Comments about ‘Appeals court declines to issue stay that would halt gay marriages in Utah’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 24 2013 5:20 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT

The 10th Circuit court says there will not be a stay. Keep calm and marry on.


Hey, guess what? 10th Circuit denied the emergency almost an hour ago. And they've directed an expedited review of the appeal which means another big fat NO.

Springville, UT

Honestly? There is no confusion whatsoever. This is nothing but disobedience of the law. Call it for what it is.

Layton, Utah

After reading the stay request document, I have to admit that the state's arguments were not very compelling. And if the stay request was rejected by a conservative 10th Circuit, the chances of getting a stay from a liberal Sonia Sotomayor (who is the one assigned to the 10th Circuit) is extremely remote.

Syracuse, UT

It would be nice if courts processed other cases just as fast...

Madison, AL

Richard Shelby is a US Senator for the state of Alabama.

mid-state, TN

I hope the recalcitrant county clerks get cited for contempt. And I'm thrilled that at least one couple has already filed suit against a clerk who refused to give them a license.

Gay marriage is now Utah law, people. Get used to the idea.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

Opponents of marriage equality in particular, and civil rights generally, WILL be overcome!

Congratulations to our fellow citizens for whom equality has been long sought.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA


They keep making the same argument and are disappointed when they get the same result.

The other problem is they failed to file for a stay before the order came out. By the time they filed the paperwork, Gay marriages had already taken place. Its pointless to ask for a stay when the status quo has already changed. This raises serious questions about the defense team the AG's Office assembled. While I am delighted with the Judge's ruling, I think its only fair to suggest Utah needs far better representation in Court than this.

Big Bubba
Herriman, UT

I think many of these people are caught up in the moment. They jumped the gun and got married just because a judge overruled the voice of the majority in Utah. Divorce lawyers are going to be busy next year.


I've heard some people want to move to Salt Lake City because gay marriage is now the law. This is definitely a culture shift that a portion of the State's population will have to digest slowly.

open minded
Lehi, UT

Apparently our Constitution is working. Due process has been followed. Utah is losing this legal battle. Perhaps they should not have tried to be proactive and outlaw Gay marriage with an additional amendment. If Utah hadn't passed this amendment they wouldn't even have this as an issue. They knew it would be fought in court and yet passed it anyway. I'm glad Utah couldn't leave it alone and now all citizens of Utah have the right to marry.

Potsdam, 00

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The game is on, what goes around Washington comes around.
The meaning of the law is not up to the peope anymore, it has been stopped.
Next election the last chance to beam out.

Salt Lake City, UT

@Big Bubba
A lot of these couples have been together half a dozen to dozens of years unable to marry because of the laws here and thinking they shouldn't have to go to another state to get a marriage license.

Missoula, MT

Traditional civil rights laws and court rulings made sense because it covered discrimination based on race and sex which are immutable traits. The courts have now expanded equal protection and due process to cover a lifestyle choice (homosexuality) that does not affect others. Well we might as well continue down the slippery slope and declare polygamy between consenting adults a right. After all, the state can no longer legislate based on moral disapproval.

truth in all its forms
henderson, NV

Hey Utah 3rd times a charm.

mid-state, TN

@BigBubba --

"Divorce lawyers are going to be busy next year."

So far, the divorce rate for gay couples appears to be roughly half of the divorce rate for straight couples.

Perhaps straight couples could learn something here.

"In the states with available data, dissolution rates for same-sex couples ...ranges from 0% to 1.8% annually, or 1.1% on average, whereas 2% of married different-sex couples divorce annually."
-- from "Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States", published in 2011 by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law.

Phoenix, AZ

@open minded: "Apparently our Constitution is working."

Which Constitution, State or Federal? The Federal Constitution says nothing about marriage... And the repeal of DOMA simply means marriage is to be determined/defined not by federal by by state governments. And the State of Utah did define marriage... as between one man and one woman.

All the US Constitution (14th Amendment) says about the issue is: 'No state... shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

And what does the State of Utah's laws say about marriage? That it is to be between one man and one woman. As for equal protection... all, ALL citizens are protected in selecting someone to marry... that they select someone of the opposite sex. It does not say that gays can marry someone of their sex. It does not say polygamists can marry. It does not say that children can marry. It clearly says that all citizens of the state can marry by choosing someone of the opposite sex.

If it turns out that Utah's prohibition of gay marriage is incorrect, the state is obliged to also allow all other types of marriages that can be conjured.

Mr. Bean
Phoenix, AZ

"If you are under 18 and you are sexually assaulted by an adult..."

If the adult and 'child' are legally married (and they should be if gays can marry) it is not sexual assault. Further, the government has no business being involved in the conduct in peoples' bedrooms.

@Bob K:
"With BYU and a VERY conservative population it provides a buffer from Salt Lake Valley which is going to deteriorate significantly with this ruling."

Salt Lake is prophesied to be one of the wickedest cities in the world. The Judge's ruling is a giant step.

@sid 6.7:
"He did what he was supposed to do and ruled in favor of ALL man"

He did not rule in favor of polygamists, group marriages, pedophile marriages, sibling marriages, father/daughter marriages, mother/son marriages, etc. He has more work to do.

"States won't be allowed to continue ignoring the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution for very much longer."

If you're licensed to operate a motor vehicle in California do you have to re-license when you move to Utah. Yes. What happened to the 'full faith and credit clause?

Al Thepal
Salt Lake City, UT

I would be okay with it if the courts would remember that religions and their members are protected under the first amendment to the Constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". But it is appearing, based on a few recent examples, that the liberal judges are largely ignoring the 1st phrase in the 1st amendment to the constitution. For example, if a business owner doesn't want to make a wedding cake because his religion says he should not take part in such weddings, his religious rights should be protected. The ironic thing about the case I am referencing is that both sides admitted that the business owner would happily serve them for any other occasion. But he did not want to violated his religion. The courts unconstitutionally violated his religious rights. Shame on the judges who make such decisions. So if the approach being taken was a balanced approach, I would not have a problem with the LGBT rights movement. Something is wrong when someone's rights get eliminated in order to create rights for someone else. There is a better way.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments