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

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Saint George, UT

thank God that States rights are finally being talked about! doma should never have been supported because it has always been a state issue. this is not defending discrimination; This is defending what is moral, right, and for the future of our state. Utah needs to send a message that families are to be defended and that marriage is to be defended at any cost. if Utah citizens don't have enough courage to defend the tmarriage, what else is worth defending?

Salt Lake City, UT

'I support traditional marriage and am willing to do whatever it takes, including financial contributions, to allow Utah to preserve traditional marriage.'

Then you, pay for it.

I should not have to pay my tax dollars…to deny me the 1,100+ legal rights and protections in marriage.

$2 million dollars on legislation that will fail like Prop 8 and DOMA.

While 1.3 million people are cut from unemployment.

The people who claim 'family values' are showing the have…none.

bountiful, ut

Wasted money.... I can think of 2 million other things the money could be better spent on! Come on state... If you had a splinter of a chance to beat this thing you already would have... Just let it go! Just suck it up and move on... Just let it be until Election 2014 and put it up for a vote... Initiative 2014 "Should the state spend one penny on overturning the judges ruling, or, does it accurately reflect how the vote would go if Amendment 3 was on the ballot this year?" Get our statewide opinion on the matter before you just go and blow more money that you don't have the right to foolishly waste on tattered dreams that we didn't agree to it being wasted on!

Cottonwood Heights, UT

No expense is too great in defending what is morally right.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

The people on the wrong side of history are just wasting more taxpayer money.
You guys lost, move on. There is absolutely no legal argument to prohibit gay marriage.
None at all.

Northwest Reader
Vancouver, WA

It is right to fight for and spend on sustaining morals, apparently there are many who don't think that way though.

Salt Lake City, UT

The question is "is this worth it?" My answer would be "I don't know." I have no problem with two people of the same gender marrying. I think that is great. But there are concerns about children being brought into that marriage, and the circumstances of that, particularly the manner of conception. Will we see lots more donated sperm conceptions or donated egg conceptions or hired womb conceptions? Will children thus conceived have no knowledge of their biological parents? This is potentially a deal breaker as far as I am concerned. I have known adoptees who have struggled mightily to find their biological parents - it is a human need.

Going forward the needs of children are paramount and I think we have ignored them in large part, concentrating on the rights of the would be marital partners (real rights).

Maybe it is time to slow down a bit.

Jason Williams
Los Angeles, CA

I will give the Attorney General of Utah free legal advice. Give up! Let me repeat. The courts have ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental right. The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal rights. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry, therefore, is illegal/unconstitutional discrimination. At the risk of sounding insulting, it is hard to believe that Mr. Perez graduated from honors from the University of California law school since he does not appear to have the basic knowledge of our federal constitution that a high school U.S. government students possesses. I hope he and the Republican leaders in the state legislature are not just trying to placate Utah voters by misleading them to think that the state can obtain a stay to Judge Shelby's ruling and that the ruling will be evewntually overturned by a higher court. There is my free advice. It did not cost the state of Utah $2 million.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

So where are the morals in ignoring those kids living on the poverty level while spending millions on fighting a legal ruling when your side has no valid argument?
Is that 'morally right?'

Jason Williams
Los Angeles, CA

How is spending $2 million to retain outside counsel in the hopeless attempt to stay Judge Shelby's decision going to help restore integrity to the Attorney General's Office? It calls into question Mr. Perez's knowledge of the basics of U.S. constitutional law. I would certainly think that he studied the U.S. Constitution in law school at the University of California. I will say it again. Most any high school U.S. government student has studied the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Further, students of government know that - in the long run when legally challenged - voters cannot vote away fundamental rights. The Attorney General just need consult a U.S. government teacher or high school student. I am sure they will advise him for free.

Nanook of the North
Phoenix, AZ

@DN Subscriber - "Just because men in black robes make something legal, that does not make it right or moral." Oh, indeed. Like handing the 2000 election to Bush, or ruling that it's OK to let rich "kingmen" buy our elections to stifle the voice of "We the People", or that it's OK for a corporation to destroy evidence even when they know they're under investigation (Arthur Andersen v US), or that it's OK for police to use evidence they've seized even when their entry into a home is illegal and unconstitutional (Hudson v Michigan), or that a state can't ban the sale of violent video games to children (Brown v Entertainment Merchants Assn.), or.... Yeah, you bet, SCOTUS has made LOTS of rulings that I'd say were "wrong" or "immoral"/"amoral". But hey, that's their job, 'cause a 224-year-old piece of parchment says so. Remember, the definition of "right" or "moral" varies from American to American, and you'll never find one definition that satisfies all 300-plus-million citizens.

Miss Piggie
Phoenix, AZ

"The courts have ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental right. The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal rights."

It's nice to see that you agree that polygamists can marry, that a fifty year old father can marry his 12 year old daughter, that siblings can marry, and many, many other combinations of human relationships can marry. I think you're onto something. Don't give up... keep lugging this idea.

American Fork, UT

It is not fair use of our tax dollars to go through the motions of opposing the constitution of the United States to arrive back where we are today. Utah may not deprive citizens of their rights at my expense. Indeed, Utah may not deprive anyone of their rights at anyones' expense. They're rights, not wishes by a few. If health care, transportation and education have left sufficient funds available to fight this unnecessary, lost cause, we need to demand answers as to why.

Erda, UT

I love the hypocrisy of the so-called budget hawks. They only care about spending when it's done by someone who isn't a Republican. Utah may yet be to gay marriage what Selma was to integration. In any case, gay people are still going to exist; they're still going to live together and have relationships, and they're going to continue to do it in Utah, whether you like it or not. Marriage licenses aren't going to change that. On the other hand, they will guarantee legal benefits for committed same-sex couples. Hospital visitation, automatic inheritance rights, joint taxes, shared insurance policies, equal taxes. You can still keep your self-righteous "they're not real marriages" attitude and whisper about it at church. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to enjoy the same lives he had before. Those of us who are gay will just have the benefit of a little extra security.

Sacramento, CA

@Sasha Pachev;
Then if you support "traditional" marriage, which one? Arranged marriage? Wives, concubines, husband? What tradition? Just pick your favorite. If you mean a man and a woman, do that, and I'm sure no one else will mind. But can Utah really afford the money to make sure no one else has a choice of whom to marry--unless they marry your way?

Syracuse, UT

This will be worth every penny. The State should fight this tooth and nail. It has much less to do with gay rights than with states' rights. All states should join this battle. There is no reason why Utah should fight it alone.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

You need more than the best lawyers money can buy to win a case.

So far, nobody in Utah has been able to articulate an argument in favor of preventing same sex marriage that doesn't contain the words God, Jesus, Bible, Children or Tradition. And, you can't use any of those words in a court of law in this case. Here's why:

1) Religious rationales are not acceptable when setting secular law. Our Constitution forbids it.

2) Child-bearing is neither restricted to married couples nor a condition of marriage, so that leaves that out, since neither nature nor the law cooperates in that idealized vision. Babies don't check their parents' marriage certificates before popping out. And, we don't revoke marriage certificates for failing to have any.

3) Which leaves Tradition. Discriminating because it's a tradition to discriminate is insufficient justification for discriminating. (cf Slavery, Apartheid, Poll Tax, and Women's Suffrage.)

Articulate a secular argument that hasn't been destroyed in court already and you could win this case with a paralegal. Without that, though, it's wasteful political showmanship.

Salt Lake City, UT

'But there are concerns about children being brought into that marriage…'

We have been over this.

"In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are NOT markedly different from those of heterosexual parents.'

'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 2002, pp. 339-340 - Published: 02/01/10


I also have link from the American Academy of Pediatrics, however I doubt the moderators would allow it.

In 2013 there has never been evidence that SSM does any factual harm.

No harm?

No foul.

Liberty For All
Cedar, UT

I think once Utah realizes that the Proclamation to The Family in jeopardy, taxpayers will contribute the same amount of money ($20 million) that we did in California to defend the family. The AG should hire the best lawyers and seek guidance from the legislature and the Southerland Institute.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

Taxpayers will spend whatever it takes, civilization as we know it could very well be at stake. This is a legal battle that MUST be won.

to comment

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