Constitutional Sheriffs Hate the Constitution and Shoving Things Down Their Throats

After a federal judge ruled that Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, hundreds of gay and lesbian couples began tying the knot.

You may view this as a good thing and progress toward creating a more equal society, but the “The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association” is not going to take this on their knees.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association on Saturday organized a meeting in Highland, Utah to call for an uprising and to express their opposition to same-sex marriage in Utah, Fox 13 Now Salt Lake City reported.

“The people of Utah have rights, too, not just the homosexuals. The homosexuals are shoving their agenda down our throats,” Former Graham County, Ariz., Sheriff Richard Mack said at the meeting.


Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage was ruled unconstitutional because it violates the right to equal protection under the law.

Do the so-called Constitutional Sheriffs believe the Constitution should only apply to certain people? Of course they do. And that’s a slippery slope.

The Supreme Court has temporarily stayed the ruling overturning the Utah ban, so I guess no one will be shoving anything down the good Sheriffs’ throats for at least a few more weeks.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    If anyone can identify for me the actual individual “right” that is infringed, interfered with or taken away as a result of the state allowing, legalizing, or not prohibiting same-sex marriage, I will praise Jesus and vote Republican for the rest of my life.

    • Churchlady320

      You’re safe. I’ve been asking that question for YEARS and do not yet have any answer. At ALL.

  • hanadora444

    And if they think we’re just gonna bend over and take it…….

  • ninjaf

    Here’s your problem right here:
    “The people of Utah have rights, too, not just the homosexuals.”

    Homosexuals in Utah (and everywhere else) ARE people. That is where he is showing his bigotry. He doesn’t even consider them people.

    • Christopher Foxx

      It makes me just want to shake them by the lapels until they grasp the concept: Recognizing that others have rights doesn’t reduce your own.

      Alas, they are shake-proof. Insistently, obstinately, finger-in-ears-la-la-can’t-hear-you bigots.

  • muselet

    For sheer absurdity, it’s hard to imagine anything beating this:

    “We need people to stand up and speak out. We need to get noisy. We need some outrage,” [Cherilyn Eager, an event organizer] said. “It is about the sheriffs now coming out to protect the people.”

    Mack and Eager asked meeting attendees to call their local representatives and ask them to urge clerks to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

    “The way you take back freedom in America is one county at a time. The sheriffs need to defend the county clerks in saying, ‘No, we’re not going to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals,'” Mack said at the meeting.

    Protect the people (from what?) by only letting straight people marry! Take back freedom (from whom?) by taking rights away from people!

    These idiots would be hilarious if they didn’t have the ability to ruin others’ lives.


  • Churchlady320

    One needs to discover if they see any role in this decision for law enforcement. As noted, county clerks are never arrested for not issuing licenses. So this is pure rhetoric.

    However, it masks an alliance these TAX PAID constitutional law officers may have. If they are part of the “Oath Keepers” organization that pledged never to enforce laws they personally do not like, they are, prima facie, violating their OWN oaths of office by signing on with that group. They have one and only one job – upholding the law. Their private opinions are irrelevant. They are entitled to them. They may not act on them to refuse to do their jobs.

    Failure to enforce the laws is itself illegal. They need to be fired if they refuse to protect LGBT people in any way that falls under their jurisdiction.

    • D_C_Wilson

      I always kills me the way that wingnut clubs chose their names ironically:
      Oath Keepers – Encourages law enforcement officers to break their oath of office.
      Constitutional Sheriffs – Don’t understand how the Constitution actually works.
      Family Reserach Council – Dedicated to preventing people from having a family.
      Liberty University – College with one of the most stringent behaviroal codes in the country.

  • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

    It’s not so much: “The homosexuals are shoving their agenda down their throats,” as it is the judicial branch of our government interpreting laws within the framework of our constitution, which these yahoos are neither qualified nor paid to do.
    A Sherriff’s only role is to enforce written laws not legislate or interpret laws.

    • Christopher Foxx

      But don’t ya know? “Activist” is one of those irregular nouns, don’t ya know.

      As in “When your justices and sheriffs follow the Constitution they’re ‘activists’, but when mine trample it they’re ‘upholders of the constitution’!” according to conservatives.

    • IrishGrrrl

      Well, to be fair, Sherriffs must implement the law and that requires the use of discretion which can get fuzzy….like a cop deciding not to give you a ticket when you are caught speeding…..but gay marriage goes way, way, way beyond discretion….there’s nothing to enforce EXCEPT to perhaps force any county licensing authority who refuses to issue a marriage license to do so. And that is rare and even rarer that they have to be “forced” via arrest powers. Speaking of, I just heard the other day that a couple of county officials from somewhere, New Mexico, actually quit their jobs rather than issue marriage licenses to LGBT couples. This is exactly what the Sheriffs should do…quit and go do something else (like fellating people that share their views–wait, they probably already do that.). Hopefully we’ll eventually be able to say, “Good riddance to bad rubbish” when they leave/lose their job.

      • Christopher Foxx

        I just heard the other day that a couple of county officials from somewhere, New Mexico, actually quit their jobs rather than issue marriage licenses to LGBT couples.

        Which is fine. They found something they didn’t agree with and decided not to participate. I’ve got ZERO problem with that.

        It’s certainly more upfront and honest than the folks who lie and say more freedom for others is somehow reduces their own freedom.

        • IrishGrrrl

          Yep, I’m okay with telling them, “don’t let the door hit you on the way out!”

    • muselet

      True, in a sane universe.

      However, these loons have allowed themselves to be convinced that county sheriffs are not only the supreme law enforcement authority in the country, but that sheriffs—not the courts—have the authority and duty to determine the constitutionality of laws. It’s an insane interpretation of the insane super-duper-special Righty Constitution that only has the Second and Tenth Amendments and was written to ensure this was a Christian nation.


  • Christopher Foxx

    The homosexuals are shoving their agenda down our throats,”Former Graham County, Ariz., Sheriff Richard Mack said at the meeting

    as he worked to shove his own agenda down the throats of his fellow citizens.

  • IrishGrrrl

    It’s a shame someone doesn’t shove a copy of the Constitution and all of the relevant case law down their throats. I’m so sick of the “rights for me but not for thee” crowd.

    • Christopher Foxx

      If asked, and pressed for a real answer, to the question “What are you unable to do because gays/lesbians are now able to marry?” the ONLY answer they would be able to come up with would be “Discriminate.”

      There is no just or rational reason for denying consenting adults of any orientation the right to marry. They don’t want to allow it because it somehow offends them? So another good question: “Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to not be offended?”