Quantcast

Comments about ‘Price tag for defending Amendment 3 expected to reach $2 million’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Dec. 27 2013 7:40 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
goodnight-goodluck
S.L.C., UT

Two million is a lot of money to waste in a sad attempt to deny the constitutional rights of others.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ PLM

You're right. When the pioneers settled here it was not a part of the United States. But then this crazy thing happened where the Territory of Utah applied for statehood and in 1896 it was granted. Therefore, whatever Utah was when it was settled is completely irrelevant because we are part of the United States now.

I also agree that it's a state's right issue; just like slavery, and segregation were state's rights issues. Amendment 3 will be struck down just like the rest.

Wyomingnative
Wilson, WY

I am a gay man who is also LDS. I served an honorable mission, baptized my amazing father, led my family to the temple and just lived a life of Christian service for a long time. I still do. I also struggled for many years to come to terms with my orientation which includes years of counseling, etc. I finally embraced my orientation & came out of the closet spiritually & blessings came flooding into my life. I felt whole and not broken. I have felt whole ever since that time. I am not a "struggler" who lives a "gay lifestyle" or "the lifestyle" which are incredibly demeaning, passive-aggressive and terribly bigoted labels to give anyone. It's easy to push a minority group into a corner as "the other" to be self-righteously judged. Unfortunately Utah has a sad history. Suicides of LGBT people in Utah abound. The fact is the vast majority of gay people are innately gay & have always been. The majority are heterosexually oriented and always were. I met the man of my dreams and we were married in Connecticut over 2 years ago. We couldn't be happier.

Little Andy
Tremonton, UT

Kind of like closing the gate after the horse gets out..

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

To: Wyomingnative

Thank you for sharing your personal experience. I think you summarized the lives of many of us.

I appreciate particularly your statement: "I finally embraced my orientation & came out of the closet spiritually & blessings came flooding into my life. I felt whole and not broken. I have felt whole ever since that time." I can concur wholeheartedly and thousands of others as well.

You also said, that you lived a life of Christian service and still do. This is the part of those who opposed SSM on religious grounds seem not to understand. God loves and want for all his children to be happy and fully realized as individuals. God has no problem with love on the contrary. I'm sure he delights as we as society are reaching a level of understanding, respect and acceptance of each other.

Thank you for sharing and congratulations in your marriage and on your new found life.

May God bless you and your husband always.

Mexican Ute
mexico, 00

I am against gay marriage, but I don't think that this is a wise use of tax money considering that there are people in favor of and against gay marriage, and using the tax money of those who are for gay marriage in this case would be akin to legalized plunder.

You want to defend Amendment 3? Funnel oontributions to groups that support traditional marriage. You want to defeat Amendment 3 in SCOTUS or another higher court? Funnel money to the appropriate organizations that are in favor of gay marriage.

If Washington for example raised tax dollars in favor of gay marriage, knowing that there are people against it, that would be cause enough for me to protest that equally.

Ranch
Here, UT

All of those clammoring for Utah to spend the tax money - whatever it takes, guess what, some of that money comes from us. The LGBT community; and you're using it to violate our Constitutional rights.

Captain Green
Heber City, UT

Whatever it costs. And there are plenty of good citizens who would voluntarily contribute to pay the legal fees to have this issue settled. It's a shame we have to even fight it... since the majority of Utahans and our Legislature voted overwhelmingly to define traditional marriage for the State. That should be final. That one activist judge thinks he can come in and declare our valid State law null and void, improperly legislating from the bench, is pretty lame.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Captain Green

The majority doesn't get to decide who gets rights. If it could then slavery, segregation, and women not being able to vote would still be a reality. Amendment 3 was not valid because it did not comply with the Constitution of the United States.

digitalcamotim
Council Bluffs, IA

two for flinching---it took a super majority to pass the 13th amendment prohibiting slavery and another super majority to pass the 19th guaranteeing women the right to vote---please study history before making incorrect statements about it

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

digitalcamotim, the point is that if state's were allowed to restrict rights, many places wouldn't have allowed women or Blacks to vote. 12 of the extant 48 states didn't approve the 19th Amendment giving women to vote. Below is the list of the dates when they finally did approve a woman's right to vote -

Florida (May 13, 1969)
South Carolina (July 1, 1969)
Georgia (February 20, 1970)
Louisiana (June 11, 1970)
North Carolina (May 6, 1971)
Mississippi (March 22, 1984)

There were many states that didn't want Blacks to vote nor have mixed race marriages. If the states got to decide, I bet that there would still be a few where mixed race marriages would be illegal. the Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions that marriage is a right. Subjective restrictions on it (race, orientation, religion, etc...) infringe upon that right. This is why Amendment 3 will lose. History and the law say so.

ksampow
Farr West, Utah

Most of these comments miss the point. This appeal is not just about protecting the traditional (God-given) definition of marriage. It is about the rights of the people of Utah to define the institution of marriage. One unelected judge is using his own interpretation of the constitution to quash the tenth amendment - the right of the states and the people to be free from an overly powerful and aggressive federal government.
And by the way, the push for "equality" is misnamed. Anyone is free to enter into marriage, as it has been defined throughout most of history. The radicals want the right to REDEFINE marriage according to their own whims.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

ksampow
Most of these comments miss the point. This appeal is not just about protecting the traditional (God-given) definition of marriage. It is about the rights of the people of Utah to define the institution of marriage. One unelected judge is using his own interpretation of the constitution to quash the tenth amendment - the right of the states and the people to be free from an overly powerful and aggressive federal government.

KJK
Your statement could have been written 50 years ago by someone whose state outlawed mixed-race marriages.

to comment

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