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 Louis, MO

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.

Leesburg, VA

Various points:

1st Point:
to Mom of Six
You 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 Point
I 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 Point
If Utah spent $ 20 million dollars in Prop 8 in CA it shouldn't be bother by outside intervention.

4th Point
Utah 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.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

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.

Salem, OR

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?


Let the spending of Utah's tax revenues commence in building that yellow brick road.

City, Ut


Glad there is at least one other person that recognizes this most obvious thing you have mentioned.

Kaysville, UT

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.

Layton, UT

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.

cohoes, NY

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.

Draper, UT

@owlmaster2 For the same reason I have to pay for Obamacare, I suppose.

Stringer Bell
Henderson, NV

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.

Brigham City, UT

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.

Draper, UT

@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.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

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 dollars


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.

cohoes, NY

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 the Constitution?

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

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 Bryan?

Laura Ann
Layton, UT

If necessary, I'm willing to donate to the cause and I'm a school teacher.

Modesto, CA

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.

Orem, UT

@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!

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

to comment

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