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 10:59 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

So what it really boils down to is:
Religious people... believe we should live in a theocracy, however they can't decide on which religion should rule, perhaps just a state sanctioned "American Christians" church.

Americans...believe that All men are created equal and deserve equal rights under the constitution.

The lines seem to be drawn at this intersection, so what national religion should we adopt?

RedShirtCalTech
Pasedena, CA

To "Lane Myer" so you are saying that the judge made a bad decision. The 10th ammendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the State acted on its Constitutional right to determine what the legal definition of marriage is to be, the ammendment to the Utah constitution should stand and define marriage.

What you fail to recognize is that we now have contradicting laws. We have one law that says if it isn't in the constitution the states can decide what to do, at the same time that it also says that federal law runs supreme. Since the US Constitution does not say anything about marriage, and according to the most recent DOMA ruling, it is a state issue.

But how do you balance things when one law tells the state they can do whatever they want at the same time another law says they can't?

BYUalum
South Jordan, UT

@Mike in Sandy:

Your response wasn't very kind to what I thought was a logical statement that I made.

I still feel the same way and will not lock myself away in a cellar as you suggested. I have a right to speak every much as you do! Let freedom ring!

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

"What you fail to recognize is that we now have contradicting laws. We have one law that says if it isn't in the constitution the states can decide what to do"

--------

But what you fail to recognize is the ending of your sentence..."We have one law that says if it isn't in the constitution, the states can decide what to do AS LONG AS IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. Pretty simple to understand with that added, isn't it?

ebur
Charlotte, NC

People, the problem here is the lack of Faith.
God will help us to win this fight, why are we so scare to fight against evil?
Has ever God abandoned his faithful children?
Even in the most terrible time of persecution, it was faith in God what kept us strong and protected us.
Fight! do not be scare. GOD is in our side. Darkest hours have come and will come, but those who believe and have faith in GOD will be never be defeated.
Prayers! that's the solution, and follow the scriptures' advices.
We should love everybody, but defend from the power of Satan.

Sophie 62
spring city, UT

This is going to be a colossal waste of money that could be better spent in so many ways. Whether or not you believe that gay people should be allowed to marry here in Utah (or anywhere)it is inevitable that sooner or later, gay people will be allowed to marry in every state.
If private individuals want to take up this cause and spend their own money to do it, perhaps there's a way they can do it.
But no way should Utah spend a penny toward it.
What will they do when they get to the end of their 2 million? Just drop it? I don't think so. It could end up costing far more and for what?
It will amount to a lot of money for lawyers and no return for those in Utah who want to fight this.
And legal marriage for polygamists isn't far behind. Better get used to it, because it is coming.

RedShirtCalTech
Pasedena, CA

To "Lane Myer" tell me where in the Constitution it says anything about the definition of marriage.

I have looked, and it isn't there.

So, if it isn't in the Constitution then per the 10th ammendment, it is a state issue. The state decided that marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Spellman789
Syracuse, UT

The fight for traditional marriage IS money well spent. Marriage is ordained of God, He created it, and only He can say what it should be.
It is time for the silent majority to break their silence and speak out for what is right. It is not hate or bigotry to say that I believe in traditional marriage. I know many gay people are wonderful, caring people who truly love their partner. Defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is not about hating gays or trying to deny them due process. Defining marriage traditionally is about following God and trusting that He loves all of us and truly knows what is best. Sometimes we don't see why now. But we will eventually.

John 3:16
West Jordan, UT

A Sin will always be a Sin even if the laws of the land say they are legal.

Marsha N.
SANDY, UT

Many people are attracted to Utah for the wholesome atmosphere and good values the state has always maintained. As we slip toward trying to please the voices that call for a liberal society, we will lose the voice of conservative values. That is a shame because someone must stand up for the traditional values that made this country the envy of the world.

josegomez
Spain, 00

In Spain, gay marriage, was a battle won, I think it was for wanting resemble traditional marriage, but the reality now is that after these past years, now not many gay weddings are as before, and that took place have ended with divorces and breakups, this actually did it to annoy, time to time, there will be many gay weddings for my studies observed that there are more breaks in these couples.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

“The attorney general's office would need a supplemental appropriation to cover the cost of the outside counsel from the 2014 Legislature, which begins meeting on Jan. 27.”

“A request for a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court has been delayed pending the hiring of outside counsel. A spokesman for the attorney general's office, Ryan Bruckman, said the stay should be filed Monday.”

How are they going to use outside counsel (apparently our attorney general is not up for it or needs to line friends pockets) that will not be approved until after the legislature begins meeting Jan 27 to file an appeal today? Sounds like the same old funny business different day in the corrupt world of Utah politics.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

"So, if it isn't in the Constitution then per the 10th ammendment, it is a state issue. The state decided that marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman."

Yes, the state has the power to regulate marriage - as long as they are not harming a section of the population (see Loving v. Virginia)for no apparent reason. If they are discriminating against a minority, there had better be a reasonable argument that they can use to defend that law against those who might feel oppressed by the states laws. Can you give me the reason that Utah feels it must oppress gays from marrying? One that can be used in court?

No state may pass laws (even if the majority of the people vote for it) that "shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Either gays are citizens with equal rights or they are not equal citizens. Are all men created equal or only those we approve of?

Candide
Salt Lake City, UT

To ebur and Spellman789
You do realize we live in a Republic and not a theocracy, don't you? Your version of what God wants and my version of what God wants is different. My God thinks that gay marriage is wonderful. So which version of what God wants is the correct one? This is the very reason why we have separation of church and state.
“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”
― Thomas Jefferson

Starry starry night
Palm Springs , CA

Just because he has not yet signed off doesn't mean he won't. They are in strategy mode.
They will bring a case, they will spend the money...and 2 million is just the beginning my friends...
and it will be the case that forces the SCOTUS to declare all same sex marriages legal throughout the land.
The irony is rich. The country will move on and in no time at all...it'll be a non issue.
I say...let it go...this cake is baked.

Samson01
S. Jordan, UT

Yes the proponents of SSM will argue vehemently that the state should drop this. If they do then we will have the same situation that occurred in CA where the supreme court dismisses the case due to lack of standing by the supporters.

No...The state, in order to give this the fairest hearing MUST take this on all the way to the supreme court. It is sad that Utah has to lead the way where CA failed to argue for it's own duly elected and enacted law. Let us not make the same mistake.

I feel personally that Utah will lose this battle but the nation cannot come to a full agreement one way or the other unless it is fought. I would think the proponents of SSM would support the taxpayer funded defense of our amendment. If they win, they win big!

Disgusted American
deptford, NJ

ahh UTAH - Maybe NOW - I'd consider spending My Tourism money in your state.....before this ruling, to me...it was JUST A FLY OVER state.....I spend my tourism money in Equality states.....so, who knows.....tourism could pick up?

SC Native
San Diego, CA

Soddam and Gomorrah

Sharkkat in Deer Valley
Deer Valley, UT

BYUAlum
"I still feel the same way and will not lock myself away in a cellar as you suggested. I have a right to speak every much as you do! Let freedom ring!"
Of course you do...it's just that what you say is wrong.

radiohio
Salt Lake, UT

It's funny how much people want to protect a constitutional amendment that is bigoted and unequal. I wonder how many of these people remember the famous Missouri Executive Order 44 from 1838. Thats right, Missouri Executive Order 44 was also known as the Mormon Extermination Order.

People in 1838 thought that it was the best thing to do and to protect the people of Missouri by "EXTERMINATING" the mormons!

Would you be calling the judge a liberal and activist because he let the Mormons be equal? What if Judge Shelby said "hey, you can't do that...because all people are created equal."

What would you be saying then? If it were your family that was being judged by the citizens of Missouri? Would you say, hey the majority said that we should leave the state so we are just going to do it. Or would you want the judge to rule in your favor because you realize that we aren't a Theocracy but instead a land of freedom.

to comment

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