago.Gay marriage and equality is here to stay and Utah can be
proud that it was at the center of the shift...even if they had to go kicking
"If you read the Bible...."He loses right there. This
country is not a theocracy. Therefore what ever the bible says is irrelevant
when it comes to legal matters.
Its people like this that drove me to leave the State of Utah in the mid to late
80's. However I am thankful that the Political Science faculty at WSU gave
me a clear understanding of the 14th amendment before I left. Your
understanding of the Constitution is clearly beased. Judge Shelby's ruling
is legally sound and and will prevail. Deal With It!!!!
"You're never going to convince us that homosexual marriage is one of
those innate, God-given rights. It's not," he said. "If you read
the Bible, you will plainly and simply see that it's not."Apparently, the former sheriff didn't get the memo that the United States
isn't a Christian theocracy, and the government is not obligated to enforce
his chosen beliefs.Considering that the Bible didn't have
issues with the subservience of women, polygamous marriages (which were legal in
the U.S. until 1899), and how best to treat your slaves, I think it might be
best to keep religion and government separate. Especially considering that some
people have differing religious beliefs or none at all.Perhaps he
should read the Declaration of Independence and its promise of life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. I'm fairly certain being able to marry the adult
of your choice falls under that category, regardless of the sexual orientation
of the person. Such a personal decision between two people is hardly the
business of virtual strangers.
'"If you read the Bible, you will plainly and simply see that it's
not." I really want to know… why people
feel that everyone should follow the bible, when we have a constitution? Plenty of other books out there right? Tora, Koran, Bible, BoM. What makes one 'better' than another? I would
rather legislate about there here and now, the facts. Than the
fabrication that some use to justify discrimination. And that is
unfortunately what some christian teachings are promoting, discrimination. My examples would be woman's suffrage, segregation, human slavery
oh… and the bible teaches not to eat shell fish or wear mixed
fabrics. Choose wisely.
Just check out what's happened in Massachussetts since the legalization of
same-sex marriage. It will scare you to death. See how it has effected
schools, the health care system and even Churches and their freedom to practice
their faith. It is the slippery slope. We don't want this in Utah. I
encourage everyone to support the efforts of the State to fight for the rights
of the people to make our own laws. Freedom is at stake.
If there was just a way to have Gays and Lesbians understand this one thing
(reflected in this man's statement from this article), about what most of
the Hetero community has against them.....I personally feel to allow
all men and women to do whatever and to feel whatever they want. But I SERIOUSLY AGREE with this statement--from the article--which is my basis
for ALL my disagreement with, and aggravation with the LGBT community:"we choose not to teach that to our children and we don't want you
teaching it to them either."
Many are missing the mark here. Whether you agree with the ruling or not, you
are still an American Citizen with rights. This is about the Liberty Process
that is owed to the Plaintiff and that is where it is at. It seems this sheriff
believes in a freedom called "my way or the highway." It is appalling
to me that many of our state officials do not understand the Constitution,
The Bible, the Qur'an, the Bhagvadgita, the Tripitika, all are part of the
human heritage. None are relevant to interpretations of the US Constitution.
@bandersen 10:41 p.m. Jan. 4, 2014My owe my, some where in this
favored land, the sun is shining bright, the band is playing some where and some
where hearts are light...because the spark of liberty still thrives in a few
hearts! -----------------Answer Sadly, Richard Mack and
those like him are doing their bet to quench that park of liberty, and impose
the tyranny of the majority on the USA and its people, to the detriment of the
minority citizens. Hopefully they will fail and liberty will therefore
thrive.================= The rest will need to read the
Constitution and actually come to the knowledge of its impeccable wisdom in
leaving the power of government into the hands of the people! don't wait
too long Utah or liberty will be just a memory!-----------------------Answer: I have not just ready the
Constitution, I have actually studied it in its depth and breadth and know what
it really says, means and works. Yes, government should be left to the people
but ONLY to the extent that the rights of the minority are not impaired or
diminished. Mack would diminish and impair minority rights. That quenches the
spirit o liberty, and should be soundly rejected.
I wonder how The "Roman Empire Fell Into Hell" Read Romans CHAPTER
"1" Bible New testament.The Sheriff is right.
So if I'm understanding this retiree correctly, the constitution was
designed to protect polygamy as found in the Bible?
As a life long law enforcement officer I'm very disappointed in a person
that uses their former law enforcement position to add some level of credibility
to utter nonsense. The U.S. Constitution supports the rights of all people. Not
just bible thumpers.
The problem with this former sheriff's argument is that he mentions the US
Constitution in one breath and the Bible in the next. While these are not
mutually exclusive, they are when we're talking about innate human rights.
The framers of the Constitution did not consult their version of the bibles of
the eighteenth century in order to write the constitution. The term "endowed
by their creator" does not appear in the Constitution, and even if it did,
it is not the fundamentalist Christian god of today. The framers were not
Calvinists, either, but rather deists, and were not interested in immortalizing
biblical prohibitions in the Constitution. There's been some revisionist
history in the last few years that attempts to characterize the Constitution as
a Christian-based document. It is not. It's a product of the Enlightenment,
which sought freedom from religion in matters of State.
"Me thinks" the sheriff and his disciples "protest" way "too
much", as the old adage goes.
The issue isn't marriage, gay rights or gun checks. These are just
emotionally charged topics where the divide between those calling them
Government granted "civil" rights and those calling them God given
"moral" rights is the greatest. The real issue is
State's rights versus federal intrusion.
Thank you Sheriff Richard Mack and supporters in attendance—we need more
leaders like you that have the courage to stand up against government officials
and same sex couples perverting the sanctity and divine institution of marriage
as ordained and defined by God between a man and a woman. America was founded on
Christian principles as “one Nation under God.” Furthermore, I agree
that Judge Robert Shelby doesn’t have the authority constitutionally to
overturn a law and should be removed for abuse of power. We must not be silent.
"The Bible, the Bible!"Thank God our Constitution
wasn't based on "The Bible". If it were, we'd have adulterers
stoned, Sabbath breakers stoned, people who shave stoned...This
country is NOT a theocracy and "The Bible" is not relevant.
The tenth amendment was passed because the states did not believe that a federal
government would not eventually take to itself authority it did not possess,
which is the natural path of all centralized governments. Our founders
personally experienced this tyranny.And no, DanO, your tired worn
out ad hominen attacks on the hearts and motives of those who defend traditional
marriage are not going to fly this time - that dog is not going to hunt.This judge should be removed from office. He overstepped his authority,
and has zero right to impugn the motives of those who have every right to defend
families and traditional marriage. He has no legal authority to overturn our
state constitution.The reason our Utah elected officials are not
speaking out is because of the phantom wall that been created between free
speech and fear of offense. There is so much fear of being attacked as anti-gay
that officials are acting as though they are paralyzed. We respect
all men and women. Nevertheless we have our right to maintain a family-friendly
society that honors the God-given right of traditional marriage.
What's the point of publishing the caustic homophobic rant of a former
sheriff from Arizona in your newspaper? There a tons of other negative comments
from people with more noteworthy backgrounds who believe the homosexual agenda
should not be shoved down the throat of god-fearing, flag waving, church-going
Americans . . . oh wait . . . did you ever stop to think that there are alot of
god-fearing, flag waving, church going gay people? It's ok Utah, this too
will pass . . marriage equality won't deprive you of any rights that you
already have. As far of the homosexual agenda being shoved down your throats .
. gay people have had to endure a second class status handed down by the agenda
by the christian right for centuries.
'Gulbrandsen said the governor and state lawmakers have the power to tell
the federal government that Utah will not enforce Shelby's ruling.'
Nullification by any state is NOT constitutional. It is not legal. The belief
that states are sovereign and can nullify federal law was first advanced by
those who wished to perpetuate slavery in their states. The Civil War was the
outcome, and should have settled the issue. One consequence was a significant
increase in federal power. The fight over civil rights still continues, and when
states act against the civil rights of their people, the eventual outcome is an
increase in federal power. Perhaps it is necessary to protect the rights of all
people, but it is regrettable, and it shouldn't have to come to that. If
freedom means anything, civil union should be recognized as a civil right. The
diminution of any citizen's civil rights is the diminution of all
citizens' civil rights, and should be resisted by all.
Who cares what a former sheriff from another state who believes in selective
application of the Constitution has to say on this issue? Seriously.
..well he can Blast away at it all he wants....but guess what - it's been 2
weeks...and UTAH is still there....people are still goin about their daily
lives, living, working...you know - life.......so, what's this man's
real animus towards LGBT tax payers?
It was people like Mack who forced us into the Civil War and who forced
President Eisenhower to send Federal troops into Burmingham to enforce the
abolition of segregation. The primacy of the US Constitution is established by
Federal law, by the Utah State Constitution, and by various texts in D&C.
Animus toward minority groups will not change that, no matter how much people
want to bring America back to a version of "the good ol' days" that
never existed except in nostalgia. When folks like Mack start up the rhetoric
with veiled allusions to armed insurrection, they need to remember that the
"well regulated militia" referred to in the Second Amendment has a
constitutional duty to suppress insurrection; not to foment it.
Judge Not. Words from the greatest man who ever lived. Now, obey
By their words shall you know them. This man certainly sounds like an
anti-American to me.
So much for the pledge of allegiance's phrase "with Liberty and Justice
for ALL" as well as the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution's
guaranty of equal protection under the law.
We the people have the ability to challenge rulings made by unelected Judges who
for political gain rule against the will of the people. The process of appealing
can be time consuming and costly but it is necessary and needed. It is time for
those elected leaders to step up to the plate and support voters who put them in
office in challenging Shelby's outrageous ruling.
So all you "federal" government has all the power and must be obeyed no
matter what people: So, if "your" Constitutional government
understanding allows laws evil or judges that think differently about God-given
rights to throw that out the door, then you are O.K. with that? That is why
"The will of the people" is paramount in the Constitution. Read it!
Words have meaning, or at least they do for those who have read them. This is
not about "gay marriage". It is about judges who subverted the will of
the people. I will admit that if people choose evil then that will has
consequences-both good and bad, but that is what our Constitution allows. The
will of the people is paramount! Othewise, you have tyranny. If states lose on
this issue, the people's will has been subverted and tyranny exists. This
is just one of many issues where tyranny has been happening. Read the
Constitution and get off your high horse.
Holy cow! I'm nearly speechless - an instinct that will probably save me
from getting pistol whipped.
The Constitution of the United States of America, was written and based on
Christian principles and teachings, for a MORAL society. We have a republic
based on this document that was intended to last for all generations to come
after it. The more immoral the society becomes, the further it is pulled away
from this divinely inspired document. Benjamin Franklin--at the end of the
Constitutional Convention in 1787--when asked what this nation had, he replied,
"A Republic...If you can keep it!"You are free to choose
what course your life will take and the things you do during your lifetime. But
you are not free to choose the consequences that come with those actions and
Furry: You don't understand the Constitution. The will of the people
aren't ever subverted in our constitution. Never! Never! Never! If the
Will of the people choose evil (in your opinion the will of the people of Utah
choose evil), then so be it! The will of the people is never subverted in the
Constitution. If it is, Tyranny is what you have! It is simple! You can cry
all you want about specifics, but I have to live by the laws that are tyrannical
and evil (Abortion comes to mind), but I also have the right to educate and
stand up for my rights as a United States citizen! The will of the people is
never subverted in a free people!
It's easy to see why the good sheriff is upset. But the Civil War was
indeed legally not about slavery but about whether the states have the power to
nullify federal law....including Supreme Court rulings.Neither Utah
nor Arizona are about to do so....any more than South Carolina of old.
"He has no legal authority to overturn our state constitution."He overturned one amendment. And yes, yes he does have that authority. The
10th Amendment is not absolute. A little further down is the 14th Amendment.
Right there in Section 1."No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."
How is it that some people think their rights are being compromised by granting
others equal rights. If one doesn't believe in same sex marriage, or are
offended by it, then just don't do it; stay away from it and go about your
own business and leave others to theirs. The same as with gambling, smoking,
drinking and so many other things that are legal but that some protest.
Religion doesn't belong in this argument. Any religion that needs man made
laws to exist does not have "Faith" as their basis.The Constitution
allows ALL citizens to practice their religion and allows all citizens NOT to
practice their religion. The Constitution does not guarantee religions a 100 %
free pass along with a free ride.The political fanatics that invoke God as their
basis are doing more harm to the religious basis than the Constitution allows.
Marriage is not about God. Marriage existed long before the Bible or the Book of
Mormons. Religions have poked their nose under the marriage tent.I feel sorry
for America because it will be this "religious liberty" argument which
will rot us beyond repair. Let God come to all by your example not by your force
(laws). When the Catholics were the only Church they tried force and they were
sundered by human nature. Don't ever forget it!!
"The government is us; we are the government, you and I." - Theodore
Roosevelt But Mack wants to “keep the federal government
impotent. . .” That sounds like a bad idea to me.Wolverton
wants to secede from the Union, and he calls the rest of us traitors because we
want to keep the union together. What sense does that make? The Civil War
provided some pretty authoritative proof that states can’t just secede
from the union. Apparently some people are very slow learners.
It’s hard to believe that anyone could take these people seriously.
Here's the problem with those on here who keep posting about "the will
of the people": we keep electing the same people every 2-4-6 years in this
country, at pretty much every level of government. They keep promising the same
things every election cycle. And, they aren't the problem. It's all
those OTHER guys who just won't do the right thing, on both sides of the
aisle. So until "we the people" begin to go back to the voting booth
nothing will change.
Gay marriage precedes other unimaginable actions.Fall of the Roman
Empire gives one of many examples.
It is interesting to watch how words are used to create conflict. The
judge's ruling did not 'destroy' or 'nullify' marriage.
Marriage exists and any couple not otherwise married, can apply for a license,
provided they are not 'related' or 'under the age of
consent'.Since the 16th Century, 'marriage' has moved
out of the control of 'religion', and especially after the founding of
the US and the 'separation of church and state' codified in the
Constitution.This process has done nothing to 'change'
what a specific religious denomination may believe about what constitutes a
marriage.In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878)
the court held that while 'religious beliefs' were 'free and
protected' under the Constitution, 'actions' could be
legislated.Hence whether a man could marry one or more women, in the
case of Reynolds, or whether the marriage between same-sex can be officially
sanctioned, can be regulated, and any law must comply with elements of the
Constitution, such as 'equal protection'.The state of
course could discontinue defining relationships such as 'marriage'
altogether. There are plenty of laws protecting children and defining
parents' responsibilities which do not refer to the 'marital
status' of the parents.
Gay marriage is here to stay and it's not going away. It will continue to
grow and not affect anyone else's marriage. And there will be more couples
with equal rights. It's a win-win situation. The world will not come to
an end, the sun will still shine, and the birds will still be chirping.
It's a great thing!
there will always be those who are stuck in a previous century. The point is we
can't allow them to force their narrow mindedness on the rest of society. I
will always support the right of individuals to live their own lives in private
the way they wish to as long as they are not hurting themselves or others. A
late foreign statesman said back in the 1960s that "the State has no
business in the bedrooms of the Nation" and I happen to agree with that
policy statement wholeheartedly. Imagine ladies and gentlemen, this statement
was made in the late 1960s and here we are in this country fifty years later
discussing something that should have been settled as social policy a half
@bandersen. You are 100% right about liberty soon becoming just a memory.
Below is what is coming to Utah if conservatives continue to sit on their
laurels:Aug. 12, 2013. Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown signed
a new law into effect on Monday afternoon affording students confused about
their “gender identity” a host of new rights, including the ability
to use either a boy’s or girl’s restroom and either locker room.The legislation, Assembly Bill 1266, authored by Democratic State Assemblyman
Tom Ammiano from San Francisco, allows students in grades as young as
kindergarten to use “facilities consistent with his or her gender
identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s
records.”Ammiano’s spokesman, Carlos Alcala, told TheBlaze on
Monday afternoon the bill would even permit high school males who say they
identify as females, to use a woman’s locker room.Utahns,
still think same sex marriage laws are harmless?
Male and Female He Created Them: The Church and ‘Same-Sex
Marriages’Issue: Why does the Church oppose government-sanctioned
homosexual “marriages”?Discussion: Two men cannot legitimately
marry each other, nor can two women, no matter what any earthly judicial or
legislative body may say. Marriage is by nature defined by the conjugal act
between one man and one woman, a monogamous or exclusive union in which the two
become one in a lifelong partnership (cf. Gen. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6).This truth is
understandable not only through divine Revelation, but also through natural
reason. For by nature, man and woman are made for each other. They complement
each other both physically and socially. In contrast, homosexual relationships
are unnatural and do not contribute to the growth of society. In fidelity to the
teachings of Christ, the Catholic Church opposes homosexual activity and state
approval of homosexual relationships.We Mormons have a lot in common with
our Catholic Brothers and Sisters. Let's stand together for our liberty
and rights in Utah!. Now is the time to let your voice be heard - contact your
"Joe Wolverton, who described himself as a "constitutional"
attorney, threw out words like secession and treason while talking about
states' rights and federalism in his remarks to the crowd."We are absolutely within our right to secede from a political union that
no longer answers to the demands of liberty and justice," he said."This rhetoric is straight from 1860. If Mr. Wolverton ever comes to
Virginia, I'm more than happy to take him on a tour of Appomattox Court
House, where my great-great grandpa and his comrades surrendered to Grant.
Wolverton's pernicious brand of politics ended there with a wimper 149
years ago at the cost of 620,000 Americans. I'd rather avoid a rematch,
but that doesn't mean I'm willing to let his ilk try it again.
"I do though believe totally that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.
"And your rights are still intact. Men and women are still able
to marry in the great state of Utah. If you don't believe same sex couples
should marry, you have absolutely every right not to marry someone of the same
sex. Your beliefs and your rights are completely intact. But just as
someone who doesn't believe in eating pork doesn't have a right to
force everyone else not to eat pork, freedom of belief requires that we all
-individually- are able to practice our beliefs as we see fit. And some people
believe that people of the same gender should be able to marry. If you
don't like that, don't practice it. But don't force your beliefs
on others and all of us will get along just fine.
"But I SERIOUSLY AGREE with this statement--from the article--which is my
basis for ALL my disagreement with, and aggravation with the LGBT community:
'we choose not to teach that to our children and we don't want you
teaching it to them either.'"So teach your children what
you want to teach them. It doesn't mean other people don't have a
right to live their lives. For heavens sakes, this was the basis of segregation:
That white people didn't want to have to live around black people, and they
had a right to keep their children from it. Let it be a teachable moment, to
explain your beliefs and teach them what you want to. But just as I object to
your beliefs that we are not all children of God, all equal in his eyes and
deserving of equal rights, it doesn't mean in a free society I have a right
to force you not to express yourself. I would just use it as a teachable moment.
As should you.
"To me I am sick and tired of them throwing this down my throat."Why yes, just two gentlemen came to my door the other day trying to
throw their agenda down my throat. They do this quite frequently as a matter of
fact! Quite frankly I'm sick of it! I didn't have long to close the
door, but I did find it strange that their first names were both
"Elder." The nerve of them!
"Gay marriage precedes other unimaginable actions. Fall of the Roman Empire
gives one of many examples."Actually the Roman Empire celebrated
gay marriage for centuries. In fact every Caesar was known to practice
homosexuality to some extent. It was only after the Catholic Church
took it over and banned the practice, then it fell.
@ Bereal"America was founded on Christian principles as
“one Nation under God.” "That line wasn't added
to the pledge until the 1950's. This country was founded on the ideals of
freedom, NOT Christian principles.
bandersen says: "You don't understand the Constitution. The will of the
people aren't ever subverted in our constitution. Never! Never! Never! If
the Will of the people choose evil (in your opinion the will of the people of
Utah choose evil), then so be it! The will of the people is never subverted in
the Constitution. . . . You can cry all you want about specifics, but I have to
live by the laws that are tyrannical and evil (Abortion comes to mind), but I
also have the right to educate and stand up for my rights as a United States
citizen! The will of the people is never subverted in a free people!"Sorry bandersen, but it's you who don't understand the
Constitution. The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution,
and the additional amendments added since then, are there for the purpose of
protecting the rights of the minority. In other words, they serve as a block to
ensure the "will of the people" cannot be enforced if it tramples on the
rights of the minority. Seriously, you need to get a better idea of
what the Constitution is all about.
@Joe Carlin. Sir, the problem with your logic is that the gay community will
force your children to be taught what the gay community wants - not what you
want. Read what happened in Massachuseetts - just one example:Anyone
who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which
won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in
Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and
normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What
has happened so far is only the beginning.Kindergartners were given
picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of
family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA
– a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified
when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the
school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.
@ bandersenSo if the majority of the people decided that we should
bring back slavery it would be unconstitutional to not allow it to happen? Not
allowing people to take the minorities rights would be tyranny?I
think you have it completely backwards.
Wow. This is one for the history books. I don't know how anyone could see
this man talk and not think George Wallace. A satire news site like the Onion
probably couldn't make up much of a more rabid supremacist character if
Utahns, think the gay community will respect your rights?In 2006 the
Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools
to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children
when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the
case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts,
the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to
children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them
opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good
citizenship! Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is
“legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty
to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents
think or believe!Concerned about your rights - write your legislative
Who is Cherilyn Galbrandsen?
'Utahns, think the gay community will respect your rights?' Sorry, we have factual examples of people who made it legal to kill a person
of the Mormon faith. It was not the LGBT community. You
are free to believe as you choose. Read whatever books of faith you like. And
act according to your beliefs, with your own life. It stops there. And should
never be applied to others. That, is tyranny. I believe you are
confusing disagreement, with persecution. Common mistake. Like confusing 'freedom of religion'…. with not
getting everything you want.
Re: "Former Arizona sheriff blasts ruling that allows gay marriage in
Utah"Well "blast" away. But sooner or later you'll
realize you're just 'shooting blanks' as it were.Might as well tilt at windmills.
Re: "If you read the Bible ..."I am reminded that:"The things that you're liableTo read in the Bible,They
ain't necessarily so."
I don't support same sex marriage and never will. With that in mind I
agree with many of the comments on here. The United States is a Republic not a
Christian theocracy. It is difficult to argue against legalizing same sex
marriage. To me same sex marriage is a moral more than a legal issue. Freedom
of religion means tolerance of others religious and even non religious beliefs.
That can be a challenge for people of faith. Conservatives adamantly oppose the
power of the federal government to interfere in states rights. The constitution
is a federal document and that states cannot deny civil rights as in slavery,
racial segregation and the right to vote. Is same sex marriage a civil right.
I say it is not.
Pagan: :I really want to know…why people feel that everyone
should follow the bible, when we have a constitution?Plenty of other
books out there right? Tora, Koran, Bible, BoM.What makes one
'better' than another?"If you read those books, they
all have something in common: they support marriage between a man and a woman.
Common law trumps all jurisprudence in the U.S. And common law was based on
this ethic represented in two of these canons of religious tenets: The Tora and
the New Testament. The Bible.
"all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them
away carefully down to hell". 2 Nephi 28:21Yes, the devil is very
clever, and can paint immorality with a beautiful paint brush. We ARE being
carefully led by the devil. Very carefully.
Nobody is trying to convince anybody that marriage is a God given right. What
it is is a STATE given right. Whether or not you believe in God is a moot
'If you read those books, (Bible, Tora, Koran, BoM) they all have something
in common: they support marriage between a man and a woman.'
Then why did Utah allow Polygamy… until 1890?
Polygamy is marriage between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a
woman… not much monogamy, is there? You can
'believe' as much as you like. Even the Pioneers came to Utah to
escape religious persecution. And today, you want to 'shove
down my throat' your beliefs? Those beliefs start with you, and
end with you. Otherwise, it is tyranny. Also? FYI?
According to many religious texts, women should not have the ability to vote.
Before you want to force your beliefs upon others, I want to know
why you refuse to even acknowledge anyone else's besides your own?
Wow!Pathetic how people are confused between right, and wrong.This confusion is leading to our downfall. Very shameful.
@bandersen 10:24 a.m. Jan. 5, 2014Furry: You don't understand
the Constitution. The will of the people aren't ever subverted in our
constitution. Never! -----------------I studied the law,
and got my JD (law degree) cum laude 26 years ago. When did you ever study the
law, much less get a degree? From what you said in that post, I'd guess
that you never did. It's very clear that you have no concept of what the
Constitution says, what it means and how it works. The will of the
people NEVER trumps the Constitutional protections found in that magnificent
document. In act, one of its main purposes is to protect the people against the
tyranny of the majority (in other words, the will of the people if that will
works to violate the protections of the constitution). That's what the
Bill of Rights is specifically intended to do, and the constitutional
protections are imposed on state action state action by the 14th Amendment.That's basic Constitutional law. Anyone who truly understands the
Constitution would know that. It's sad that you don't.
@Kings Court There is no mention of "separation of church and state" in
the Constitution. All it says is that the government can't mandate a
religion (like the Church of England), and persecute people for their religious
I read a post on a previous article regarding this particular case. The
author's argument in support of this judge's ruling was that
Utah's Constitution was amended in 2004 to exclude gay marriage, but that
people don't have the same opinions towards gay rights now (inferring that
most of Utah supports it now). My argument to that is, if it is indeed true,
the proper course of action is to vote on amending our Constitution again, not
have our Constitution and the will of the people trampled on by some activist
The Deseret News MUST be desperate if they've resorted to covering this
guy...he single-handedly ignored the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments, recommends we
espouse the Bible as law (legalizing slavery, marginalizing women, etc.) and
seems basically the opposite of anything Christian as evidenced by his extreme
hatred (a regular modern-day George Wallace).It's the job of
the Courts to support civil rights (not the legislature and most definitely not
the majority vote of the people…if it was we’d still have
desegregation in the South). We live in a Constitutional Republic where civil
rights are NOT up for popular vote. This same protection applies to any
minority in the U.S....including Mormons (of which I am an active one).
Apparently we as citizens can pick and choose what Amendments we decide to
apply. Mr Mack seems to blatantly ignore the 5th and the 14th. Possibly why he
is an ex- sheriff? Leaders of The South attempted to use the same argument to
legalize slavery. Just seems like a lot of hate and very Un American. We are all
talking about equal rights. Correct? How strong is your marriage to begin with
if another marriage can weaken it so easily?
Grammy3 posted "I just believe that with marriage it is how God intended it
to be between a Man and a Woman."The Bible itself highlights
that marriage between one man and one woman is anything BUT the way God intended
(see the entire 4000 years of Old Testament where the common practice was
polygamy and concubinage...not to mention requiring women to marry their
rapists…it was anything BUT monogamy...and more akin to slavery). Your notion of Biblical marriage being one man and one woman is fantasy
(even the polygamous history of Utah itself discredits your claim). If you
happen to be Mormon then you know the church still believes in Polygamy in the
afterlife and practices it in the sealings of subsequent spouses in our temples
(the practice of polygamy on the Earth was all that was stopped by Wilford
Woodruff's Manifesto in 1890). Joseph Smith engaged in both Polgamy and
Polyandry which in no way would agree with the definition you hold so dearly as
the definition "God intended".
This quote is from the brilliant Dr. Benjamin Franklin, referring to this
nation’s government and our constitution. It applies to this whole
situation going on not only in Utah, but in our entire nation: “We
have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that except the Lord build the
house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also
believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political
building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little
partial, local interests, our projects will be confounded and we ourselves shall
become a reproach and a byword down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind
may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing
government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, or conquest.”
Thank you 'Cats',I do not hate the GLBT community, I just
am not in favor of Gay marriage - my opinion I realize and I'm not trying
to force it down anyone's throat. However, I do see concerns in the way
that many laws are being not only enforced, but also installed and too many are
coming from the Judiciary bench and from the Executive office. I keep hearing
that the ACA is the 'law of the land' get used to it, and yet the
President has no qualms about changing the law on a regular basis (only the
legislature may change the law of the land).Our constitution is a
delicate thing. It was created with checks and balances and those need to be
maintained and the proper balance ensured. We have a right to become concerned
when we see any legislation from the bench or the White House, or if congress is
over stepping their bounds. Perhaps we read too much in to it, but we need to
be vigilant or we stand to lose a great deal.
Thinking about it some more I want to give a lot of credit to the Deseret News
for publishing this article even though that event does not put same-sex
marriage opposition (the stated opinion of this paper's editorial board) in
a favorable light at all and even though it awkwardly contradicts with an
editorial on the matter today. Selective journalism would've ignored it.
I think all the people that want to use legislative power to sustain their right
to have it their way need to consider a few seemingly forgotten historical
events.In Roman times, Christians were fed to lions and killed out
of hand.In US history we founded our country with slavery firmly
entrenched and only men able to vote.State and Federal governments
sat by as the Mormons were killed and driven out of NY, Ohio, Missouri, and
Illinois until they were out of the US.Governments role is to
protect and serve its citizens, all of the citizens, no matter whether they are
of the vocal minority or not.Start living the golden rule and do
unto others as you would have done unto you.Live and let live is
still a good way.
Our rights as US citizens not granted to us by "God" they are granted by
the Constitution of the United States of America, which ironically fails to
mention "God" or any other deity for that matter. We're not a
theocracy, we fought a little war... the Revolutionary War, to make sure of
that. The constitution doesn't existing to make sure your heterosexual
marriage remains "Sacred" - that's your business. Heterosexual
couples can be married by the church of Satan, nothing anyone can do about that,
it doesn't invalidate your marriage. Neither does same sex marriage.
Hitler dehumanized gays, lesbians, jews, and others who were physically disabled
during WWII. We know what happened there. Trying to change the gay people to
be straight has not been successful, Gays are human, they cry, laugh, tell
stories, just like you and I and God created them to be here on Earth.
Apparently, there is no way to stop babies from being born gay, we all must
accept this and not treat them as sub-humans or second-class citizens. The
former sheriff seems to dehumanize them and wants to see them out of the
picture, sadly, he does not have the power to turn gays in straight folks.
Isn't common sense alone enough to know that same sex marriage is wrong.
Just objectively look at the human body and the conception process and if you
believe in god, then it's common sense. Quit making this so hard!
Ref: bereal & byufootballrocks Jim Crow laws once were the
standard for most of the country. Your responses indicate a desire to return to
such a society.
I feel like I stepped back in time a washed up old country sheriff shows up
railing against equal rights to get a bunch of locals all riled up, that has
never ended badly, right?
Aunt Lucy,If you are going to bring god into the issue then you are going
to have to answer the.question of who created the issue if not god. So is he a
imperfect god. Please explain.
The Bible is more important than the Constitution; one has been around much
longer and will last much longer. Religion is more important than politics and
university study (Peter was a fisherman and Paul a tent maker and both more
bright than the scholars of their day) The Bible encourages the
"un-enforceable". (we can't force people to have pure thoughts)
The Bible says it is a good idea to marry and have children and be one with
community. If we were always one with community (through art and dance and song
and poetry and service and through commerce and invention and science), we would
not need laws. Love and obedience is the law. The Law is not a piece of paper,
it is a Person (perfect and pure).
SkepticOh I only wish you were truly and sincerely seeking that
answer. Just know in our perfect Heavenly Father's plan, we agreed to come
to an imperfect world and accept the challenges and adversity that comes with
it. This means our bodies will be susceptible to illness, addiction, and
deformity. Our savior promised no matter how great our challenge, he would not
forsake us and we were all in. In these troubling times, there is a great
effort to legislate what is sin to non-sin.
@catsNot sure what you are basing your "insights" on other then
maybe the same old propaganda but as someone that has spent a significant amount
of time in Massachusetts and other states that allow gay marriage I can assure
that they are doing just fine. There is the very occasional person or group that
want to ignore public accommodation laws but that is nothing new or unique to
@ aunt Lucy" In these troubling times, there is a great effort
to legislate what is sin to non-sin." You mean like the desire to remove
free agency? How exactly does that fit into Gods plans?
@ Aunt LucyI second Spring Street's point...you forget that many many
things are 'legal' and 'allowed' which are not necessarily
agreed to by our church (and we aren't out fighting to bring back
prohibition). Just because something is legal does not mean that our church has
to condone it. Nor do others need to agree with your beliefs and be compelled
to follow them (it works both ways). What we're talking about here
is supporting someone's right to choose and not enforcing the
majority's opinion on the minority. If gay marriage was in the majority
wouldn't you want the freedom to have a heterosexual marriage? If polygamy
was in the majority wouldn't you want the freedom to have a monogamous
Mr. Mack says the US Constitution gives us innate rights. I agree, they are
called life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. He further insinuates that the
US Constitution does not provide gays and lesbians the right to marry. But it
also does not say anything about cell phones or motor vehicles. Then how can the
SCOTUS seemingly answer constitutional questions on these issues. This is why
have courts staff with our most seasons jurists. I hope one day people like
this will stop hurting other tax paying citizens.
If you believe the Bible. I would bet money that even LDS people would agree
that the Bible is open to interpretation.
I don't understand why LGBT people move in and try to change things.There are many other states excepting gay marriage.
@PhotoSponge Your comment...The Constitution of the
United States of America, was written and based on Christian principles and
teachings, for a MORAL society. We have a republic based on this document that
was intended to last for all generations to come after it. The more immoral the
society becomes, the further it is pulled away from this divinely inspired
document.My response/question...The COTUS permitted
slavery.So...a divinely inspired document... written and based based
on Christian principles and teachings for a MORAL society... intended to last
for all generations to come after it...permitted slavery?
Lets not forget the 100% minus 4 persons turnout at the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah. Or how about the 100% minus 8 souls turnout for the great flood!The attendance at any function or event does not indicate it's importance
Political posturing. Didn't this guy run for office in Utah several times?
worf: "I don't understand why LGBT people move in and try to change
things. There are many other states [ac]cepting gay marriage."The LGBT people did not "move in." They were here all along. I know
several couples who married following the Shelby decision. In most cases, at
least one half of the couple was born and raised in Utah. All were long term
residents. Regardless, people have established homes and careers here. They
have a right to shape their communities to improve their situation. Why should
they move to satisfy your whims?As to the general (and stale)
argument of "why don't you move someplace where you are welcome?"
I'm sure you will find plenty of folks to your liking in Uganda and Russia.
@worf: you ask, "I don't understand why LGBT people move in and try to
change things."Gay people don't "move in," they are
born in your state, my state, and everywhere. Why should they have to move out
in order to enjoy their constitutionally protected rights?
FYI-this crazy sheriff is still Sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona. The title
states he's the former sheriff. I have no idea why they even asked for his
opinion. Sheriffs don't enforce marriage. He's not from Utah. I
guess they just wanted a reliable quote from someone who would reliably toe the
GOP line. The church did not invent marriage. They have zero ownership on it.
There is no such thing as a god-given right. If you go to court to protect your
rights, you take the Constitution, not a bible. Rights are in fact conferred
by man. Also, the reference to God given rights is in the Declaration of
Independence, not the Constitution.
Many have moved in to enjoy a better economy.It's that way in
Texas and Colorado also. Many come from near bankrupt states wanting to change
the established norm. Texas doesn't want gay marriage and Colorado
doesn't want gun control, but the people moving in wants to change that.
I am not a constitutional expert but I do have a copy of the constitution and I
have read it completely. This along with studies in college make me agree with
the former sheriff that the constitution gives no rights to 'unnatural
marriage" as defined very succinctly in the scriptures. It appears that some
people have been duped by legal over reach.
What, exactly, is happening in Massachusetts? You give no details. People who
complain the loudest about our constitution being ignored seem to be the most
ignorant of its contents. And Jesus said nothing about
homosexuality in your Bible. Not. One. Thing.
worf: "Texas doesn't want gay marriage and Colorado doesn't want
gun control, but the people moving in wants to change that. Pathetic!"This comment and your previous one imply that there is some static,
uniform set of values for a state. I hear that a lot here; politicians love to
speak of "Utah values" as if there is some official checklist of the
state's values that never changes. Well, the values of a society are
dynamic. They change over time as populations migrate and attitudes change. We
happen to be in a period of flux when it comes to several issues. Maybe the
Colorado of 1995 didn't want gun control, maybe even the Colorado of 2010
or 2012. But there is a sizable portion of Colorado in 2013 that is willing to
consider it. Some of the change, as you point out, is due to immigration. Some
is internal as people react to incidents like Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook
and the population becomes more urban (and less culturally attached to hunting).
The point is, state values change. Get used to it. The idea that
nonconformists should leave a state rather than change it doesn't fly.
It takes a man and a woman to make a child. A child therefore, has a RIGHT to
require the state to provide that child the opportunity to be raised with a man
and a woman. This would be EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. Gay and
Lesbian marriage trample the rights of a child since once legal, adoption is
then legal for gay and lesbian couples. Regardless of how loving and kind they
are, which many are, where is the equal protection for the child? It is GONE!
Studies overwhelmingly show children THRIVE best where a father and mother are
present. The state, or federal government MUST protect the rights of
the innocent and the rights of those who cannot eloquently speak for themselves,
otherwise, we truly are a degenerate nation caring only for oneself.Gay and lesbian couples should form civil unions, but should not be classified
as marriage, or our nation protects the right of the adult at the expense of THE
CHILD. And that would be equal protection....NOT.
Please look past the entire gay thing and look what is REALLY happening here. A
judge just "created" his own law. 66% of the vote wanted marriage
between a man and a woman. There was a ruling earlier this year from the supreme
court that stated that states have the right to decide issues. This so called
judge completely ignored that ruling and based on his own opinion decided what
is best for the state. That is the real problem. If there is anyway to dismiss
this person it should be done right away! Or look at it this way, if 66% of the
people had voted for gay marriage and a judge turned that over how would you
advocates of gay marriage feel then???
Cherilyn,Re: "'If you read those books, (Bible, Tora,
Koran, BoM) they all have something in common: they support marriage between a
man and a woman.'"I admit to only having read the Bible,
but it largely "supports" marriage between a man and as many women as he
could afford (women at the time being legally chattel - objects that could be
bought, sold and traded at whim), as in, "A pig and two goats for your
daughter, Sir? She would make a lovely addition to our family, and I'll
make sure my other wives don't mind."The Bible also
"supports" a man having to marry his brother's widow.Solomon had some 700 wives and 300 concubines."Adam" (the
First Man) had TWO "helpmeets" (N.B. not "wives"). Yes, let's bring back Biblical 'morality' and impose Bronze Age
'thinking' on 21st Century America.Not.
@ Clinton,Re: "the proper course of action is to vote on
amending our Constitution again"It is NEVER "proper" to
subject SOME citizens' (formerly?) "UNALIENABLE" rights to liberty
and the pursuit of happiness to a popular vote.
It's interesting (in a sad sort of way) that the majority of early comments
to this article are from LGBT supporters... throwing out exagerated numbers to
make gay marriage seem much more supported than it really is. 25% of comments on
the first page are from out of state... trying to get involved in a Utah matter
where they don't live. Names like Marxist and Pagan speak for what
they really are. They jump on this topic like hungry wolves on a wounded animal.
Very sad indeed. Alwlays being the self-appointed spokespeople for all
ultra-liberal issues.And yet two-thirds of the population of Utah
supported our state position in support of traditional marriage. Utah is one of
the most conservative states in the union. And yet one liberal activist judge
changes all of that... and rams that change down our throats... something
solidly against the will of the majority of the people. Once again, the tail is
wagging the dog.Thankfully, there is now some hope and common sense.
The Supreme Court has since put this issue on hold until it can further be
decided about the legality of the activist judge's action.
Here are two imaginary conversations:Hypothetical conversation
#1:"Me: Mr. Tea Party Sheriff, isn't it terrible to deport two
illegal immigrant parents and to leave their US born children without
parents?Mr. Tea Party Sheriff: Well, the law is the law. They need to
obey the laws and they are here illegally!"Hypothetical
conversation #2:"Me: Mr. Gay Right Activist, isn't is terrible
for a wedding photographers in New Mexico to be forced out of business because
of their freedom of conscience?"Mr. Gay Right Activist: Well the law
is the law, if they want to be in the public square they have to follow the
law."These are hypothetical conversations, but, as anyone can
see, they aren't too far-fethched. So I can't really see much of a
difference between the attitudes that have formed these two views. Both are as
equally right wing as the other.
@ Kate Hutch:You sound like you are disowning the Bible... calling
it "your Bible", and not "our Bible". And by the way,
Christ's apostles and prophets did say something about gay unions... very
explicity... in both the New and Old Testaments.Romans 1:24-27Leviticus 18:22Leviticus 20:13From these scriptures, there
can be no doubt about how God feels toward homosexuality. The
scriptures later prophecied how in later times (our times) people would call
good bad and bad good. That's exactly what I see happening in many of these
comments in trying to discount the Word of God and in also trying to justify
things they deem as politically correct, while casting aside any morality
altogether.If such a stance causes me to be called old-fashioned and
out of touch, then so be it.
@ ObjectifiedYOUR bible. Not everybody believes in that book. Sorry
to burst your bubble.
@atl134 States do have the right to tell the Federal Govt that they will not
enforce the Fedral laws prime example Colorado legalizing marijuana. After all
they are violating the federal Controlled Substances Act.
Has this sherif or his followers ever heard of the Supremacy Clause of the