see infra ¶ 35, we should not force such changes on the legislature by judicial mandate. 15 . The dissent posits that equitable adoption may represent the wishes of some decedents and may not prolong all estate proceedings. See infra ¶¶ 47-48. But this hedging is significant; it ultimately supports the conclusion that equitable adoption adds uncertainty and complexity to the intestacy scheme. Justice DURHAM, dissenting: 4[ 34 I disagree with the majority's conclusion that it is "impossible" to follow both the doctrine of equitable adoption and Utah's version of the Uniform Probate Code (Probate Code o n the basis of policy, they are responsible for determining the constitutionality of challenged statutes. See, e.g., Gallivan v. Walker, 2002 UT 89, ¶¶ 64, 83, 54 P.3d 1069 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, courts can call the attention
holding the statutory scheme of two federal laws was not void for vagueness and did not violate equal protection or due process even though the defendants conduct violated both laws holding that an amendment to the colorado constitution that repealed all local and statewide laws prohibiting sexualorientation discrimination violated the federal equal protection clause holding that central assessment by the unit method of valuation did not violate the equal protection clause of the united states constitution or the uniform operation of laws provision in the utah constitution holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause holding that the multicounty signature requirement for initiatives violated the uniform operation of laws clause and the federal equal protection clause