Comments about ‘Gov. Herbert has not signed off on $2 million price tag to defend Amendment 3’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Dec. 29 2013 9:50 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
W Jordan, UT

I think Herbert is a progressive like Huntsman.
He thinks he knows whats best for the citizens of Utah instead of upholding the will of the people. This state was founded by Mormons and it's constution was written by Mormons.. Now we have a few gays from CA in retribution for the church's involvement in prop 8 and thanks to Obama helping by placing activist judges decide they want to intrude on the majority of people in this state and force their societal views on us..
This will have consequences and some serious backlash I hope they know. There's nothing constitutional or fair about forcing the vast majority to accept something they do not want and can harm our social structure.

Ogden, UT

So how many people in Utah have had to call an end to their marriage in the last two weeks because gays can now get married?

Old Scarecrow
Brigham City, UT

Please don't waste the money. There are plenty of states in the south with deeper pockets who will fight gay marriage when their turn comes. Utah can't really win this battle, because "winning" will reflect negatively on the state. Businesses will be less likely to move or expand here. The LDS Church, which is so closely linked to the state, will be perceived as the orchestrator of the whole matter, which I don't think it is at this time. Let the happily married gays go back to their homes and live their lives as most of them have been doing, quietly and unobtrusively, just like the rest of us try to live. I hope Gov. Herbert will have the courage to ignore the reactionary individuals and groups who try to control politics in Utah. Do the right thing, governor.

Area 52
Tooele, UT

This is about the law and what the people of Utah voted for. One rogue judge should not change the law, let the people decide. That’s why the U.S. is separated into 50 states and not just ONE state or whatever. That’s why we are so unique than any other country. If people don’t like our (UTAH) laws than LEAVE or try and change it through the proper channels (voting…, electing politicians with your same beliefs or values). But having one judge change the law is completely wrong even if it’s for a good cause.

Here, UT

Frankly, if Utah's AG office isn't capable of defending this on their own, why are we paying them? If they can't do their job, get them out and replace them with people who are capable.

I don't expect them to win this case. I don't think it's possible for them to win it, nor can any "outside expert"; Judge Shelby produced an eminently capable ruling on the merits of equality and the unconstitutionality of state sponsored discrimination against LGBT couples.

That said, if the AG's office can't defend this case without "outside experts", how could they possibly be capable of defending other important cases for the state?


Wasting 2 million dollars to be on the wrong side of history is just dumb. Laws that promote discrimination should never be a priority or defended. Time to move into the 21st century Utah.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

The job of a wise leader is to lead, not to be stampeded into something by his followers. If he refuses to sign off on this, it's a sign of leadership.

There's an old lawyer joke that goes something like, "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If they're both against you, pound the table."

Hiring outside counsel in this case is little more than hiring someone to pound the table.


Here's some facts to consider in this case: The decisions upon the legislation under the 14th amendment to the constitutions, are worthy of the most careful consideration in this regard. It was determined at an early day (1869), that this amendment did not execute itself, but required legislation on the part of congress. Griffin's Case, Chase's Dec. 364. And this led to the passage of the civil rights act of the 1st March 1875 (18 U. S. Stat. 395).

Under the 4th section of this act, it has been determined, that the amendment not only gave the privileges of citizenship to the colored race, but denied to any state the power to withhold from them the equal protection of the laws, and invested congress with power to enforce its provisions; consequently, that a state law which denied to them the right of serving as jurors, though qualified in other respects, was a violation of the constitution. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 . And that an indictment will lie against a state officer, for excluding persons of color from the jury list. Ex parte Virginia, Id. 339. A


But the prohibitions of the 14th amendment have exclusive reference to state action; it is the state which is prohibited from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; the federal statute was intended to protect the colored race against state action, and against that alone. Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313 ; Neal v. Delaware, 103 Id. 370; Bush v. Kentucky, 107 Id. 110.

Mike in Sandy
Sandy, UT

Don't do it.

Use those funds for education (yeah...right) or better, to continue investigating Shurtleff and Swallow.

This is only a "battle" against giving all people equal rights....and eventually, same sex marriage will be legal everywhere, so don't waste the 2 mil.

Grow up.
Be adults.
Face reality.
Quit being so painfully puritanical.

Salt Lake City, UT

I am for the many I've spoken with that are of the opinion "if a person doesn't like gay marriage then they don't have to participate". The governor and many other politicians here need to look at the history of opposing other people's rights. This is similar to denying people the right to interracial marriage and others. Millions of dollars will be fruitlessly spent and the end result will be equal rights for this people. This is evidenced by other states in our country.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

Chris B.: I feel somewhat qualified to speak to the liberal view on polygamy.

Think about what can of worms you're seeking to open. If polygamy was legal, you'd also have to legalize polyandry, as well as just plain "poly" (which are any number of multi-partner webs of relationships, including bisexual ones).

Poly-whatever is a whole different category of thing than a two-person life-partnership arrangement. It's unthinkable until the details of family and relationship law can support it. Here are some of the questions that need answers first:

Division of property, custody, child support, alimony. What happens when one of the parties divorces the rest? Will that destroy the entire family economically or emotionally?

How is property distributed on someone's death? Intestate estates?

Employer-provided health insurance? Family coverage?

Social Services: A myriad of problems here. Determining how much income a family can have and still qualify. College tuition aid, food stamps, etc. Exploitation of support programs.

Come back after you think through all the things that civil law would have to accommodate, and the costs, then we'll talk.

Fruit Heights, Utah

The moral side of homosexuality aside, one of the most important duties of government is to assure the continuation of the country, both internally and externally, which means government has a very fundamental interest in marriage. Since without help homosexual marriages produce no children and therefore do not contribute to the perpetuation of the state, government by defifintion, has an interest in determining whether those marriages should exist. Governor Herbert should spend the money to defend Utah's definition of marriage.

West Valley, UT

It is a waiste of time and money. Put it towards something that will benifit the state and not just outside state lawyers.

South Jordan, UT

"He thinks he knows whats best for the citizens of Utah instead of upholding the will of the people. This state was founded by Mormons and it's constution was written by Mormons.. Now we have a few gays from CA"

Here's a newsflash for you: Most of the gay and lesbians here in Utah are descended from those same Mormon families that you are. These are native Utahns; brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters of families with strong Utah Mormon roots. The idea that they are outsiders is blind to reality.

Mesilla/USA, NM

Two million dollars is like the estimate one gets from a building contractor. The homeowner latches onto to that amount and commits herself to it. Then once the house is halfway up and it's too late to back out, the price suddenly doubles, and then triples. Does anyone really think the lawyers that go into this case are going to watch their spending? The price of keeping part of the Utah population oppressed will cost Utah far more than this estimate, which appears to have sprung from a seat-of-the-pants estimate.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

boatersteve is concerned that the population of the state will dry up if gays can marry. Considering that gays comprise a grand total of 5% of the population and in any event aren't going to reproduce any more outside of marriage than within it, I'm having trouble understanding his argument.

Does he think that gay marriage somehow makes more gay people? I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way, any more than painting a house makes more houses.

Payson, UT

The larger issue is not to deny consenting adults their desire to be legally united, but rather what this may lead to down the road when governments dictate to religions what they can and cannot include within their own rules and doctrine. How long will it take for the government to say that the LDS church, in order to be recognized as a church, must include same-sex marriage in its temples? Do we allow one set of beliefs or standards to abolish the freedom of religion, freedom to practice religion the way it has been established? You speak of hate. Read the statement from the leaders of the LDS church. God loves all mankind, yet sets a standard of morality within the bounds he sets. I would conjecture there is more hatred felt against the LDS church than from its members toward the rest of humanity. I do not hate people with same-set attraction. I do, however, believe all churches have the right to set a standard and to be allowed the right to do so.


If the people of Utah had seen fit to elect a qualified person as Attorney General perhaps this move would not be necessary.

Medical Lake, Washington

The wrong side of history? The LDS Church is not about being progressive, it is about maintaining moral and ethical standards as interpretted from Scripture -- that's just something that religions do. The moment the LDS church decides that it should just give in to the wave they would find themselves drowning in political chaos like everyone else. If the LDS church sees a moral conflict here, and they do, they have every right to stand for their values. The political arena in Utah may be a separate matter, but people have a right to voice their opinions regardless of how futile the fight might appear. Its what makes the difference between true heroes and mere pawns.

to comment

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