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
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Shelama" read the study. It combines married and unmarried but co-habitating hetersexual couples.

Yes there is a problem with hetersexual relationships, but when you have gays co-habitating as a married couple or not, the violence rate is significantly higher than it would be otherwise.

Please go and read the study.

Sacramento, CA

If same sex marriages are upheld by the Supreme Court, then polygamy will also need to become lawful as well. Polygamy is a tenet of LDS doctrine. The Church has declared that it would obey the law of the land and stopped plural marriage in order to become a State of The Union. We live in most interesting times and, indeed, God works in mysterious ways to achieve his ultimate righteous principles.

Fan Base
Salt Lake City, UT

Each person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. You don't wan to marry someone of the opposite sex, then don't. There's nothing unequal about that.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Fan Base

It's unequal because heterosexual people get the wonderful experience of marrying the person they love. Until December 2013, homosexual couples were not able to so. However, now everybody can marry who they love regardless of gender; including you. Your rights have been expanded. Congratulations.

Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Two For Flinching" you are wrong. I know of a group of women that all love the same man, and that man loves all of the women. They are not allowed to be married and get the same legal protections as homosexuals. We still have an inequality, since marriage is now the union of people that love eachother.

Also explain how my rights have been expanded when if I disagree with gay marriage and run a wedding related business I can be forced by a judge to provide services for them? It seems to me that I have lost rights. How do you explain that?

Salt Lake City, UT

Is it possible that the $2 million dollar tag will be fruitless as Sewart’s 2 previous amicus curiae delivered positive outcomes for SSM in Iowa and California as well as his participation as one of the sponsors for Utah’s Amendment 3 now ruled unconstitutional; Schaerr’s recent law firm which is pro-LGBT, and Bursch whose litigated 6% of his cases. Could this be the winning million dollar team? Caution tax payers of Utah - the new A.G. Reyes appears to need assistance.

Listening Ears
Provo, UT

Interesting choices for Utah’s legal counsel to oppose SSM. Monte Stewart was one of 4 sponsors in the creation of Utah’s Amendment 3 now unconstitutional, delivered amicus curiae brief in a 2008 in California which outcome approved SSM, and delivered amicus curiae brief for United Families International in Iowa’s Varnum v Brien which outcome also approved SSM. Gene Schaerr was counsel at Winston, a legal firm that boasts of its pro-LGBT affinity and defense. John Bursch has litigated only 6% of his cases, has promised to cap his earnings, and played the clarinet. Not sure this is the 2 million-dollar winning team Utah requires for its appeal. In agreement with pervious comments regarding millions for a losing battle, I support aiding the homeless youth and education for the millions-dollar price tag of a losing court case.

to comment

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