Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Bending laws

Comments

Return To Article
  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:09 a.m.

    A great example of how people will see what they want to see.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:35 a.m.

    "there is consensus that what Judge Shelby has done concerning the definition of marriage in Utah is bending the laws and rules to the breaking point."

    You must only be looking at sources that are against same-sex marriage seeing as the other half of the nation considers Shelby's ruling to be correct.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 7:00 a.m.

    It's sad that this author thinks a (correct, strongly based, and well-reased and argued) decision is "bending the laws and rules to the breaking point". It's not. It's defending an attack against the rights protected by the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Judge Shelby did what he was supposed to do, and did it well. Good job, Judge Shelby.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 7:12 a.m.

    You mean in a newspaper owned by a church who is adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage there is consensus? Shocking.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 7:14 a.m.

    Look;
    The State of Utah set out to "define" marriage,
    Judge Shelby simply ruled thumbs up or thumbs down on the Constitutionality of that "definition".
    The only one's bending anything are the one's bending facts and reality.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    Shauna, you have NEVER had the right to vote on the rights of other American Citizens.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 8:20 a.m.

    Shauna,

    What you derisively call "Obama's America," the rest of the country simply regards as "constitutional protections applied through evidence-based reality."

    Regarding Shelby:

    “Whenever we have a judicial vacancy in Utah, no matter who occupies the White House, I look for a candidate to recommend who is widely respected in the legal community and who can be widely supported in the Senate. Bob Shelby certainly meets that test.” - Utah Senator Orrin Hatch

    During the confirmation process, Utah Senator Mike Lee also described Shelby as "pre-eminently qualified" and predicted he would be "an outstanding judge."

    Shelby's own words: "I do not believe it is the proper role of a judge to seek to protect interests of any parties, irrespective of whether those parties might be described as 'big guys' or 'little guys.' To the contrary, I believe it is the judge’s responsibility to reach decisions based exclusively on the application of established precedent to the specific facts presented."

    Which is exactly what he did, and is exactly why Utah's Amendment 3 is not long for this world.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 8:51 a.m.

    The pro SSM folks are going after the wrong group.

    The government is the one who gives legal privileges to married couples that they don't give to single people. It is called discrimination. Why don't you sue them instead of a little cake baker, or a photographer? The government is big, and where the money is. Of course there are also marriage tax penalties too, which is also discrimination. It is the government that needs to quit discriminating, and make laws more fair to everyone.

    Then there is the privilege to bring children into your family, which God designated to couples comprised of a man and a woman. He told them to commit in marriage first, for the good of all society. Marriage and the making of children was God's doing. Who are we to say he is wrong? How do you expect your fellow man to change what God has done, and why is it your 'right' to expect society to do so?

    Isn't it hard to fight against God?

    Yes, look how war torn and miserable our society is becoming because of our long war on God.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    Shauna, you should diversify your reading list; there is no such consensus.

    Secondly, no Constitutional amendments were ignored by Judge Shelby. He basically stated that the State of Utah had no right to ignore the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

    And none of us has the right to vote on whether or not others have equal rights. Ever.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    This consensus of which you speak does not exist. The 'bent laws' are those that deny same sex couples marriage in the first place.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    As a committed, believing LDS I reject the idea that my religious doctrines have any standing in law. My scripture (DC 134) specifically says that religion should not be "mingled" in constitutional government. Legal arguments based on religious belief are NOT VALID.I wish my fellow LDS would read our own scriptures...

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    Can same-sex "marriage" be shown to damage society? Clearly it can. If same-sex "marriage" became the normhuman life would cease to exist. Would a halt of procreation harm society?

    Let's look at other rules that society has put in place where the "rights" of a few were "denied" to preserve society. Society has dictated that I must wear a seatbelt when I am in a vehicle. If I choose to disobey the seatbelt law, I will be fined. If I refuse to protect children in that vehicle, I will face much more than a fine. Where is the outrage over seatbelt laws?

    How about smoking laws? A businessman cannot declare that his business is a smoking zone, even if 100% of his customers want to smoke. Society has ruled that smoke, even second-hand smoke, is a danger to society. Where is the outrage?

    Having childless marriages, by definition, is a much greater danger to society than are refusing to use seat-belts or smoking. Marriage and families are more important than seat-belts and smoking. Marriage and families need protection.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    Mike,

    You are confusing the "right" to engage in SSM with a Mandate allowing only SSM.

    Do you sincerely think that the allowance of SSM threatens the population of our planet?

    Are couples who cannot have children also "a much greater danger to society" than smoking?

    Really?

    Personally, I cannot see how allowing SSM or not affects me one iota. Looks more to me like wanting to mingle religion into our laws.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    Obama didn't 'bother' with DOMA…?

    'Judge Rules Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Is Unconstitutional..' - ABC News - By Jake Tapper - 01/08/10

    'Prop 8 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ – by Michael De Groote – Deseret News 02/07/12

    "Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the Ninth Circuit said in its ruling on appeal in the case of Perry v. Brown.'

    'Federal judge OVERTURNS Utah Same-sex marriage Ban' - By Emiley Morgan and Marjorie Cortez KSL - 12/22/13

    Welcome to 'Obama's America…

    I mean, seriously.

    I think somewhere along x15 judges have already ruled on marriage equality. From the 9th circuit on Prop 8, to the Supreme court on DOMA.

    But hey! Here in utah, let's blame ONE judge!

    And then blame Obama for it!

    1, Obama is the President. Not a judge. 2, Senator Orrin Hatch voted for Judge Shelby.

    3, as I have pointed out, Shelby is factually not, the only judge to rule like this in the past.

    Read a book.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    Can same-sex "marriage" be shown to damage society? Clearly it can. If same-sex "marriage" became the normhuman life would cease to exist. Would a halt of procreation harm society?

    =========

    Clearly it CAN'T

    Who said anything about the "halt" of humanity?

    97-98% of human reamain heterosexual - always have, always will,
    you are just crying a bunch of "what if" crocodile tears.

    Talk about hyperbole and quantum leaps in logic...

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    Could anyone be so callow as to assume any judge of any stripe would rule based on just his or her personal view? Shauna, Badger and MR see a through a different lens than many of us do that see this as a non partisan issue. Badger sees a "war on God" here and ignores that gay people have been serving in our military for two years now defending his right to make that argument about war. MR wants to make the line for marriage be procreation but ignore those heterosexuals who cannot have children or that every day gay women are being inseminated with donor sperm or by test tube fertilized ova. All of these views ignore logic to make their point. Can they really hope to persuade anyone with such thinly veiled personal prejudice cloaked in a Constitutional arguement?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "If same-sex "marriage" became the normhuman life would cease to exist"

    Gay people are still gay regardless of whether or not they marry. Gay marriage effectively increases human life since they're more likely to consider things like in-vitro or adoption as a couple than by themselves.

    "Having childless marriages, by definition, is a much greater danger to society than are refusing to use seat-belts or smoking."

    Bigotry is a much greater danger to society than any of the things you're talking about.

    And besides, you're not pro-marriage, you're pro-sex. Marriage is completely unnecessary when it comes to making children which you seem to believe is the most important thing. Are you married? I wouldn't want to be married to you (for several reasons, one being that I don't swing that way) since you seem to be obsessed about sex rather than what marriage actually is based on, love.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    Some of you are arguing that something that is far more dangerous to society than NOT wearing a seatbelt should be allowed because? Because YOU want it that way. You're telling us that if you and all of your friends could convince society that same-sex sex was the defacto norm, that you couldn't care less about the effects YOUR desires had on civilization. You can't say that you're not trying to convince us that same-sex sex should be taught in your homes. You're can't say tht you're not trying to convince our children in our schools to accept same-sex sex. Your history precedes your rhetoric.

    It is not in society's interest to harm the families which are the bedrock of society. Teaching children that God made a mistake when he put you in the wrong body teaches total disrespect for our Creator and tells the child that only his "feelings" should be considered, not his actions and not the effect of his actions on society.

    The same-sex "marriage" position is untenable. It is harmful to society. If lived, there will be no population.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:43 p.m.

    IMO what Judge Shelby did was much less egregious than what's being done by the White House and the Federal Government daily.

    Just ignoring the laws they don't like.

    -Don't enforce immigration law (because you need their votes)
    -Run guns to Mexico and then just deny it and refuse to investigate when you get caught.
    -Let the IRS and the NSA abuse people's rights, and then ignore it when it comes to light.
    -Push ACA through (before legislators voting on it can read it) and then just wave parts of the law by Presidential Fiat (no vote of Congress) if you decide you don't like parts of it after it's the law.
    -Wave the results of State Elections (if one of your key support groups got the short end of the election).
    -Ignore rights of car company shareholders and just give ownership to the Union bosses.

    Selective enforcement of the law is always distressful to people who accept that the law is the law (for everybody). But it is normal and just fits the way they run their life for people who think laws are for everybody else (but not for them).

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:57 p.m.

    Mike: "It is not in society's interest to harm the families which are the bedrock of society."

    Agreed. So why do you want to harm the families of same-sex couples?

    "The same-sex "marriage" position is untenable. It is harmful to society."

    That claim has been made many times in court, and not once has it survived legal scrutiny. As was noted in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger (Prop 8) case, "The witness stand is a lonely place to try to lie."

    "If lived, there will be no population."

    Hyperbole much there, Mike? Seriously?

    I have two neighbors, a same-sex couple, who've been together for at least a decade and are now raising their second adopted child. They are both fantastic, loving, dedicated and effective parents.

    Please explain to us exactly how human procreation will grind to a halt if my neighbors are allowed to have their mutual commitment receive the same state recognition that you take for granted.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:00 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    Nobody is trying to convince society that same-sex sex is the defacto norm so your concerns really don't mean anything. There's going to be 90-95% of the population who are attracted to the opposite gender including yourself and myself. There's no danger of the population going extinct. It's just an absurd notion and since we have no child requirement on marriage, then you cannot use this as a reason to ban same-sex marriage (unless you really do want to require that married couples make kids in which case I guess I need to give you props for at least being consistent).

    "Teaching children that God made a mistake when he put you in the wrong body teaches total disrespect for our Creator "

    I think you are confusing trans with gay/lesbian again...

    And besides, you're the one who is suggesting that God made a mistake when someone ends up with these attractions. We're the ones saying it's okay, remember?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:14 p.m.

    Blue,

    Let's look at your argument from the other side. I think that you're trying to tell us that unless a lot of people believe just as you do, that no harm would come to society. Do I have that right? When God ejected Satan from heaven, was it because critical mass had been reached? Was it because that until 33% plus one spirit sided with Satan that nothing was wrong? How about taking a gun to school? What is the critical number of guns in schools before there is danger? Is it the "idea" or the "gun" that is dangerous, after all tens of thousands of policemen carry guns everywhere they go.

    When God told us that all must be perfected before entering his kingdom is it because he has no power to handle imperfection, or is it the attitude that the "kids can make the rules" that would eventually destroy his kingdom?

    Marriage and family are not to be trifled with. God set the rules. Our choice is to obey God or to rebel against him. There is no other choice, no matter what a judge says.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:15 p.m.

    2nd try:

    @Mike Richards;

    Once again, you are using YOUR religious beliefs to infringe upon the LIVES of non-members to your particular sect.

    It's time to MYOB and stop focusing on how other people are having sex.

    @2 bits;

    google: "Study: Children of Same-Sex Parents Are Healthier Than Peers:

    "According to an interim report, children from families with same-sex parents scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, while there was no statistical difference between them and children of heterosexual couples in areas such as emotional behavior, self-esteem, and time spent with parents."

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 2:11 p.m.

    I believe that those in favor of same-sex marriage have just destroyed their credibility. They keep telling us that all they want is to be treated equal, citing the 14th Amendment. But now it looks like they really don't want to be equal. They find it hard to admit that those who agree with them do not want equal responsibility to reproduce and repleish the population. They call the idea that everyone would join their crusade ludicrous, yet isn't that their goal - to have their chosen way of life to be held equal in every way to heterosexual "marriage"? If they acknowledge that living their lifestyle would destroy all humanity, then they would have to admit that there is something terribly wrong with their position.

    We learned a long time ago that some ideas just don't make sense if applied equally to everyone in society. If their idea only works if a very few people participate, then they have to admit that their demand for equality would destroy is all.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 2:44 p.m.

    Ranch,
    There's more than one study. I'm not going to play battling studies. Because I'm not saying I'm right, so I don't need to compete or prove I'm right. I'm just saying IF (that's a hypothetical) being raised by gay parents puts more stress on the kids in today's society (similar to the stresses of being raised by unmarried parents)... then why only worry about one stress impacting the kids... but not the other?

    Both put more stress on a family. Why the super concern (from a different poster) about the parents not being married (becasue some Utahn won't let their gay parents get married).. and zero concern for the stress added by having gay parents?

    Having gay parents does put children in some uncomfortable situations outside the home. Getting better all the time, but those uncomfortable situations still exist. Why no concern for that... just concern that the parents aren't married? That's my question. Both add stress. Why is only the missing marriage a concern? They both impact the children.

    Didn't say children of gay parents don't turn out right. But there's added stress.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 3:14 p.m.

    I thought every state is it's own country. That the Government Is only so we as a nation can protect our borders and settle disputes between country's. I thought any country had the right to secede from the union.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    Jan. 8, 2014 4:54 p.m.

    Polls suggest that a majority of Americans favor tightening up gun restrictions such as gunshow loopholes. Yet I suspect that the very same commenters demanding that the will of the people who voted for Amendment 3 be respected (regardless of the Fourteenth Amendment) would go apoplectic at the suggestion that the Second Amendment is not absolute and may likewise be limited by the will of the people.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 8, 2014 5:12 p.m.

    @Irony guy So you are saying Church leaders are wrong when they speak out on moral issues? Religions have the right to speak out on moral issues that effect them. Irreligious people are not the only people with the right to speak out on moral issues.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 5:28 p.m.

    @ Mike: "If same-sex "marriage" became the normhuman life would cease to exist. Would a halt of procreation harm society?"

    Let's examine this, shall we?

    First: If no one procreated, humans would cease to exist. Correct.

    Second: Homosexuals don't procreate. Not true - many homosexuals, as well as many infertile heterosexuals, use assisted reproductive technologies to procreate.

    Third: Prohibiting same-sex marriage will cause gay people to be straight and reproduce. Or, conversely, allowing same-sex marriage will cause straight people to be gay and not reproduce. Far from true. While social acknowledgment of homosexuality has created an environment where it is safer for individuals to acknowledge their homosexuality, there is no evidence that people who are not gay or bisexual "turn gay". And prohibiting same-sex marriage has not yet made homosexuality go away. Heterosexual marriage and child-bearing in areas with same-sex marriage follow the same trends as before same-sex marriage was allowed.

    Fourth: Homosexual individuals/couples are more likely to reproduce if not married. Well, this one is iffy. Married couples often choose not to procreate - but I am not sure you can blame marriage for preventing procreation.

    Your argument fails.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 5:31 p.m.

    @higv

    Why does someone from Idaho care so much? It is a Utah issue, not a Mormon issue, and certainly not an Idaho issue.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 5:40 p.m.

    @ J: So because LGBT individuals and their allies acknowledge that not everyone is gay, this is somehow an argument against equality of treatment?

    How does acknowledging that not every heterosexual couple has children while some homosexual couples have children destroy credibility in the argument that all couples should be treated the same regardless of whether or not they have children?

    And isn't your failure to demand that all heterosexual couples reproduce a reduction of your credibility?

    @ george of the jungle: I suggest you read the Constitutions of the several States as well as the Federal Constitution.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:19 p.m.

    Gay Marriage is the result of "Obama's America?"

    Huh?

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 6:19 a.m.

    Driving a vehicle on your own property is a fundamental right. You don't need the permission of government in the form of a driver's license. Living with someone of your choosing is a fundamental right. You don't need the permission of government in the form of a marriage license.

    Operating a vehicle on public property is a privilege regulated by the state. The state offers the privilege in return for certain obligations imposed on the driver. The state places restrictions on who may get a driver's license. If a restriction (e.g. race) isn't germane to the task of operating a motor vehicle safely, it cannot legally be imposed.

    The marriage license offered by the state proposes to give certain benefits to a married couple in return for placing certain obligations on the couple. The state may place qualifications on the issuing of the marriage license, but if those qualifications aren't germane to the benefits the state expects to receive, they don't pass constitutional muster. The questions are these: what benefits does the state expect to receive from the marriage contract, and is the gender of applicants germane?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 10, 2014 5:33 a.m.

    @2 bits, re: the added stress of being a child with gay parents

    It isn't the parents' sexual orientation that stresses the child. It's society's reaction to it. WE are the ones causing the child stress, not his/her parents.

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    You or your religion can define marriage all you want. Our constitution, the document you hypocrites keep nitpicking what you like about it, Says, that ALL men are created equal. Gays, minorities and even white people. We are endowed by our creator with certain inaliable rights, among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Who are you, or your religious beliefs, to deny someone of their rights? First you did it to womwn, then minorities, and now gay people. Take your bigotry and leave! If you want a government based upon a holy book,, Move to Iran. This country is NOT a christian nation, and we Should seperate church and state. You can believe what ever you want,, but so can we. DONT TREAD ON ME!!!

  • Sal Provo, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 6:29 p.m.

    Thanks to Mike Richards for taking the time to defend Christian morality as described in the Bible and modern scriptures.

    I have yet to find a scripture showing God's tolerance for and charity towards unrepentant adultery, fornication and 'anything like unto it.'