Southern Utah News Articles
Dixie Speaks - Irony
Irony. A mode of speech by which words express a sense contrary to that really intended; sarcasm in which apparent praise really conveys disapprobation. (Webster Dictionary definition).
This editorial concerns the hypocrisy of what battles the State of Utah chooses. Two court rulings of great consequence to our state were made late last year. The first being that polygamy was legal. In his decision, U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups ruled that, “the court finds the cohabitation prong of the Statute unconstitutional on numerous grounds and strikes it.”
The ruling surprised many, and I saw it having enormous implications for the state. The LDS Church responded with a reiteration of their belief that a marriage is between one man and one woman. (One condition of Utah being admitted to the Union was that it ban polygamy, a practice of the predominantly Mormon state. It was required that it be placed in the state’s Constitution in order to get statehood.) The LDS Church, which now has 15 million members worldwide, abandoned polygamy in 1890.
To my knowledge, there was no state court action filed to question the decision. No carrying on, no letters to the editor, no lawsuits. Polygamy was good to go.
But darn those gays! The decision handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby ruled that Utah law violates gay and lesbian couple’s rights, a ruling which allowed for gay marriage.
The state has been granted a stay on the decision, and will soon present its case as to why Shelby’s ruling should be overturned. They have pledged to spend an enormous amount of state money in the fight to preserve the sanctity of marriage between; you guessed it, one man and one woman.
My question is this, if the State of Utah believes so profoundly in the ‘legal’ sanctity of a one man and one woman relationship, why didn’t they jump all over the polygamy ruling? Utah’s government, law and religion do not seem to have many boundaries. If you’re truly conservative, do you think it’s the government’s duty to define your lifestyle? We could go on and on from that line of thinking, should they dictate gun control...should they be spying on us...should they tell us what we can or can’t do with our property?
My suggestion is why doesn’t the government get out of peoples’ bedrooms and personal lives, and concentrate their attention on more important things – like education, cleaner air and economic development.
Oh wait, I have digressed – it’s just irony!