Price tag for defending Amendment 3 expected to reach $2 million


Return To Article
  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    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.

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

  • ksampow Farr West, Utah
    Jan. 2, 2014 2:27 p.m.

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

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 10:12 a.m.

    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.

  • digitalcamotim Council Bluffs, IA
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:21 p.m.

    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

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 1:04 a.m.

    @ Captain Green

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

  • Captain Green Heber City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 10:37 p.m.

    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.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 2:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Mexican Ute mexico, 00
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 30, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    To: Wyomingnative

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

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

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

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

    May God bless you and your husband always.

  • Little Andy Tremonton, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 6:56 a.m.

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

  • Wyomingnative Wilson, WY
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:57 a.m.

    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.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 10:19 p.m.

    @ PLM

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

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

  • goodnight-goodluck S.L.C., UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 9:46 p.m.

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

  • Red Smith American Fork, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 9:16 p.m.

    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.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Dec. 29, 2013 8:41 p.m.

    "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.

  • Irwin Fletcher Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 6:57 p.m.

    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.

  • Irwin Fletcher Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 6:44 p.m.

    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.

  • Walt Nicholes Orem, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 6:31 p.m.

    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.

  • abenq slc, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 6:01 p.m.

    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?

  • radiohio Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 5:50 p.m.

    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.

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 5:46 p.m.

    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.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 4:58 p.m.

    @ PLM

    If 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.

  • philipcfromnyc Far Rockaway, NY
    Dec. 29, 2013 4:12 p.m.

    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.


  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Dec. 29, 2013 3:25 p.m.

    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 Midwest City, USA, OK
    Dec. 29, 2013 1:25 p.m.

    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.

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    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.

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Dec. 29, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    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?

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    The Supreme Court changes people and consensus. That is why Presidents are important part of that process.

  • philipcfromnyc Far Rockaway, NY
    Dec. 29, 2013 12:13 p.m.

    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.


  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 11:14 a.m.

    @ New to Utah

    It 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.

  • Icthru U redland, OR
    Dec. 29, 2013 10:50 a.m.

    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.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 29, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    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 paychecks?

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 29, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    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.

  • elgreco grand junction, CO
    Dec. 29, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    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!

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 9:11 a.m.


    Disagreeing with your opinion is not hateful or disrespectful.

  • Disgusted American deptford, NJ
    Dec. 29, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    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? WWJD?

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 7:10 a.m.

    The Crudading fifty liberals who frequently post on this site skew the numbers making it seem
    that 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 I
    mingle with voters who so far have been 100% opposed to legislating from the bench like Obama
    appointed judge Shelby did. Something has to give so the legislature is completely correct in
    spending whatever it takes to preserve the sovereignty of the state of Utah.

  • Wyomingnative Wilson, WY
    Dec. 29, 2013 1:51 a.m.

    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.

  • dan76 san antonio, TX
    Dec. 29, 2013 12:26 a.m.

    Ref: dn subscriber

    A similar argument was used by supporters of Jim Crow laws and separate but equal education policies designed to discriminate against racial minorities.

  • Trouble Vancouver, WA
    Dec. 29, 2013 12:22 a.m.

    @A Quaker

    I'm not advocating for gay men to marry women, just that they have an equal legal right to do so.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Dec. 28, 2013 11:12 p.m.

    @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.

  • SPSLC Sandy, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 9:43 p.m.

    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.

    Dec. 28, 2013 9:29 p.m.

    Idaho is watching Utah because we know it's coming here next.

    Fight the good fight! We must defend traditional marriage before
    the word has no meaning, and becomes meaning-less!

  • Trouble Vancouver, WA
    Dec. 28, 2013 9:11 p.m.

    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.

  • Trouble Vancouver, WA
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:49 p.m.

    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 welfare.

  • Mrs T Coalville, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:46 p.m.

    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.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:20 p.m.

    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 prevail?

  • BYU_Convert Provo, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:02 p.m.


    Kudos 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.

  • scosortwo salt lake city, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 7:53 p.m.

    $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).

  • Flair Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 7:52 p.m.

    @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 harder, please.

  • badgergirl Up North, WI
    Dec. 28, 2013 7:29 p.m.

    It would seem to me that if the issue was important to enough people (the majority) it may be money well spent.

  • get her done Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 7:20 p.m.

    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 coming anyway.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 7:16 p.m.

    @get her done
    Bountiful, UT

    As 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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 28, 2013 7:06 p.m.

    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.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 6:56 p.m.

    @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!

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Dec. 28, 2013 6:56 p.m.

    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.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 6:50 p.m.


    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.

  • Endure2End San Jose, CA
    Dec. 28, 2013 6:43 p.m.

    So the taxpayers take another hit. This would not have happened if the will of the people was respected.

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 5:56 p.m.

    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.

  • radiohio Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 4:14 p.m.

    The state is paying to support the church and not the economy and health of the state. That sounds very interesting to me.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Dec. 28, 2013 4:02 p.m.

    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.

  • mont Cedar City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 4:00 p.m.

    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.

  • lizzie_bee Clearwater, FL
    Dec. 28, 2013 3:59 p.m.

    RE: OnlyinUtah

    Since 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: SomeClarity

    sure, 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.

  • get her done Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 3:59 p.m.

    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????

  • mont Cedar City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 3:45 p.m.

    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.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 3:21 p.m.

    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.

  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    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.

  • CDL Los Angeles, CA
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:58 p.m.

    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.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    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."

  • CDL Los Angeles, CA
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:49 p.m.

    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.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:49 p.m.

    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.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:49 p.m.

    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 principle. .

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:43 p.m.

    Mom of Six

    The 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.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    Keep Calm and Marry On, Utah!

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    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.

  • missizzy1 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:31 p.m.

    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 money!

  • get her done Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:31 p.m.

    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??

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:17 p.m.

    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.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Dec. 28, 2013 1:46 p.m.

    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.

  • ebur Charlotte, NC
    Dec. 28, 2013 1:46 p.m.

    The only conclusion, after reading most of the comments, is that Religion is a brain-eater.
    Cheers Utah!!!!

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Dec. 28, 2013 1:25 p.m.

    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?

  • Mom of Six Northern Utah, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    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.

  • Mom of Six Northern Utah, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    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.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Dec. 28, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    Question--is Utah a democratic republic, like the rest of the country, or a theocracy? Just wondering....

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    Dec. 28, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    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.

  • Pertti Felin Espoo, Finland
    Dec. 28, 2013 1:02 p.m.

    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 how?

  • radiohio Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    @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.

  • Mike in Texas Cedar City, Utah
    Dec. 28, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    How about wse use that money to help fund Medicaid once the 3 year Federal funding drops to 90%?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    '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.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 28, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    "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.

    Dec. 28, 2013 12:05 p.m.

    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.

  • scosortwo salt lake city, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    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 soon-to-be weds!

  • Mr. Bean Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 28, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    "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 marriage.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    @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!

  • omahahusker Modesto, CA
    Dec. 28, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Laura Ann Layton, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 11:24 a.m.

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

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Dec. 28, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    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?

  • atrulson cohoes, NY
    Dec. 28, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    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?

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    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.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    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

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    @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.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    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.

  • Stringer Bell Henderson, NV
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    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.

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:48 a.m.

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

  • atrulson cohoes, NY
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    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.

  • bradleyc Layton, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    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.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    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.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:35 a.m.


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

  • GaryMKlein Salem, OR
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    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.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    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.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    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.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    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.

  • Stephen in Ogden Ogden, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    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.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    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.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    @Eye Guy

    We ALREADY had a vote--67%--and we know how that went.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    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!

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    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?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    "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.

  • John T Scranton, PA
    Dec. 28, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    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.

  • Gandalf Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    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, not theirs.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    '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.

  • Visitor from California Berkeley, CA
    Dec. 28, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    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!

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    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.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    "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.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    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 decision.

  • T. Publius Kissimmee, FL
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    Whose "equality"? That's the cost of maintaining the 10th Amendment, required now I guess, against a usurpation of the federal court!

  • trekker Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    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.

  • rondonaghe Mesilla/USA, NM
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    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.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    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 Taxpayers.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:05 a.m.


    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.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:04 a.m.

    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.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    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!!

  • From Ted's Head Orem, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    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.

  • toshi1066 OGDEN, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 7:49 a.m.

    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.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 7:44 a.m.

    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!

  • Eye Guy Bluffdale, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 7:12 a.m.

    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!

  • Itsjstmeagain Merritt Island, Fl
    Dec. 28, 2013 6:57 a.m.

    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).

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 6:49 a.m.

    @OnlyInUtah 10:55 p.m. Dec. 27, 2013

    No 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 state.

  • cemab4y Alexandria, VA
    Dec. 28, 2013 6:34 a.m.

    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.

  • Paul Scholes Provo, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 6:31 a.m.

    Jason - It is Reyes, not Perez.

  • Ricardo Carvalho Provo, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 6:26 a.m.

    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.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Dec. 28, 2013 6:10 a.m.

    Lots of poor, needy sick and afflicted that money would otherwise help.

  • Wadyaknow Baltimore, MD
    Dec. 28, 2013 5:32 a.m.

    "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 in Utah?

  • college sports fan Alpine, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 4:17 a.m.

    Children deserve a father and a mother, and research overwhelmingly supports how this benefits our society.
    We need to wakeup and defend the “natural family”.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 28, 2013 3:49 a.m.

    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!

  • get her done Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 3:23 a.m.

    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.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:31 a.m.

    What a waste of money on a cause that was lost when the supremes ruled. Lets donate the money to our homeless veterans instead.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:30 a.m.

    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, who knows.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:19 a.m.

    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.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:16 a.m.

    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.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:10 a.m.

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

    We have been over this.

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

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


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

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

    No harm?

    No foul.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Dec. 28, 2013 1:21 a.m.

    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.

  • Bryan Syracuse, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 1:11 a.m.

    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.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Dec. 28, 2013 12:29 a.m.

    @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?

  • Brathor Erda, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 12:15 a.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 12:13 a.m.

    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.

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 28, 2013 12:02 a.m.

    "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.

  • Nanook of the North Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 27, 2013 11:54 p.m.

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

  • Jason Williams Los Angeles, CA
    Dec. 27, 2013 11:34 p.m.

    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.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 11:20 p.m.

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

  • Jason Williams Los Angeles, CA
    Dec. 27, 2013 11:20 p.m.

    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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 11:02 p.m.

    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.

  • Northwest Reader Vancouver, WA
    Dec. 27, 2013 11:02 p.m.

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

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 11:02 p.m.

    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.

  • OnlyInUtah Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:55 p.m.

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

  • Jake2010 bountiful, ut
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:36 p.m.

    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!

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:32 p.m.

    '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.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:20 p.m.

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

  • Sasha Pachev Provo, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:17 p.m.

    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.

  • jp3 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:13 p.m.

    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.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:06 p.m.

    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.

  • Spellman789 Syracuse, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:59 p.m.

    In what ways are marriages between heterosexuals and homosexuals the same thing? They are not equal, and fundamentally unequal from the beginning.

  • Nanook of the North Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:49 p.m.

    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 toilet.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:45 p.m.

    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.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:40 p.m.

    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.

  • Stephen Van Orden Mapleton, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:33 p.m.

    Please don't waste money on this. It would be far better to spend it on class-size reduction in our schools.

  • AConcernedCitizen Highland, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:24 p.m.


    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.

  • Mom of Six Northern Utah, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:17 p.m.

    I find it interesting that a good portion of those commenting on Utah's gay marriage initiative aren't from Utah....

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:03 p.m.

    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.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:56 p.m.

    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?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:54 p.m.

    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.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:54 p.m.

    Less than 2 dollars a person per Utahn maybe the people that bought the suit should pay.

  • owlmaster2 Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:41 p.m.

    Let the supporters of Amendment 3 pay to defend Amendment 3.

    Why should I pay taxes into something I don't believe in????

  • SomeClarityPlease Quiet Neighborhood, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:39 p.m.

    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?

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 7:58 p.m.

    Anything to take money away from our public school children...

  • OnlyInUtah Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 7:59 p.m.

    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.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Dec. 27, 2013 7:58 p.m.

    The party of Fiscal Responsibility strikes again.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 27, 2013 7:57 p.m.

    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?