One of every eight people in Utah lives in poverty. and state government would
rather waste $2 million to fight a legal battle against equality? a lost cause?
and do they really have to hire expensive outside lawyers to do this?
aren't state attorneys competent enough?
The party of Fiscal Responsibility strikes again.
RE: the HRC:Two thirds of the state support that expenditure to
fight the judge's decision and don't believe the fund will be used on
the "wrong side of history." Moreover, we believe that state have the
right to determine their own side of history on this issue.
Anything to take money away from our public school children...
I would honestly like to know if supporters of gay marriage would also support
people having multiple spouses. Would you have a problem if a multi millionaire
married 50 men or women as long as they were all consenting?
Let the supporters of Amendment 3 pay to defend Amendment 3.Why
should I pay taxes into something I don't believe in????
Less than 2 dollars a person per Utahn maybe the people that bought the suit
*shrugs*The more this gets bumped up the greater the chance of this ending
in a Supreme Court making same-sex marriage national and it'd be all thanks
to Utah. That'd be rather funny.
Why are people who bought this suit critical in first place? Are they afraid
they will lose and the voice of the people will prevail?
Utah has a great economy (thanks to so many children; children are the key to
wealth and key to future) so with a great economy, I say spend the money on
great attorneys to protect a culture of family and children so the state can
continue to prosper and thrive; Utah is going in the right direction, no need
to change anything right now in history of world, hire the best, spend the
most, and know that most of the Supreme Court believe in state's rights;
Utah will win nine to zero on this one in Supreme Court. The Bible is more
important than the Constitution, it has been around longer and will be around
longer. Religion is more important than politics.
I find it interesting that a good portion of those commenting on Utah's gay
marriage initiative aren't from Utah....
Owlmaster2, Although I do not know your personal beliefs, I am
fairly confident that taxpayer money is regularly used for things that you may
not believe in.
Please don't waste money on this. It would be far better to spend it on
class-size reduction in our schools.
Only a people blinded by self-righteous rage would spend such precious public
money in a feeble attempt to reinstate an unconstitutional law that deprives
fellow citizens of equality before the law.
So we can't fully fund education but we are going to spend 2 million on a
losing cause. There is no way the state of Utah will prevail in this decision.
Wow. I'm a Canadian, and I seem to understand the US Constitution better
than some of the commenters here. "Utah will win nine to zero on this one in
Supreme Court." Uhhh, no, that is NOT going to happen. Marriage has been
determined to be a right by the US Supreme Court (Loving v. Virginia and many
other cases). Rights apply to EVERYBODY, even people you don't like or you
disagree with or you think are sinners. As Rachel Maddow famously said,
"Here's the thing about rights. They're not supposed to be voted
on. That's why they call them rights." I think it's a pretty sad
day when the state that spends the least on its public schools -- and has the
student achievement stats to prove it -- decides to flush $2 million down the
@scientistIn what ways are marriages between heterosexuals and homosexuals
the same thing? They are not equal, and fundamentally unequal from the
Just because men in black robes make something legal, that does not make it
right or moral.Fighting for moral justice is never a waste of money. Spend whatever it takes. If that means less funding for schools, it is
a small price to pay to preserve a better way of life for our children, and
indeed traditional western civilization.
Meanwhile, the school where I teach can't afford a ten-dollar-an-hour aide
for the low-level reading class I teach that's crowded with 7th graders
reading at the 1st and 2nd grade level. Nice job, Utah.
I support traditional marriage and am willing to do whatever it takes, including
financial contributions, to allow Utah to preserve traditional marriage. I
consider it fair use of my tax money to defend our marriage law as we voted for
it. I believe there are enough tax payers in Utah that all our funds combined
will add up to having sufficient to cover the costs of this.
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
'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.
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!
No expense is too great in defending what is morally right.
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.
It is right to fight for and spend on sustaining morals, apparently there are
many who don't think that way though.
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.
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.
@OnlyInUtah: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?'
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.
@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
"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.
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.
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.
@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?
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.
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.
'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-
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP) 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.
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.
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.
See that Court ruling on the Baptist School lately, these things will come to
Utah like dew in the morning, one case after the other.It is good to
wake up.Read that article : “The government doesn’t have
the right to decide what religious beliefs are legitimate and which ones
aren’t,” Eric Rassbach said, Deputy General Counsel at the Becket
Fund for Religious Liberty in a statement. “In its careful opinion, the
Court recognized that the government was trying to move across that forbidden
line, and said 'No further!'Lucky this time, next time,
What a waste of money on a cause that was lost when the supremes ruled. Lets
donate the money to our homeless veterans instead.
Utah spends of least amoujnt of money for education of school children per child
in the United states. How can it afford 2 million or more to try to prop
it's ego of discrimination? Lost cause, gay marriage is here to stay. Utah
will go down in history as the gay marrage capital of the world if they choose
to fight this.
In regards to the actual topic of this thread --I'm all for
Utah spending whatever money they think they need to push this case up the line
to SCOTUS. Heck, my state won't have to pay for it -- and I'm quite
confident that Utah will lose the case.This will be a great case to
establish nationwide same-sex marriage clearly and irrevocably. And it will be
hysterically funny to have Utah to thank for doing it.Go, Utah!
Children deserve a father and a mother, and research overwhelmingly supports how
this benefits our society. We need to wakeup and defend the
"We should be paying for the best and the brightest," Valentine said.
"This is a case that is not only a historic precedent, but it's one
that really goes to the core of what states' rights is all about."
What went to the core of states's rights was the confederacy - note the
appropriate small c. It lost as will the haters in this case. Explain to me
again why this money needs to be spent? How will spending this money help people
Lots of poor, needy sick and afflicted that money would otherwise help.
This is not a case that we will win. Regardless of individual feelings on the
issue, we should not spend taxpayer money defending traditional marriage.
Certainly, some firm will take the case and tell us that they can help Utah
defend traditional marriage. I just don't think that is possible any more.
It would be interesting to see a scientific poll done today to see how people
would vote on this issue. Even if Utah were to win with the Supreme Court
eventually, I think the voters of the state would be likely to overturn such a
decision fairly quickly.
Jason - It is Reyes, not Perez.
Even if Utah can stop same-sex marriage in Utah, it is still legal in other
states, and WashDC. And Utah has to recognize all marriages performed in all
other states. See Williams v. North Carolina, 1940.If individual
Utahns want to contribute to this losing cause they should do so.The
fight to stop gay marriage, is a "jihad". And it is a losing cause.
@OnlyInUtah 10:55 p.m. Dec. 27, 2013No expense is too great in
defending what is morally right.------------------------In that case you will be contributing to the defense of Judge Shelby's
decision, because trying to deny people their right to marriage -- a fundamental
right, which makes it a Ninth Amendment Constitutional right -- is in no way
moral or right. (Let me remind you of what the Ninth Amendment says -- "The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the people.")Let the people
who want to fight Judge Shelby's excellent decision contribute to a fund to
pay for the appeal, and let the State spend its money on things that really
matter and which do not attack the fundamental rights of the people of this
I can only repeat what has been said before me. Spending money to hurt citizens
who only want legal equality is wrong. Marriage is a legal commitment that
provides certain rights. It is not a Religious issue unless you want to take
the license to a church and have a ceremony. Both should be beyond the reach of
a Government that says it wants to stay out of everyon's life (unless it is
in the bedroom).
Am I the only one that thinks this should be put to a state vote of some kind?
Two million dollars (certainly a low-end estimate) is a lot of tax dollars to
spend on one small group's religious convictions. Almost certain to lose,
are "we" just trying to be the nation's martyrs?Utah,
get off the hate train!
It all begins to add up.Countless millions wasted by payday loans
who screw over young and desperate people. Then, it is found that our former AG
was in her with these payday loan folks... And others... So the state uses
millions with that debacle. Then, swallow waits intil a certain date so the
state must now pay him $12k every year for the rest of his life.Millions wasted on message bills for federal land.Millions wasted
on fighting gay marriage.No wonder why we don't have money for
schools. Instead of the state lying and saying that the money isn't there.
I wish they would just come out and admit, the money is there but we would
rather spend it on frivolous lawsuits than on our kids!
As if our taxes weren't high enough already..Similar to jp3, I
work for a school district, due to budget cuts they reduced hours and took away
insurance on the Special Education assistants.Because worrying about
what people do in their bedrooms is much more important than educating children.
Oh listen to the whiners now complaining about Utah spending money to assert its
rights as a state! "Let the people who want this pay for it" Well, they
are. The majority of Utahns will be in favor of pressing this to the Supreme
Court so the issue of State's Rights vs Civil Rights can be reviewed. While
the hot potato is gay marriage, the issue is larger in that a single federal
judge can throw out a state law based on his interpretations. So of course
it's going to be pushed to the highest court. And Utah is the state to do
it, win or lose. The price tag could be 10 or 100 times higher and it would
still be worth it...and if need be private citizens would step up to pay for it
directly. While there are some in Utah who are gay and some who support them, I
believe that the majority of Utahns are busy with their lives and not consumed
with the gay marriage issue because they'd prefer not to think about it.
But wake the sleeping giant and you will find tremendous opposition to the
sinful gay lifestyle, married or not.
Bravo House Speaker Becky Lockhart and other GOP representatives and Sean Reyes!
Thank you for standing up for the voice of the majority of the people of the
state of Utah. This will be money well spent so that we can have our voice
heard and not be drowned out by the voice of the gay community who is intolerant
to the view of others when it comes to traditional family values. Lets spend as
much money as necessary to have our voice heard. If more is needed let all of
us who are concerned about the erosion of family values contribute millions more
for this worthy cause!!
To all outsiders, it's not your money so back off. BTW, I have children
and grandchildren living in Utah so I actually have a serious vested interest.
Private dollars may well pay the legal tab so give it a rest already. Sodomy is
still sin, no black robes can change that.
@higv I am sick of spending good money after bad, so I got a
proposition they can have their 2 million plus a bonus million if they win if
they lose they get nothing. You will find no takers because they now the odds.
It's time the state of Utah stool lining the pockets of the friends
defending bills they know are not defendable.
The AG and Governor, and most reasonable people, know there is nearly zero
change of Amendment 3 surviving. All this is is political grandstanding and a
HUGE campaigning platform, for all the hardliners, all at the expense of Utah
Those of us looking in from outside Utah recognize this strategy of bringing in
outside help to keep LGBT people from gaining equal marriage rights. It was Utah
and her Mormons who went outside their state to help fund the campaign for Prop
8 in California. So...sure...Utah sees nothing wrong with bringing outsiders
into its own state to help against equality for LGBTs in Utah. Same strategy.
Money is no object. After all, it's important to oppress minorities.
I am tired of the Deseret News giving the proponents of redefining marriage a
victory by allowing them to use their biased and hate inspiring rhetoric in
defining their cause. There is a reason why the shooting most associated with
this case is of people at the Family Research Council. The rhetoric of those in
favor of redefining marriage is the type of rhetoric that does not recognize
that opponants have valid arguments or valid thoughts, and leads to violence and
death.Those of us who support man/woman marriage recognize its
continuance is centered on its definition as an institution primarily focused on
making as much child rearing as possible done by committed biological parents,
and to do this it needs a form that can create children, not cases on the
ground, but a form that looks to that. We understand that if you redefine
marriages purposes its scope will change. Those who advocate its redefinition
seem to blindly call us bigots instead of focusing on what we actually think. It
continues to be frustrating.
Religiously I do not agree with homosexuality. As an American I do not see how
this will be overturned legally therefore I would have to say this is a waste of
tax payers money. We all saw prop 8 get overturned in California. There is
enough cases of other states and gay marriage that the courts views has been
set. The only thing this lawsuit will do is take it to the supreme court, once
that happens and they rule in favor of gays. The remaining states that oppose it
will be forced to make it legal, thus speeding up the gay agenda.
Whose "equality"? That's the cost of maintaining the 10th
Amendment, required now I guess, against a usurpation of the federal court!
This is a wise move. To defend the state constitution on special issues, the
state needs people specialized in that specific issue. Reyes is not an expert on
marriage and family law, and bringing in outside counsel to help is a wise
"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 love that these straw man and slippery slope arguments keep
getting brought up. Newsflash: all of those things listed already fit your own
"one man, one woman" definition of marriage. They are closer to what
you advocate than they are to same-sex marriage.
Please don't waste my tax dollars on this nonsense. I own my home in Eden,
Utah, I'm a life long Republican, I work and live in Weber County, and I
don't want my tax dollars wasted on a hurtful, and bigoted lawsuit. Please
spend the millions, this lost cause will cost, on Education.
This forum is a magnet for every GLBT activist in the country it seems. Like a
union rally in front of the capital building, they gather here; shout their
cause; and try to give the impression that everyone else thinks just like they
do and that if you disagree with their cause, then you must be stupid, bigoted,
or a Neanderthal.Meanwhile, the majority of the citizens who
disagree with them spend their time with their families, their jobs, and go
about their daily lives. I think the number of people who think homosexual
behavior is wrong and don't think we should rewrite all the marriage laws
to suit their "preferences" is still greater than the GLBT crowd. The
majority in this case is just not as vocal as the minority.
This is not a states rights issue but a human rights issue. It would be easier
for the state to pass a law that banned marriage for everyone than to protect a
law that bans marriage for just same-sex couples. You see, it's all about
whether the it's a law enacted for all or just a segment of the population.
If the law only applies to a segment of the population, then it will most likely
be determined to be unconstitutional. Go ahead and tell your
neighbors, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins that you really
don't believe they don't deserve the same rights you already have? I think the swiftness of the judgments and denials of stays so far
should be enough to show everyone how this case is going to end. Let's stop
wasting the money now.
Perhaps a case of poetic justice if Utah wastes more millions in a futile
attempt to hold off the inevitable after messing around with the rights of
Californians (and participating in efforts that blatantly appealed to prejudice)
during the Prop. 8 campaign. Though I hope more and more Utahns will choose to
celebrate rather than lament the clear joy on the faces of the newly married
couples throughout your beautiful state, as well as the joy on the faces of
their children, friends, and loved ones. Equality is a good thing!
'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.' And how did that
go….? *’Prop 8 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit
court’ – by Michael De Groote – Deseret News –
02/07/12 With the advance of SSM in Utah, many of my LDS friends
(Yes, I have many) are asking themselves…. 'what could
all that money have done?' Well? How many hungry could $20
million have fed? But no. Let's 'worry about the
gay's.' This shows a fundamental shift. That many are
willing to literally sacrifice the poor and needy… over a
political agenda. Marriage equality presents no harm to society. I
have already cited the American Academy of Pediatrics report of the
'harm' of SSM marriage. Which, FYI, was none. Zero Zilch.
Nadda. Goose egg. So until those against marriage equality can show
any actual harm? They will continue to loose in court. Only being able to cite
their beliefs… as reasons to factually oppress, others.
A Quaker nails it. Fighting this is a waste of time. Just because it, arguably,
reflects some aspect of Utah's morals, history, or traditions doesn't
mean we have any good arguments that will stand up against a Constitutional
challenge. We should fold up our tents, go home, and be happy that several
thousand people have joined the ranks of the married. Oh, and if you
don't know any gay or lesbian folks, find some and get to know them.
You'll discover they are normal human beings. If you can't shut out of
your mind the things they may do behind closed doors, that's your problem,
I may not be from Utah, but there's no doubt that this case will have
national repercussions to be felt for decades. The growing influence of
extremely liberal, agenda-driven activist judges who consistently strike down
laws which are clearly the wishes of a great majority of the people, must be
halted. Otherwise, we may as well not bother voting in the future.
@JoeCapitalist2"I think the number of people who think homosexual
behavior is wrong and don't think we should rewrite all the marriage laws
to suit their "preferences" is still greater than the GLBT crowd.
"In Utah yes, nationally no. Polls show pretty clear 52-45 type
margins for same-sex marriage for the latter.
Nan nook of the north: Your claim not only is silly, but does't is utterly
lacking in Constitutional law or reason. according to your hero's
definition, Anyone could claim a "right" and think it is validated just
because they think it. Let's see, I guess we will have re-evaluate
polygamy, prostitution, incest, and a host of other ills because I can find
someone that supports them and wishes they were rights too. if the states
invalidate it, our Constitution says they have the right. if it happens to be
wrong, that is the great thing about a diverse, pluralistic society, isn't
it? or does your diverse society only work one way?
pagan: your missing one fairly sizeable study that was written thousands of
years ago. It was called the Ten Commandments! your man driven studies will
hardly make a dent in His understanding of human nature. I feel most pity for
the women who are left without partners because a certain group of males refused
to live up to what it means to be son of God. sad, indeed!
@Eye GuyWe ALREADY had a vote--67%--and we know how that went.
This is the wrong battle. I would spend money on this lawyer to fight the ruling
that NSA spying is justified and the fact that we literally have no 4th
amendment anymore thanks to the NSA spying, NDAA and the patriot act. If you
they really want to damage the supreme court and get people impeached, they
should be fighting that instead.
Historically, Utah has been in the middle of the fight on many U S social
changing issues. Utah was the first state to grant women a vote. Utah was the
state that finalized and caused the ratification of the 18th amendment,
outlawing liquor, Utah was the state that finally ratified the 20th amendment
bringing back the right to sell liquor. Utah was the state that ratified, and
then took back its ratification, ending the Equal Rights Amendment.This article is not gung ho and we must prevail. No, what I read is a since
that, once again, Utah has been thrust into the middle of this national battle.
There is a sense of history again. I believe that Utah may be the state that
turns this debate into national action. The Utah case could be the case that
makes gay marriage legal or illegal in all 50 states.
toshi1066 said: "Because worrying about what people do in their bedrooms is
much more important than educating children."Personally,
I'm worried that some people want to educate my children that what goes on
in same-sex bedrooms is, and I quote, "normal and natural".That is ultimately what is at stake here.
A 2 million dollar price tag for defending what is legally right. Actually,
there is a name for it. It is called a "SLAPP" suit. This is when the
opposition does not seek justice and try to intimidate those in the right with
monetary considerations. I'm betting that those that sued are being handled
by some national organization for gratis.
Various points:1st Point:to Mom of SixYou wrote: "I
find it interesting that a good portion of those commenting on Utah's gay
marriage initiative aren't from Utah...."You shouldn't
underestimate the implications of this ruling. As a member of the LDS church and
as an LGBT is extremely important to me, regardless where in the WORLD I
reside,how UT and the LDS church will respond.2nd PointI find
Mr. Reyes request interesting:1.- If the case fails, he can claim he was
not leading the legal team.2.- How Utah can hire an AG who cannot hit the
ground running?3rd PointIf Utah spent $ 20 million dollars in
Prop 8 in CA it shouldn't be bother by outside intervention.4th
PointUtah should learn:"Insanity: doing the same thing over and
over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein. 5th Point The Holy Inquisition was protecting the church and the world
from heresy. Their cause was as just as your crusade against equal rights for
LGBT.Last Point:It seems that Utah doesn't have much
money. But if you are convinced is the right thing to do . By all means do it.
There is a very serious moral argument here, but all the commenters who've
mentioned the word "morals" so far have missed it.This is
the moral issue of political corruption. What do you suppose the direct outcome
of the state government hiring expensive outside legal counsel will be?
Political donations! Big law firms granted special work by governors and the
like always turn around and support their campaigns for reelection. If the
people of Utah demanded that any firm (or firm's PAC, or any partners
thereof) hired by the state should be prohibited from providing any political
donations to any state party or officers for a period of 10 years, you could
have some assurance that this wasn't just a political scam for personal
gain.Because, that's pretty much all this is.
The Wizard of Oz...That is probably the name of the law firm that
Utah's legislators will select for the $2 million sinkhole of spending
STATE FUNDS to defend this legal battle into the Supreme Court.Any
attorney can take on a case, but no one can guaranty the results!Over $20 million from out of state donors was used to defend marriage in
California, without a single valid argument of who would be injured by SSM.Yet Utah's legislators feel both confident & necessary to pull
a rabbit out of a hat, in this current attempt to have SCOTUS abolish gay
marriage in Utah.Whose interests are really being served by turning
to outside attorneys?THE CASH LINED POCKETS OF THE WIZARD OF OZ!Let the spending of Utah's tax revenues commence in building that
yellow brick road.
@JoeCapitalist2Glad there is at least one other person that
recognizes this most obvious thing you have mentioned.
This funding needs to come out of the prior AGs own funds as he squandered the
office he was elected to and accepted the responsibility almost a year ago. He
was more than a lame duck and his prior boss knew it was happening. They left the State of Utah dangling with a Governor and Lieutenant Governor
in their own problems.
Since 2/3 of the state voted for the amendment, I think that the expenditure to
see that the peoples will is defended is absolutely important.
I and millions of other would be willing to donate some of our own money for
legal expenses in this case. You call it defending discrimination,
Fair enough.I call it defending recognition and distinction of coitus over
other types of social bonds.
@owlmaster2 For the same reason I have to pay for Obamacare, I suppose.
Sounds like a repeat of the expensive fight against the cable tv providers.
Utah and California state legislators have to be the worst in the country. Fix
the declining education problem and forget about tv, marriage and liquor. I
shudder to think how they will react when medical marijuana becomes an issue.
Japan stopped having having babies in early 1990's and their economy
declined for 20 years. Granted, we can't force people to have babies;
yet wisdom is is to invest in traditional family and Christian community.
Christianity has grown to 2 billion by unity and community and morality. We
can all disagree with art and science and math and philosophy and poetry and
technology and dance and literature; let us all agree on what the prophets
Peter and Paul taught, which is the greatest story in the world: the family and
children and linking the generations.
@Fred44 When half of Utah's budget is already going towards public
education, and Utah is currently spending around $13 billion on public education
in FY2013, it is really hard for somebody to think about it logically and get
upset over $2 million.To put things into a perspective that is
probably easier for most people to think about, it would be like having
$13,000.00 and getting upset over losing $2.00.
I have an idea... Those who wish to waste money on this go ahead and donate to
that cause.For the rest of us taxpayers who would like this money to
be spent on education or given back to us, let it happen.Personally,
I'm tired of this state's politicians wasting my hard earned tax
On the subject of the 10th Amendment to the constitution, the Supreme court said
in 1911 that:"Among the powers of the state not
surrendered--which powers therefore REMAIN with the state-- is the power to so
regulate the relative rights and duties of all within its jurisdiction as to
GUARD the public MORALS, the public safety, and the public HEALTH, as well as to
promote the public convenience and the common good"Thomas
Jefferson wrote that "I believe the states can best govern our home concerns
and the federal government our foreign ones, I wish to see maintained that
wholesome distribution of powers established by the Constitution for the
limitation of both; and never to see all offices transferred to
Washington."Does the fact, that Wall Street Bankers receive a
percentage on all Federal debt/bonds, have anything to do with their laundering
their money through elite tax exempt foundations which promote the subversion of
America's christian values?The States have to operate on a
budget and don't have a federal reserve that can create money on credit.
Nanook o' the North:This is not a question of individual
rights. The discrimination spoken of in this case is not directed to
individuals. It is regarding a type of social bond. Where is that specified in
1. Does the "outside council" think there is any realistic hope the
appeal will succeed? Don't the taxpayers have a right know the answer to
that question before they decide if its worth footing the bill?2.
Outsourcing the whole thing to the Sutherland Institute is an interesting idea.
Who do they plan to bring in as lead attorney in the case? William Jennings
If necessary, I'm willing to donate to the cause and I'm a school
Like fighting for Prop. 8 was a waste of time, so it will be for Utah. When
judges decide against 80% of the population for the lifestyle of less than 5%
something went wrong in our country. Voting rights for women, civil rights for
minorities was a worthy cause. Rights for those with same gender attraction,
then to grant them the title of marriage shows the direction of a society
without bounds or limits. This has not been a good week for Utah.
@Baccus0902: 'Utah should learn: "Insanity: doing the same thing over
and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein.'It seems to have worked for the pro-gay crowd. Did they give up after
the first 100 or so laws supporting traditional marriage passed? Did they stop
filing lawsuits in just about every jurisdiction in the country after the courts
continually rejected their arguments? Did they take NO for an answer after the
voters turned down every single gay marriage ballot initiative in the
country?They continually filed frivolous lawsuits and claimed
made-up "rights" until they got a few activist judges to rule their way.
Now they expect the other side to roll over and play dead - "game over",
"give up", they say.They now claim to have so much concern
over the cost to keep fighting this issue. Where was their concern over the
costs they imposed on government by their lawsuits. What hypocrisy!
Perhaps the state should first look to the Church to fund it since state funding
advances no legitimate state interest. It is obvious that the state will lose
this case since the state can't prove how allowing same-sex marriage will
objectively harm others (and no, being offended is NOT objective harm..no one
has a right to NOT be offended). The plaintiffs, however, CAN show that they
ARE objectively harmed by the law. The law allows marriages performed in other
states, which can't be performed in Utah, to be accepted by Utah...except
for same-sex marriages. This is an inconsistency driven only by animus. It is
also a violation of the Full Faith & Credit clause. the state
has no business funding a law or a lawsuit defending a law that exists solely to
promote subjective morality. Promoting subjective morality is the job of
religion. that's what I did on my mission. If the Church wants to fund
it, that's one thing (though the Church has no legal standing here), but
the taxpayers should be spared this waste of money.
"Marriage has been determined to be a right by the US Supreme Court (Loving
v. Virginia and many other cases). Rights apply to EVERYBODY."Marriage is a right that applies to everybody?? Does that mean polygamists can
marry? Does that mean siblings can marry? If not, then marriage is not a
right... but is to be managed by state law. State law, not federal law.Many cite the 14th Amendment to show that the US Constitution requires equal
protection under Federal law, thus gays can marry. But the 14th Amendment
clearly shows that equal protection applies to state law. And the repeal of the
Federal DOMA law confirms that.Do we have equal protection regarding
marriage? No. There are certain classes of US citizens that can't marry
(see above)... including men marrying men, women marrying women, polygamists,
pedophiles, juveniles, siblings, and many other combinations. It's the
states' responsibility and the citizens within each state to make that
call. Not the federal government, and not the courts.If the federal
government or courts can make the call, they have to allow all combinations of
Utah, this is a losing battle:The Constitution explicitly states
that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges and 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 people do not have the power to turn their
"wishes" into laws if those wishes would deny any person equal
protection or due process (14th Amendment). Take some time and read the
court's ruling: there are limits on the people's sovereignty, and
these are laid out in the Constitution. The explicit role of the Judiciary is to
interpret these limits.Also: congrats to all the newlyweds and
College Sports Fan says, Children deserve a father and a mother, and
research overwhelmingly supports how this benefits our society. Please name one child with a father and a mother who will cease to have one
because of marriage equality.
"Paul is the ONLY person in the NT who spoke against homosexual behavior. It
is never mentioned anywhere in the Gospels."Paul was an Apostle,
just as the men who wrote the Gospels."There are many studies
which demonstrate several different harms conveyed by polygamy."There are also known damages in heterosexual marriages (domestic violence).
Are you advocating that heterosexuals not marry?And still further,
the Holy Writ says: "In that day (last) seven women will take hold of one
man and say, we will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us
be called by your name." Isaiah 4:1"There are plenty of
examples of nonhuman same-sex couples 'marrying' (pair bonding and
raising offspring) out in nature. It is, indeed, natural."They
don't 'marry' for life... They're more promiscuous, engaging
with multiple partners. Alot like some unnamed groups conduct their affairs."Additionally, same-sex marriages are known from the very dawn of
written human history."That's likely why Sodom and Gomorrah
fell... and Rome as well.
'Marriage is a right that applies to everybody?? Does that mean polygamists
can marry?' And yet who are the ones fighting for
monogamy… and who are the ones fighting for polygamy? It will never cease to amaze me that LGBT are the ones fighting for life-long
monogamy to one person… and those against citing
'traditional' marriage fail to acknowledge that marriage in Utah
involved more than two people.
How about wse use that money to help fund Medicaid once the 3 year Federal
funding drops to 90%?
@Meckofahess of Salt Lake City, UT"You comment Bravo, Bravo.
Bravo to who? You say that the gay community is intolerant to the view of
others when it comes to the traditional family values.How about you
are your comment are being intolerant to people who are simply seeking equal
rights. If you want to live in a theocratic country, then fine. Go
find a place where you can do that. America was built on ALL MEN BEING CREATED
EQUAL. That means traditional and non-traditional families. That means
STRAIGHT and GAY people! The first person who begins to spout off
that our country was founded by Christians, stop cause you are incorrect. You
are not a founding father and you were not alive when they were. So you
don't have a clue!So Bravo to you Meckofahess for not knowing
how our country or our constitution works to protect all people. Bravo to you
for your poor education.
Since I do not live in the USA and do not understand your system, a question:
Why does a state hire outside lawyers to handle their case. What is wrong with
the Attorney General and his office and people handling it. Don't they know
Didn't the people of Utah learn anything from the Presidential election??
Mitt Romney tried to buy his way into the White House and he lost. Do they
really think that money will get them what they want? I think it's sad.
That money could go to better use. Like education, helping the environment,
things like that. Gay marriage is here to stay and it's in Utah and
it's going to stay in Utah and soon every state in our great country where
we have the right to marry who we love.
Question--is Utah a democratic republic, like the rest of the country, or a
theocracy? Just wondering....
When did a social experiment suddenly become a right? Should we give everyone
rights that tie up the courts long enough? Should we give anyone and everyone
rights as long as two consenting adults are involved? There are limits on what
should be allowed by law to be legal. Personally, I am for traditional
marriage, but I also see the need for civil unions within the gay community.
This would be legally fair to allow for wills, hospital visits etc. However,
many in this community will not stop until they see so called
"equality". Many in this community would also like to force gay
marriage as a so called right making it "equal" to traditional marriage.
Although they may get their way on paper, you can not call an apple an orange
and have it be so.
Pagan likes to cite studies done in favor of gay parents, but there are also
studies out there that say just the opposite. Studies tend to be just as skewed
as politics at times depending on who conducts the study.
For what it's worth, those were human beings in that picture getting
married, not statutes or laws, or bills, or ideas, or even doctrines. They were
flesh-and-blood people. As this subject is being discussed, why not begin with
the fact of the humanity of those about whom the discussion is focused being the
foundation of the discussion? If we do that, I am sure there will be more in
common with the GLBT community and the straight community than many think--if
given the chance to see one another as people instead of political or religious
items in an ideological marketplace. I challenge you who are brave enough...look
at that photograph, open your heart instead of your prejudices, try to see the
human feelings there. And to the LDS--remember, God gave agency, do you have the
right to decide who gets to keep it?
The only conclusion, after reading most of the comments, is that Religion is a
brain-eater. Cheers Utah!!!!
I think Utah's defense of traditional marriage has a distinct advantage
over California's. In Utah, the governor and attorney general are both
supportive of the defense of Amendment 3. In California, both refused to defend
Prop 8.There is no reasonable excuse to avoid defending Amendment 3.
$2M is a negligible amount for such a momentous principle. There is no reason
to believe that the Supreme Court will automatically rule against states'
rights or traditional marriage (California lost on a procedural issue, not the
real issue).The money could easily be raised--even without tapping
into the tax base--and, contrary to what some have written, whether or not Utah
ultimately wins, defending traditional marriage will put them on the RIGHT side
of history.If Utah needs financial help to defend true marriage, I
would be proud to give it.
Over the years there have been lots of 'lost causes' and impossible
battle fronts - including our war for independence. Current trends would urge us
all to just roll over and play dead, as long as we get to continue to have cable
TV, i-pads and cell phones. Sometimes it is worth standing up and fighting for
a principal, in this case, time proven family values.And yes,
we'll get those who stand up and quote how research indicates that there is
no substantial difference for kids being raised in traditional homes vs same-sex
parent homes. I will cling on to such research just as soon as it has been
demonstrated conclusively over thousands of years and with a larger sampling.
My 14 year old daughter told me at 14 years old, she was gay. I have 14 kids
and she is the only one. Mom, returned missionary attempted to kill herself.
Our lives have changed and we had to relearn how to raise children. She hopes
to get married in Utah, her home when the time is right. Hate is easy, love is
hard. The gospel requires hard things. Do I learn to hate this beautiful
daughter, or kindly learn and accept. She has said to when in the past,
"Dad there is no place for me in the mormon church" What could I say??
Utah is under the delusion that if you throw enough money at it, it will work
out in your favor. I'm sure the Old South felt it was a fair use of their
tax money to defend slavery as right, and moral too. What a waste of time and
The helpless little children who have no say in this debate should matter.
Marriage is more than adult selfish desires. Don't the children have a
right to a mom and a dad? The lord is very clear on this, Utah will spend
whatever it takes, and $2million is only the initial part of an open contract to
fund the legal kitty.
Keep Calm and Marry On, Utah!
Mom of SixThe problem is that as well-meaning as people are about
granting equal rights, as you deed them, civil unions, are in and of themselves
not equal.What's in a name?No one ever proposed to
civil union someone else.
Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As
the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of
world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what
he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as
society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no
society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has
survived. Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands
of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology
department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions
that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in
which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of
homosexuality.When marriage loses its unique status, women and
children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships
or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as
the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a
I wonder what the result would be if Amendment 3 was put to a vote today.
Wouldn't this be a good thing to know before you move forward? This
decision to appeal is (ostensibly) relying upon data that is 10 years old.
This is about what the voters voted for. People can couple and no one has
attempted to stop that. Marriage on the other hand is a religious tenant to
most, and only attempting to protect the sanctity of a religious tenant. So no
matter what the out come is, they fought for what they believed to be right.
Therefore, they win no matter what.
The US Supreme Court declared in 1885 that states' marriage laws must be
based on "the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the
union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the
sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best
guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent
progress in social and political improvement."
jp3- Blame parents for not taking responsibility to help their own children.
Also, why aren't the teachers seeking volunteers to help in the classroom?
As a teacher, we do these things to enable us to fulfill our responsibilities in
over crowded classrooms. Gosh and we seem to be able to help a wide variety of
students that need extra help. An aide would be great, but there are ways around
it. But the reality is that, aside from learning disabilities, the number one
reason for student failure would fall into the laps of unsupportive parents.
Sasha says: "I support traditional marriage and am willing to do whatever it
takes, including financial contributions, to allow Utah to preserve traditional
marriage."I don't agree with that sentiment, but I can
understand it. The insurmountable problem is that the chances of Utah's
prevailing on appeal are extremely slim, and we have other, more pressing,
issues to spend our taxpayer dollars on. If there were strong legal arguments
against same-sex marriages, they would have been marshalled in both the DOMA
case and the Amendment 3 case. Under the both our federal and state
constitutions, however, a discriminatory law is unconstitutional unless
there's a strong "rational" basis (i.e., a non-religious reason)
for the discrimination. So far, the opponents of same-sex marriages have not
been able to come up with any scientific reasons for their animus toward gays or
gay marriage. Spending more money on this case will not magically change that.
re: "….Dad there is no place for me in the mormon church" What
could I say??" Man or Woman Up to the hard job of parenting AND teach your
daughter that being an adult is making correct life style choices.
Save the states money. The only ones who benefit from this is Attorney's.
God will be the final judge of marriage in the end.
Just announced, Mormons church accepting openly gay scouts Jan. 1, 2014. We can
love and accept these young men, and train them to be better persons, but we can
not accept their gay parents. What does that say about us????
RE: OnlyinUtahSince you are a supporter of state's individual
rights, how do you feel about states deciding that black people weren't in
fact people? Or that some states thought it was ok to kill a Mormon on site?
They certainly didn't think they were on the wrong side of history on those
issues. Just because a majority feels strongly about something,
doesn't make it right. Stripping away the rights of citizens is one of
those circumstances. Re: SomeClaritysure, why not? Its
none of my business what grown, consenting adults do in their homes and bedrooms
as long as they're not harming anyone. I think what people tend
to forget that just making something illegal doesn't make it go away. Gay
people will still be gay and having homosexual relationships. People who want
more than one partner will still engage in that behavior.
This fight will go on far ever. Who knows what is traditionally now a days. I
am personally feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman but, I am
not willing to contribute my hard money to fight a never ending battle. We have
already voted on this and California has proven that it does not matter what the
majority wants. Judge override there choice any way. Let them marry and save
the time and resources. Chances are they one like once the have anyway.
From todays Washington Post, Who had the worst week......".Social
conservatives, for losing almost every battle over same-sex marriage and then
losing the will to even fight back, you had the worst week ."Save your
2 million and give it to your poorly rated schools.
The state is paying to support the church and not the economy and health of the
state. That sounds very interesting to me.
The taxpayers and voters in Utah voted for that amendment. It is the
state's responsibility to defend it. If the courts would not have acted
outside of their bounds, the state would not need to be spending money to defend
an amendment that was approved by its voters. It is a huge stretch of the 14th
Amendment to the US constitution to claim that it supports gay marriage.
Especially for a lone judge to make that decision and eliminate the voice of the
people. If the voice of the people want to allow gay marriage in certain states,
then that is fine. But a single judge should not be able to override the voice
of the people with a creative (at best) interpretation of the constitution.
So the taxpayers take another hit. This would not have happened if the will of
the people was respected.
@trekker:Hey trekker this is only partly about defending amendment
3. It is also about having the voice of people who oppose SSM heard. Remember,
because a small minority of Americans (the gay community) constantly has kept
their voice in the public square, now they are being heard above the voice of
the majority. Hence, like the gays and their cause, it may take many years to
succeed in our cause to reclaim the traditional definition of marriage. Do not
allow the gay community to silence your voice. You have every much a right to
be heard as they do. We must respect our gay friends, but we must demand that
they show some respect for our views as well - that is called tolerance! Stand
up and have your voice heard too.
Issue a few more marriage licenses to Same Sex Couples and you may come up with
the dollars to pay the attorneys defending traditional marriage. Now
that would be ironic.
@Mayfair: well said fellow citizen. We must be concerned for what is taught to
our children. The beliefs of the majority of Americans, must be represented
fairly and substantially, especially when we stand for morality and healthy
behavior. We must not be hateful, bigoted, or intolerant to the views of the
minority, but we must stand up and make our voice heard too. Our children's
future will be impacted negatively if we stand around and do nothing!
I heard many years ago and recently, may be a day or two ago, that somebody had
prophetized that Salt Lake City would become a city of sin. For many of those
who oppose SSM this may becoming the fulfillment of this belief.On
the other hand, if such prophesy were to be true, wouldn't it make more
sense that the sin is the hardness of heart, the selfishness, the denying of
benefits that you enjoy to your brothers and sisters, the harm that is being
done to the children of LGBT couples and their family structure.Do I
know this as a fact. No! on the contrary, this is simply speculation But
perhaps it merits some self analysis and objectivity from those who are so
concern about living in a just and godly society.
@get her done Bountiful, UTAs an active Mormon, I say to you
and your daughter - there is a place for her in the Mormon church!. Many
members like myself do not hate our gay friends and family members. We defend
their right to be different and to not be persecuted by anyone. If would fight
anyone who seeks to deny equal benefits (hospital visitation, inheritance, etc)
in society for our gay community members. I would fight anyone who tries to
discriminate against my gay co-workers who are excellent employees and
contributors to society. I believe legal same sex unions is a better option
than changing the legal definition of marriage. I think we are only asking that
the gay community respect our point of view and the hundreds of years of
traditional family values that have defined marriage as between a man and a
women. Shoving this down our throats via the courts will only result in
resentment and never acceptance. I am dismayed by some of the rhetoric by some
in the gay community in this forum. It feels disrespectful and hateful to me.
If Utah continues this appeal on gay marriage, if the final court rules against
Utah, 33 other states that have the same ban will be forced to allow gay
marriage. We already lost concerning plural marriage, ERA, Blacks, prop 8, and
Mitt Romney. How much more egg do we want on our faces. Do we really want to go
down in the history books like this. 2-10 million dollars for what. It is
It would seem to me that if the issue was important to enough people (the
majority) it may be money well spent.
@Mom of Six,Gay marriage is not a social experiment. Legal same-sex
partnerships have existed since the late 1980's (starting in Denmark). Gay
partnerships (and gay parents) have existed since humans have.Civil
Unions are off the table...separate but equal doesn't hold up.And, do you realize how bigoted you sound in your apple/orange analogy?
"Many in this community would also like to force [interracial] marriage as a
so called right making it 'equal' to [white-only] marriage." Do
you really think that? Is orientation different than race, sex or hair color? Is
there anything that will change your mind?Finally, despite your
insistence that there are "other studies" that don't favor gay
parents, no one has been able to produce them. The Prop 8 case centered on this
very detail. If you've seen credible studies, please share. But, pro-Prop 8
lawyers found they really don't exist!Think thru this a bit
$2 million is money well spent, as this meritless pursuit will lead to
overturning state bans first in the 10th District and then nationwide. Utah will
be instrumental in bringing equality to all. Full steam ahead, Utah (and thank
you in advance).
@MeckofahessKudos to your support of your gay friends, but
unfortunately, telling your gay friends that they must be treated as second
class citizens by the IRS is no more sad than anything else you claim to not be
doing to your gay friends. There is a HUGE tax incentive to people who are
lucky enough in this life to file taxes as "Married Filing Jointly."
HUGE tax breaks to the married couple are granted by this new privilege the IRS
has bestowed upon people in this country who have been so fortunate enough not
to have to deal with same-sex attractions and risking everything in order to
find some substance of happiness in this life. Do gay civil unions get these
same luxuries? No. They do not. Which is why Utah's majority is wrong to
deny gay people the right to marry just like the South during its pre-Civil War
era in its majority was wrong to legalize slavery, and I am a born Southerner
and I can admit where I my heritage went wrong. Sometimes, the majority is
wrong like in utah with this case.
To those that say Utah should give up the fight is it because they are afraid
they will lose and the will of the people that support Godly morals will
We've reached a sad state when the federal government uses judicial
activism to take down the will of the people and the sanctity of marriage. We
the people have and will spend trillions and will effect millions of lives by
promoting sexual deviancy. We are fighting a greater battle. Elections have
ramifications, we're not playing a game where one side wins. With these
actions we have all lost. Christ said if ye love me keep my commandments! And to
the woman caught in adultery, go thy way and sin no more.
None of the money devoted to defending Amendment 3 is earmarked for public
schools, job creation initiatives, homeless services or public safety. So its
expenditure does not diminish any state funded support for those items.$2 million is a lot of money to you and me, but to the State, it's a
small price to pay for defending the community's economic and moral
Many commenters have raised the "equality" argument that is very much
misused and misunderstood. Under Amendment 3, marriage is between a
man and a woman. There is no exclusion or carve out for those dealing with same
gender attraction.A gay man has just as much right to marry a woman
as anyone else. That there may not be a woman he want to marry is immaterial.
For a marriage to be recognized under Amendment 3, it needs only to be between a
man and woman, whether they be gay, straight or other. Clearly I
could explain much more on this, but when limited to 200 words, this will have
to do. Still, equality is a subject many struggle to understand and I fear that
a few false ideas have taken root that are in desperate need of weed killer.
Idaho is watching Utah because we know it's coming here next.Fight the good fight! We must defend traditional marriage beforethe word
has no meaning, and becomes meaning-less!
Somebody explain to me how allowing same sex marriage damages me or my family?
Is making gay marriage illegal going to some how make this lifestyle disappear
for the landscape? I am a hetrosexual, card carrying member of the Utah
majority and I just don't get it. How can we deprive a minority which is
clearly being discriminated against the right to be "married". Frankly
I feel the government has no business begin in the marriage business. I believe
all unions should be civil unions as far as the government is concerned and if
two people want to be "married" they should go to their Church, Temple,
Synagogue, field, barn, friends house or where ever and be married by who ever
bests suits them as a couple.The reality is, the large majority of gay
individuals do not want to be married but they do want equality. Once the dust
settles and the flood of gay couples we have seen in the news coverage are
married, there will be relatively few that continue to come forward.
@Trouble of Vancouver: Which woman would you suggest a gay man marry? Your
sister? Your daughter? It's not enough to prevent that gay man from
settling down with his own kind, you want to ruin some heterosexual woman's
chance for happiness as well? And what about the children that may result from
that union, should they manage to make any? And the broken home almost
assuredly in the making?Letting gays and lesbians who manage to form
pair-bonded relationships marry is not a "special favor" to some little
faction. It's a favor to everyone, especially straight people who
won't end up in doomed marriages to tormented closet cases.Gays
and lesbians are about 5% of our population, about 1 in 20, a fairly constant
ratio, and they're all from straight families. The other 19 of 20 of us
who are straight, and our society, is in absolutely no danger from letting that
little minority of our families, friends, coworkers and neighbors marry each
other. We've tried the other thing for years and all we get is heartbreak.
@A QuakerI'm not advocating for gay men to marry women, just
that they have an equal legal right to do so.
Ref: dn subscriberA similar argument was used by supporters of Jim
Crow laws and separate but equal education policies designed to discriminate
against racial minorities.
I have watched up here in the high mountains of Wyoming as the people of Utah
grapple with the sudden shock of having marriage equality in their state. It is
very sad that Utah's governmental leaders feel such a need to continue
fighting Judge Shelby's ruling, a ruling that is just, a ruling that gives
LGBT people the blessed and God given right to have their loving unions
recognized through civil marriage. I know that many people in Utah have a very
difficult time understanding or accepting gay people, probably because of
religious upbringing and cultural mores. When they step outside their comfort
zone and transcend their prejudices they will find they are far better and
happier people as a result. I have great faith in the people of Utah, that they
will grow and be more unified and happier as a result of this ruling. Far too
many LGBT people are harmed because of prejudice and bigotry and by extension
their families are harmed as well. This ruling will also help bring stability
and strength to LGBT people and their extended families in ways never realized
before. God works in mysterious ways that humble us all.
The Crudading fifty liberals who frequently post on this site skew the numbers
making it seemthat the majority opinion is gay marriage is fine in Utah.
This is completely opposite of the actual vote taken on Ammendment 3. It also
flies in the face of the reality I see every day as Imingle with voters
who so far have been 100% opposed to legislating from the bench like Obamaappointed judge Shelby did. Something has to give so the legislature is
completely correct inspending whatever it takes to preserve the
sovereignty of the state of Utah.
hmmm, 2 million could fill a lot of FOOD PANTRYS, Help a Homeless person(s) get
OFF the street......2 Million could help Public education.....but alas, those
are More important then fighting to keep consenting adults from marrying, huh?
Meckofahess:Disagreeing with your opinion is not hateful or
That's 2 million dollars that could feed the homeless, house the needy,
maybe make a few civic improvements. Yet the state would rather waste it on
what is surely a lost cause for them. It's time to move into the 21st
Century, Utah. Wake up!
I found many people of faith although disagree with SSM, they are kind enough to
support granting similar legal rights to gay couples under civil union, just
like in Colorado, which was legislated by state lawmakers. But the
reality is, amendment 3 not only bans SSM, but also bans civil union. that is
exactly why it is unlikely to pass constitutional scrutiny. 10th circuit may
choose not to decide whether there is a fundamental right for SSM, but still
rule amendment 3 unconstitutional because it went too far. that is why amendment
3 is doomed in court.When 10th circuit denied the stay request, they
already said the request was denied because the appeal was not likely to
prevail. so for those who believe $2 million will buy a win in appeal,
let's get real.
Also, when state government estimated it only costs $2 million for this law
suit. It is almost certain that after lengthy litigation, the final number will
be much higher. Frankly, it is not terribly wrong that AG to defend
a state law, even it is unconstitutional. But to hire expensive outside lawyers
to do the job for state? really? If AG and his team do not have the competency
to do the job, then why should they hold the office and keep on collection
talk about throwing money down a hole. If the teacher who has a classroom full
of seventh graders who only read at a second grade level the teachers ability to
teach has been tested for six years already. I suggest the teachers take a long
look at the product they turn out. They will never be able to teach until they
get more money. Oh wait, that is what they have said for the last 30 years. Oh
well, they make good money,they have the best retirement a politician can
arrange for them. Even a failing teacher knows two out of three aint bad.
@ New to UtahIt doesn't matter what the opinion of gay marriage
is in Utah because the majority cannot vote to take away the minority's
rights. There is not a single legal argument against allowing SSM. Not one.
Justice can sometimes be done in the most unexpected of manners. Back in 2008,
the LDS flooded California with literally millions of dollars in their efforts
to see the passage of Proposition 8 in that state, thereby terminating the right
of gay California couples to marry. The LDS used its power, money, and
influence to meddle in the business of another state, succeeding in that
meddling. (Fortunately, Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional by US
District Court Judge Vaughn Walker; as everybody knows by now, the US Supreme
Court decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) preserved Judge
Walker's decision.)Now we come full circle. Federal district
court judge Robert J. Shelby, widely viewed as extremely conservative and a
darling of the Tea Party, had been on the bench for less than six months before
being assigned the case of Kitchen v. Herbert (D. Utah, 2013). Shelby handed
down his decision on December 20, holding that Utah's ban of gay marriage
violates both the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment. He refused to stay his decision pending appeal. The US Court of
Appeals refuses to issue a stay. Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.PHILIP CHANDLER
The Supreme Court changes people and consensus. That is why Presidents are
important part of that process.
At least this is an admission by the people who send others to prison, that the
more you pay your lawyers the better your results will be. How about $2 million
for a losing cause, and $2 million in raises for public defenders?
Moral justice is the reason the founders of Utah came here in 1847. Deprived of
their property and safety, thousands trekked across the plains to claim an
unwanted wilderness for a home and the right to practice their religion as their
consciences felt appropriate. They buried children, parents, grandparents and
loved ones on the plains; give up this moral battle without a fight? Don't
count on it.
It's a blatant disregard for the constitution of the state of Utah that
opens the way for further discrimination; spending money in its defense is a sad
necessity. That money -could- go toward other things, but due to the lusts and
the lawless concept of the definition and purpose of marriage held by a few, it
must instead be spent in this endeavor.When it comes to human
rights, the right of a child to a loving father and mother is among the most
paramount and significant.
I understand the reason for the ruling is that there was no proof given that the
marriage of gay and lesbian couples was going to do harm to heterosexual
marriages. So, no reason that Amendment 3 should stand. It's been a week
now..have any heterosexual marriages been weakened or destroyed directly due to
these new marriages so far? I wouldn't think so.
Jamescmeyer -- it is established legal doctrine that no state constitution may
abrogate the rights guaranteed the residents of that state by the US
Constitution. A state constitution may grant the citizens of the state in
question additional rights -- rights over and above those guaranteed by the US
Constitution -- but may never deprive those citizens of rights guaranteed them
by the US Constitution.It is therefore not "blatant
disregard" of Utah's constitution which is driving the prevailing
participants in this social change. Federal District Judge Robert Shelby held
that Amendment 3 violates both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of
the Fourteenth Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker, in the California case (Perry v.
Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 - Dist. Court, ND California 2010), held
that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional for the same reasons. Both Amendment 3
and Proposition 8 shared the same constitutional infirmities, with the result
that both measures were declared unconstitutional at the trial court level. The
decisions of the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit not to issue a stay of
Judge Shelby's decision bode ill for the survival of Amendment 3.In short, gay marriage is now legal in Utah.PHILIP CHANDLER
@ PLMIf they wanted a theocracy, they should have traveled the other
way to the Middle East. Utah is part of the United States, and therefor must be
compliant with the Constitution.
Thank you Two For Flinching, When they claimed this wilderness, it
was not part of the U.S. and not under the Constitution. This argument has not
yet been decided to by the Supreme Court. In the meantime the majority in Utah
have spoken. It is a State's right issue.
Here is one thing people aren't understanding and it doesn't matter
what side of marriage you are on. Utah is giving 2 Million dollars to help the
economy in another state. Not our state, ANOTHER STATE. That money isn't
staying in Utah to help Utah, no it's going to Colorado or Arizona or Idaho
to help that state financially. Let that soak in. Utah
doesn't believe their own people can do this. Thats lack of trust in the
people of Utah from the government.
Some of our local leaders are shameful..going to waste millions of dollars to
fight a cause they are only going to lose? Speaking of traditional marriage,
wasnt polygamy considered traditional in utah in the 1800-1900's?
it is my considered opinion that the only reason that this is being appealed is
so that our brave political leaders can say (after it is all said and done) that
they did everything they could.If they don't appeal then they
will be accused by Utah's 60% of conservatives of having rolled over, and
it will be the end of their political careers.We have hired
attorneys in the state attorney general's office who are just as capable of
conducting the appeal, but they don't want to be labeled as losers, for
lose they shall. The recent several decisions of the court have all but
destroyed the idea that a state can pass a religious or morality based law.
That is a done deal.Finally, don't we already have polygamists?
Aren't they already quietly living in our neighborhoods and sending their
kids to our schools? Some may not consider it polygamy, but if a man has 5 kids
by 5 wives and continues to "cohabit" with them, then that is polygamy -
whether sanctioned by the church or state or not.The issue is dead.
I was sorry to see it go.
It's appalling the ignorance of the Constitution, states' rights, and
our political system that is on display here. We are not a democracy; Utahns can
not vote to take away their fellow citizen's rights, and they should be
glad that they can't. In Missouri, it was "legal" to kill Mormons
until 1976; ridiculous and unconstitutional of course, but in 1838, the Governor
thought it sounded like a pretty good idea in order to protect "traditional
morals". There are mainstream churches (Episcopalians, for
example) that wish to be able to perform marriage ceremonies for their LGBT
members. To deny them the ability to do so is to deny THEIR religious freedoms.
Don't worry, the LDS church will not be forced to perform gay marriages,
but it is inherently unconstitutional to deny other religions the right to
perform them if it fits within their theology.The threat to
traditional marriage is people who can't make them work. If your marriage
is strong, two gay people getting married will have no impact on it whatsoever.
Judge Shelby grilled the state's attorneys about the state's
compelling interest in denying this right to gays and they had nothing. More
expensive, private attorneys won't either.America is not a
theocracy (Thank God) and religious beliefs do not trump the constitution no
matter how much you wish they did. And yes, polygamy is going to be hot on the
heels of gay marriage as it should. As long as it's between multiple
consenting adults, it should be legal under freedom of religious expression and
individual rights to marry whoever we choose. Polygamy never should have been
outlawed in the U.S. in the first place- it was/is a gross violation of
religious freedom. But where will it all end?! Someone could claim
any crazy religious belief to justify their marriage. Nope, the state CAN draw
the line at incestuous unions due to health/safety concerns; ditto marriage to
minors and no one will recognize marriages to animals- don't be ridiculous.
"Trouble" of Vancouver, WA said:"I'm not advocating
for gay men to marry women, just that they have an equal legal right to do
so."No one has a right to ruin someone else's life. Anyone
with a modicum of ethics or integrity knows that. If gay men and women are not
allowed to marry their own kind, they're effectively not allowed to marry
anyone.Meanwhile, I note that your state of Washington approved gay
marriage in a statewide voter referendum. Has society there collapsed yet? Our
state legislature in New York approved it over two years ago, and I haven't
seen any problems here yet. I'm still married to my wife of 32 years. In
fact, everyone I know who was married before is still married. A couple of my
gay neighbors got married, but I haven't noticed anyone being upset about
it. In fact, everyone is quite neighborly. As for our Quaker Meeting, we
follow our Testimony of Equality, and held our first religious marriage of a
same-sex couple about ten years ago.
The AG's Office employes 180 "best and brightest" lawyers. We have
two top law schools in the nations. One paid with tax dollars. It is a false
idea to believe spending millions on outsourced lawyers will best represent the
state.Deputy Attorney Geneal Kirk Torgensen makes $212,741. Surely,
if we pay $30 million in state lawyer salaries,$20 million in judges salaries we
can write our own briefs.
Two million is a lot of money to waste in a sad attempt to deny the
constitutional rights of others.
@ PLMYou'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.
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.
Kind of like closing the gate after the horse gets out..
To: WyomingnativeThank 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.
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.
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.
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.
@ Captain GreenThe 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.
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
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.
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.
ksampowMost 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.KJKYour
statement could have been written 50 years ago by someone whose state outlawed