Businessman

​Politically Active and Aware

Gregory C. Duerden

Duerden's 2018 Congressional Campaign Issues Paper


                     Our Plan to DEFEND the RIGHT

                           via Constitutional Nullification Legislation

                                  

   Defining the right thing is difficult in the world we live in today, because there are so many opinions about what "Is Right"  (your belief, my belief, another's belief; Christian beliefs, Judeo-Christian beliefs, Buddist beliefs, et al  .  .  .  just as there are many different kinds of 'belly buttons'  -  'in-ies,' 'out-ies,' 'flat ones,' 'herniated ones,' etc.  -  there are also many different opinions.  They ALL have the right to their opinions, as do I!)


   But, if we are following the U.S. Constitution as a divinely inspired document (along with the Declaration of Independence and the original Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments) then we have a benchmark to go by, "our foundation, " right?  Even the courts agree on Constitutional Law, sometimes.


   A basic Constitutional option has always been, if the Federal Government does something the States don't agree to and/or support there is always the option of Constitutional NULLIFICATION by the States  -  States created and formed the Federal Government during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when the Constitution was written!!


   All that takes is one single piece of legislation nullifying the action/bill/regulation/program/et al.  It only takes a Governor and Legislature with the 'cahones' or the backbone to stand up to the Feds; toe to toe, eyeball to eyeball, AND NOT BACK DOWN.  States are more powerful, Constitutionally, than the Feds want them to realize!


    We, as principled leaders who follow the U.S. Constitution and the other inspired documents which came from the hand of "Providence" through the hands of men, are willing and able to Defend the Right.


   Making the right decisions simply takes leadership and the strength to make the decision.  Sometimes it takes just as much leadership to defend those making the right decision, even if it is unpopular.  Such a decision, which needs defending, is the voter's decision that marriage is only between a man and a woman.  This decision is a right one because it is backed by the Biblical/Scriptural definition of marriage  -  since marriage comes to man by way of God (Adam & Eve), it is His definition and mere mortal man can not re-define it to suit their whims or to be 'socially correct.'  Besides, we believe and testify that His definition is the correct definition.


   The courts have taken one lower-court decision and copied it as if it was scripture to justify Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) decisions to date, and the subsequent re-definition of marriage  -  which effects all married couples (now and in the future).  The Supreme Court decided one case with a less than mediocre defense of marriage put forth  --  it used an argument which was also unsuccessfully used for a civil rights case (Brown v Bd. of Education).


   While the SLC Federal District Judge, Robert J. Shelby, made this decision in the case of Kitchen v Herbert, Judge Shelby quite plainly advocated for the position of the defendents, seeking SSM approval, which he made the force of law by his decision in December 2013.   Gov. Herbert announced his intention to fight the decision and appeal it, but then wilted and backed off to concede to the decision.


   We see this fight as both winable and easily done by the stroke of the legislative pen through a Constitutional device called '​Nullification.'  Nullification entails drafting a piece of legislation, passing it through both houses of the legislature and the Governor signing it into law.  Basically the legislation puts the reasons for the action, such as the voters approving a Marriage Law by a supermajority (66.8%) back in 2004, and the legislation, when it becomes law, states that the act/law/decision is null and void within the confines of the State of Utah  .  .  .  and that is that, DONE!   Judges nullify jury's decisions every year across the nation, why can't "WE THE PEOPLE" nullify our government's wrong decisions - even the judicial decisions!!


   Utah's state legislators apparently don't have the grit to do this simple and completely Constitutional action.  But, as we said,  sometimes it takes as much strength to make the decision to stand up for what is right and correct, in the eyes of GOD and most (67%) men and women  (at least here in Utah!). 


​    Part of our argument for a return to the traditional definition of marriage is the newer definition would entail changing the definition for everyone rather than just the affected class.  By changing the definition the traditional roles of parents are blurred and obviscated by the nature of the same-sex nature of the parental figures.  In every traditional family the children learn the male and female roles by example of their parents and how they deal with each other, which also teaches the children how to deal with each other properly. They learn how a husband supports the family and the mother nutures the familyas the children's proxies.  Socialogically the mixture of two men or two women couldn't help but blur those roles.


    As earth-changing as this for the affected class, it is still an affected class which literally IS a small minority in the mainstream of America, even they will have to admit, but a very vocal and agenda driven minority.  This will not be the last broadly affecting decision this minority will propose and pursue  -  e.g., transexual use of bathrooms, gyms and showers;  anti-discrimination legislation for workplace, housing (which Utah has already passed), et al, by sexual orientation, and on and on.  They have an activist agenda and will bully, bluff and overpower those who stand in their way  -  which we will do because it is correctto stand up for correct things.


    HISTORY of SSM in Utah


    In 1977 the Utah legislature passed a statutory law banning SSM in the State of Utah.  Then, in 1995, the House passed HB366, a bill banning recognition of out of state SSM and same-sex unions in the state.  On March 1, 1995, the State Senate voted 24-1 in favor of the bill and the same day Gov. Mike Leavitt signed the bill into law.

 

     2004's Legislative session saw SB24, a bill banning SSM and its "substantial equivalent" in the state.  March 23, 2004, Gov. Olene Walker signed the bill into law, which went into effect the same day.


     Then on March 3, 2004, the Senate voted 20-7 in favor of a State Constitutional Amendment  -  Amendment 3  -  banning SSM and any 'domestic union' that grants 'the same or substsantially equivalent legal effect' in the Utah Constitution.  On the same day the House voted 58-14 in favor of the amendment.  On Nov. 2, 2004, voters approved the amendment by a supermajority of 66.8% to 33.2%.  The amendment went into effect January 1, 2005.

 

      And so it was, until the decision in December of 2013, when Judge Shelby struck the ban as unconstitu-tional when he said:


                     "Amendment 3 perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships                                              of same-sex couples are not now, nor ever will be, worthy of recognition.  Amend-                                               ment 3 does not thereby elevate the status of opposite-sex marriage; it merely demeans                                        the dignity of same-sex couples.  And while the State cites an interest in protecting                                              traditional marriage, it protects that interest by denying one of the most traditional                                                aspects of marriage to thousands of its citizens: the right to form a family that is                                                  strengthened by a partnership based on love, intimacy and shared responsibilities."


​       This was the first federal court decision to address state recognition of SSM since the SCOTUS decision in US v Windsor which held part of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) denied federal recognition of SSM unconstitutional.  However, it was not the first decision setting aside the voice and vote of thousands of people. The Tenth Circuit Court repeatedly set aside the vote of hundreds of thousands of California voters as they approved Proposition Six  -  banning SSM and supporting the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.


       We truly are a Nation of Laws.  But when the laws judges make collide with the voice and will of the people  .  .  .  .  what are we??  Are a majority of the people wrong or is a single judge wrong?? Which carries the weight of being right/correct/proper  .   .   .  a majority of the people or one lone learned man of the law??   Aren't the Voters of this nation 'Sovernign'?  We believe that answer is "HELL YES!!"


       We believe the majority of the people will be correct in their views!  The voice of the majority MUST rule over the lone judge's opinion, even over the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) at times!


        OUR RECOMMENDATIONS:


        WE propose to write a bill for Congressional consideration, re-enforcing the Constitutional principle of Nullification as a valid and proper step for States and other entities to voice the majority opinion about what the PEOPLE and the VOTERS hold as proper and not just what the minorities think is correct.    We ARE a country where the majority rules, and properly so.    


       This legislation could be used to Nullify judges rulings (as in the case of Judge Shelby) or even Supreme Court decisions and opinions - as a check or balance by the people who ARE the grassroots of our government (or they are suppose to be!!); as well as Nullify federal rules, regulations, legislation and mandates the States find as over-reach or 'onerous and without merit' within their jurisdiction.


       The Federal Government thinks it is more powerful and 'superior' to the States.  Actually, the Federal Government was formed by the States NOT vica-versa.  The States sat in Convention in Philadelphia and created the CONSTITUTION, which formed the Central Government - this is AFTER they rejected the Articles of Confederation, thereby dissolving the former 'Government' in 1792.  We have tried to be a Constitutional Republic ever since, as Ben Franklin said "We have given the people a Republic, now let's see how long they can keep it."  This candidate isn't sure Old Ben would recognize what he had helped create today!!



        If you agree with ANY of the above, or if you see what we see and explained in the above, we would encourage you to remember this information and material and we would urge you GO TO THE POLLS and VOTE for  Gregory C. Duerden on Tuesday, Nov. 6th on the General Election Ballot under the Independent American Party ticket for the Third Congressional seat in the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States for the State of Utah.



                                                                                             Thank you for all your support



We would also suggest you check out the other issues papers: on Conflict of Interest,   Federal Debt, Accountability and the Proper Role of Government, Harm done by the GOP,  Home for Unaffiliated and Independent Voters,  Military Support, Public Integrity,  Public Land/Air/Water/et al,  AND our Political Blog.