Justice Roberts: “Just Who Do We Think We Are?”
FEATURES
-
Come Follow Me Podcast #7: “Upon You My Fellow Servants”, Doctrine and Covenants 12-17; JSH 1: 66-75
-
Dews of Heaven Podcast: What is Your Heart’s Desire?
-
The Prophet Announces Salt Lake Temple Open House Celebration Dates
-
BYU Jerusalem Center to resume academic programs spring 2025
-
Fifteen New Hymns Available to Use in Church and at Home
Comments | Return to Story
Ana MerkurieffJanuary 25, 2016
You bet! 5 unlected, unexpected, unsuspected, undetected elitist judges whom we neglected to crosschecked. We were too busy tryng to be politically correct. Thank you, Maurine Proctor.
Tara GaudetteJune 30, 2015
So many of us think we have just won the big prize. The truth is we have ALL lost a significant part of our freedom and our voice. Everyone of us will feel the loss freedom and the unwelcome control over our lives that we once had.
PacumeniJune 30, 2015
Ayatollah Kennedy and his four Progressive Sharia Council colleagues have struck a possibly fatal blow to democracy in the United States, as the article and the dissenting justices have persuasively argued. Like Iran, the US now has the trappings of democracy but is actually ruled by a small group of elites who have the final say on all critical questions of policy. The ideology of our Ayatollahs and those in Iran differ, but the basic structure of the Iranian and US governments is now much the same. All hail to Ayatollah Kennedy and his reverend four co-rulers who have supplanted the people and now clearly govern us. We, perforce, honor you lest the coercive power of the state be turned on us to punish us for our non-progressive heresies.
HollyJune 30, 2015
Maureen put into words just what I was feeling as we sang patriotic songs during sacrament meeting on Sunday in honor of the upcoming 4th of July. I felt very sad as we sang, and really bad for all the founding fathers. It's been judges who legalized same sex marriage in various states all along, not the vote of the people. CA voted against it, and then a judge legalized it anyway. Who gave him or any of them such authority? And the people who do support it--they all remind me of the people in the Emperor's New Clothes. The obvious fact they are overlooking, to me, has to do with children. Same sex couples cannot bare their own children, and those they adopt or get by other means will be denied all that's listed in the Proclamation on the Family. Many say "it's not hurting anyone so why does it matter. Let them be happy." They're forgetting the children.
Cindy HuffakerJune 30, 2015
I agree with this post: SCOTUS created for themselves power and authority which they did not hold prior to this decision. The easy way is not always the right way. States rights and voting rights are now at the mercy of the Supreme Court. It is not the end game for "rights" at stake here, it is what will happen to traditional families and marriages. From an article by Stella Moribito: “Gay marriage is a lie,” announced gay activist Masha Gessen in a panel discussion last year (2013) at the Sydney Writers’ Festival. “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.” [Applause.] “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” The division has begun. Let's be on the right side of history.
ChadJune 30, 2015
WendyJune 27, 2015 "If you study history, you will find that ANY civilization that embraces homosexuality is destroyed and no longer exists. The Romans, the Greeks, etc." Really? The early Mormon apostles claimed Rome fell because of monogamy. “It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome with her arts, sciences and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She was a monogamic nation and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.” (Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 202 archive.org)
sherriJune 30, 2015
I just have one singple comment God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
AlectoJune 30, 2015
Roberts has demonstrated twice that he is quite willing to legislate, draft, amend and legitimize his legislative prerogatives in NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell. That travesty and gross overreach sets a new, lower precedent for the Court Jesters to arrogantly decide not only what the laws say, or will say, but what our morals and our civic institutions will be.
Karen JenkinsJune 30, 2015
I for one am very proud of the 5 Supreme Court Justices who have FINALLY settled the issue of all Americans being able to marry if they so desire. I am proud of Justice Roberts for his wise decision. As has been said many times by many people, the Constitution is a fluid document and must represent the rights of all. If you are heterosexual you can marry. Now the gate has been opened for same sex couples to also experience marriage, which is not a religious, but rather a legal term. These Justices did indeed INTERPRET the Constitution so that all may have the same right under the law. Let us stand up and congratulate these 5 Justices. They are to be commended. Since Federal law supersedes state law--this is now the law of the land. Hurray for America!!!!!!!!!
AllenJune 30, 2015
The seeds for this were sown when the government was first allowed to have a say in who could marry whom. When the opponents of the LDS church got the bigamy laws passed to stop poligamy, they were setting the stage for what is going on now. The government should never have been allowed to regulate, register, tax or otherwise meddle in what used to be a religious sacrament and it is time now to get it out of the equation. There would have been no court case if the government was not dictating who could or should be allowed to marry. Just because you can pass a law, doesn't mean that you should do so. We are reaping the harvest from a lot of bad decisions made years ago.
the mean mamaJune 29, 2015
To those citing the 11th article of faith as reason for lds people to support and sustain this action, you have failed to realize that the court acted outside the powers granted them by the constitution. The court is suppose to interpret law not create it. This country is run on case law, it's down right scary. Doc & cov 101:77,80 and 109:54. I obey and honor the constitution, not judges who take it upon themselves to claim to have changed it without a vote by the people as is required by the creators of this God ordained document
CharlesJune 29, 2015
I have some relatives who live in Canada. They wrote to me recently saying that leaders of the federal left-wing political party of Canada have proposed that any church that will not recognize gay marriage should lose is charitable status. Let's see how long it will be before so-called "progressives" in this country start making similar demands.
CharlesJune 29, 2015
Mitchell: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law only up to a certain point. When the laws of man are in direct conflict with the laws of God our first obligation is to obey God.
MOeJune 29, 2015
I don't blame the Supreme Court for responding to what the people of the state majority deem right. As each state fell the nation fell as it should be. The lesson falls back on the people to fight where are and where we can not sit back and judge the Fed from the comfort of our home..
Judith DearingJune 29, 2015
One thing nobody thinks to reiterate. Homosexuality is deviant. The Supreme Court just made a ruling that sanctions and honors deviance and that forces the rest of the citizens of the country to do the same or else.
tinaJune 29, 2015
the situation is made worse as other countries around the world may decide to follow the USA lead in this aspect and in a lot of cases violence is likely to erupt as tolerance for other peoples rights is not advocated, but then again... neither are they in the USA majority
ldsmomJune 29, 2015
When words are redefined to mean anything, then they mean absolutely nothing. By redefining marriage to mean the government acceptance and validation of the desires of any two consenting adults, then logically there is no reason to limit those same desires and benefits to any group of consenting adults, including polygamy, polyandry, and incest between adult family members. After all, according to this decision, who are any of us to decide who can and cannot publicly declare their love and receive government benefits for it? The Proclamation on the Family is clear--we have been warned: "Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." Thus we shall see the complete moral breakdown of society, and the eventual consequences. We, as members of the Lord's Church who have covenanted to do all we can to build His Kingdom, will continually find it more difficult to teach the eternal truths regarding the family, especially in the public sphere. May we all turn more to the Lord's counsel, and do all we can to love and strengthen all of our brothers and sisters, and stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things and in all places is my sincere prayer of my heart.
MikeJune 29, 2015
Those that go to the "subject to kings, rulers..." arguments ignore the counsel of our leaders to be involved in the course of politics in America. Senator Mike Lee has written wise counsel in his latest book, "Our Lost Constitution." We need to understand and to be involved in changes. I don't see anyone advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government - outside of the Constitutional parameters. I think that his article states well the legal problems, as taken from the dissenting justices, that the court has created by inventing rights that don't exist under the Constitution. "Equality" is not the issue that was decided. Definition was decided. Definition cannot create equality, any more than it can create dignity (See Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion.) The court, nor government in any form, can give anything "dignity" by definition.
BotJune 29, 2015
Man-woman marriage reflects the natural moral and social law throughout history. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived. Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.
KarenJune 29, 2015
Since the Supreme Court has been overstepping their authority in rewriting laws and creating new constitutional rights, we need to start examining the Supreme Court and start challenging their non existent right, that they gave themselves, to be in charge of judicial review, which the Constitution does not give them.
James JJune 29, 2015
Mmm, what about the children? When adoption was debated in the UK in 2002, all of the research said that children were better off, in every way, in the environment created by Mother Nature (look at the House of Lords' website for the debates and research). But it was ignored. The argument went that there were so many disadvantaged children out there that broadening the pool of available parents had to be the better way. As one of Lords wisely said, all that the passing of the legislation would do was to increase the demand for the children that were always easiest to place (i.e. babies). And his words proved prophetic. Same sex couples clamoured, not for the disadvantaged, but for the babies. In fact, in some areas in the UK there is now positive discrimination in the placing of babies. The preference is to same-sex couples. This truth is conveniently ignored. Swedish and Australian research cited in the House of Lords' debates (late 90s) showed that there were effects of same sex parenting. The foremost being gender confusion in children (a 20% increase in homosexuality in children in such homes, and a huge increase in experimentation by children in differing relationships, with consequent gender uncertainty). There will of course now be no research into same sex parenting and its effect on children because it may reveal (continue to reveal) inconvenient truths, and that would be professional suicide for any academic showing the same. Nature does not allow each and every one of these relationships to create children. Every one without exception is precluded by biology (compare that to the small number of heterosexual unions that are unable produce offspring). Yet the selfish wishes of adults have trumped the natural and best interests of children. This is not simply an issue of granting to two loving adults their honourable desires. There are effects and consequences for people who have no voice and no choice. This is the debate that is not being had. Judges have always 'discovered' the law in common-law jurisdictions, and the decision is therefore a matter of interpretation and discovery, but it is its effect on the young and vulnerable, and on conscience that is troubling. As Neal A. Maxwell once said, (paraphrasing) "those who seek tolerance will ultimately not tolerate those who once tolerated them"...That is and will continue to be prophetic.
KarenJune 29, 2015
I am very afraid of having a SCOTUS that has stepped outside of the very Constitution they are supposed to defend and start making laws and creating new constitutional rights that they impose on the whole nation. Isn't it bad enough we have an imperial president that trashes the Constitution? Now we know he has the highest court in the land to back him up and make anything constitutional or unconstitutional that he wants. This will make it much easier for Obama to rewrite the Constitution, like he has always expressed a desire to do. Americans have lost what ever control of our country that we still had and are subject to the whim of an out of control president who has the SCOTUS to back up the illegal and unconstitutional rules he makes up and binds us all to. The only thing we can do is start examining the SCOTUS and start challenging their right, that they gave themselves, to be in charge of judicial review, which the Constitution does not give them.
ToddJune 28, 2015
This is more of the article of faith that we must worry about: 11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.. The Book of Helaman, particularly chapters 7 through 3 Nephi 1 give a very real sense of what we should beoat concerned about. This is God's promised land but if we as in Ether 2:9-12 don't honor the God of this land we cannot expect his protection and blessings as a whole. Mosiah 29:25-27 explains best how it was intended to be done: 25 Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord. 26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law--to do your business by the voice of the people. 27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
TinaJune 28, 2015
Brett thank you for your comments. I have read Doctrine & Covenants 134 and the 13th and 14th Articles of Faith. I pray what you've said proves true about the supreme court's decision being a victory for liberty, equality, and religious freedoms for all. Because you see I have LOVED ONES who have, and who are actively practicing SSA, and others who wholeheartedly support them in their decisions. I on the other hand have preached, shared my opinions, and have showed them the error of their ways. But honestly I don't want to shove my beliefs down their throats just as I would appreciate the same courtesy. I love them and want them to choose the right, of their own volition. I am however worried as Wendy has mentioned that any civilization which embraces homosexuality ultimately is destroyed. The rainbow itself is symbolic of God's promise not to flood the earth, killing almost the entire population due to their sin. Keep in mind however that Sodom and Gomorra was destroyed after the flood. I want to thank everyone for their posts and comments which has given me pause to be both retrospective and introspective. Through fasting and prayer I hope to find peace that I wish upon everybody.
MitchellJune 28, 2015
"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." I am sincerely disappointed and astounded that so many members of this church are ignoring this significant Article Of Faith.
MitchellJune 28, 2015
"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." I am sincerely disappointed and astounded that so many members of this church are ignoring this significant Article Of Faith.
Peter KnoblochJune 28, 2015
Maureen, outstanding article. Thank you for publishing it. All the best.
Liz AckermanJune 27, 2015
Unfortunately, I am not too surprised when the author of the piece writes that "democracy took a major blow today". However, when Justice Scalia, in an otherwise perceptive dissent states that this system of government. . . "doesn't deserve to be called a democracy", I worry. Article IV, Section IV states that the U.S. government shall guarantee to every state a "republican form of government". We are supposed to be a Republic. As John Adams said. "there is never a democracy that didn't commit suicide" After the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin said that we now had "a Republic, if you can keep it." Looks like we are't doing too well..
GregorJune 27, 2015
Chris, this article is far from "full-throttle panic." Not only has the author cited the dissenting judges in a coherent and understandable digest, but the dangers of which he warns are clear and present dangers. The homosexual community becomes more brazen and demanding with each victory, not more satisfied and content. "Just get out of our bedrooms and let us sodomize each other," was their first demand. Did they stop there? Have they been content with each concession granted since then: domestic partnership and protected status? No. As they bulldoze millennia-old barriers, they heap scorn and legal action on any who disagree with them. We've already seen bakers and florists lose their livelihood for their beliefs. No, Chris, this is not panic or paranoia, but prophesy.
MegamiJune 27, 2015
If only we were setup with a representative form of government as well as a constitution and an arbiter of the constitution (the supreme court) specifically to protect the rights of minorities who could not, through a count of their votes, protect their own rights. Voting is great for laws and law makers, but when it comes to minorities and civil rights, it's not a very good way to go about things. Voting determines what's popular, but the SCOTUS is there to determine what's just. It's the SCOTUS job to correct the legislature when they are in violation of the Constitution. It's called a checks and balances for a reason. Judicial is a check on the power of the legislature to keep it from moving too far from the Constitution. Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). Ayn Rand The purpose of fundamental constitutional rights is to protect the minority from democratic abuse by the majority. Just like no state can vote to deny blacks or Mormons the right to marry, the court has now found that states also can't vote to deny gays the right to marry
JohnJune 27, 2015
From Edward:More than 70% of the population thinks gays should have the right to marry, and in recent high school grads that number approaches 100%. Polls can mean whatever you want them to mean. Elections, the vote of the people, show the people's intent or desire.However, elections don't really give the gay community what they want. In 37 states, elections showed people did not want to re-define marriage. It's not even about gay marriage anymore. It's about the democratic process. The proponents of gay marriage sidestepped the people at every turn.There was never open debate. They went to the courts to overturn elections. They offered no constitutional amendments.There was only what the gay community wanted. It weakened my country. How? In order to give the gay community what they wanted, SCOTUS created for themselves power and authority which they did not hold prior to this decision. The easy way is not always the right way.
Steve AsayJune 27, 2015
There will be court cases trying to force faith-based institutions to comply, no matter their beliefs. The next big question becomes the exercise of religion. We LDS have been down that road before.
Michael Burgess BlackJune 27, 2015
D&C 134: 9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied. When it was said that "A right to same-sex marriage was invented today by the Court that was not in the Constitution" It was hitting the nail on the head... the issue is it moves past that with the wrong assumption... what really happened was the Court invented a right to MARRIAGE. States can not provide benefits to one class of people and deny that privilege to other classes. The 14th amendment is not in contradiction with the 10th or 1st amendments in this case. You've quoted my favorite move, but missed the point of the statement, arguing that it means the opposite of what it actually says. "And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?" "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." When the Edmund Tucker act was put into law. the government took its first step into defining and protecting marriage. Such an act was unconstitutional then. It remains unconstitutional now. Man has no right to any religious rite. But when the Edmund Tucker act was made law the devil was poised to turn around back upon men. The government was given power to regulate marriage not only for health reasons but to impose conscience upon its citizens. At the time the law was made to say Marriage is between one man and one woman any any practicing polygny would be punished. The government has still created 2 classes of people, the wed, and the unwed. the wed group just got larger.
WendyJune 27, 2015
If you study history, you will find that ANY civilization that embraces homosexuality is destroyed and no longer exists. The Romans, the Greeks, etc. Once you lose your morals you lose your strength and your enemies will attack and win. Has anyone noticed the upswing in violence and terrorism on our own soil?? The Supreme Court has just put the final nail in the coffin of America.
BrettJune 27, 2015
What civil disobedience is needed by pastors and religious leaders? The majority opinion in the case reiterates churches' rights to act on their beliefs about marriage. I encourage my fellow church members to re-read Section 134 and Articles of Faith #11 & #12. Yesterday's Supreme Court decision is a victory for liberty, equality, and religious freedom for all.
EdwardJune 27, 2015
Changing the makeup of the SCOTUS won't fix the 'problem'. More than 70% of the population thinks gays should have the right to marry, and in recent high school grads that number approaches 100%. Maybe you will someday agree...that people who aren't doing anything to you should be allowed to act according to their own conscience, free from persecution.
ChrisJune 26, 2015
This article is full throttle panic. Today’s ruling was one additional step forward in the path to equality and justice in this country. It was not about curtailing “religious freedom”; it was about preventing religious privilege. We will wake up 20 years from now and wonder what all of the consternation was about. Straight people will still be married; churches will still stand; yet gay people will live with more freedom and happiness, knowing that their relationships are no longer denigrated by the state.
Sasha Bill KwapinskiJune 26, 2015
Civil disobedience is not a matter to be taken lightly, and I would venture to say that it would likely not be officially sponsored or sanctioned by the LDS Church. If pastors and other religious leaders do arrive at the necessity of practicing civil disobedience, however, I would hope that they will follow through on it and make good on their word. Others, including LDS members, may contribute to their legal defense and support. I, for one, would do so.
Sasha KwapinskiJune 26, 2015
If this should result in pastors and religious leaders or institutions practicing civil disobedience, I would hope that they are willing to carry through with it and make good on their word. This is not a matter to be taken lightly - but if this eventuality does come about, I for one would contribute to their legal defense and support.
PamJune 26, 2015
A sad day indeed; Who does the Supreme Court think they are, indeed. When will they perform their proper function or interpreting law according to the Constitution rather than inventing laws on their own. Changes in Washington DC need to be made. We cannot allow 9 unelected individuals to write laws, any more than we should allow a Congress of career fat cat politicians to pretend to represent us.
ADD A COMMENT