Comments about ‘10th Circuit sets 'expedited' schedule for appeal of Amendment 3’

Return to article »

Appellate attorney predicts resolution could be reached by spring

Published: Monday, Dec. 30 2013 5:55 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
truth in all its forms
henderson, NV

$2 million dollars for 2 months of work. I should have went to law school.

American Fork, UT

It'll be interesting to hear what kind of argument we get for two million bucks as we try to convince the supreme court that the constitution does not apply to everyone.

Salt Lake City, UT

Can my 1-2 dollars worth of taxpayer money of that 2 million go towards trying to get the lawyers to make "Mawwiage is what bwings us together, today" the first line of their opening statement?

Pleasant Grove, UT

We will spend more than 2 million on calamity cleanup.

Sandy, UT

What part of the constitution is being violated? You say the 14th? Nope, it deals with race or origins not gay lifestyle. in fact their life style is not even a protected class by the federal government.

Marriage is under the jurisdiction of the States, not the federal courts, that is why we have district courts and Supreme Court for each state. they determine the validity of law, then they can turn to the federal courts for is appealed.

The problem is that Federal Courts over the past decade or so have blurred the line between what is handled in the State courts and what is handled on the federal level.

Salt Lake City, UT

"The state is to file its opening brief by Jan. 27"
Is that enough time for the state to come up with an entirely new argument?
What they came to court with last time was junk.

Conner Johnson

Can't think of ANYWHERE else that money could go... But hey, it's just $2 million dollars. Sounds like our new AG sure knows how to pick a winner.

Brigham City, UT

Utah wins 9-0 on Supreme Court; few justices want to be dictators; this is a democracy, our vote should count.

Utah, UT

Show me where in the constitution it claims the government has authority over marriage or that marriage is an inalienable human right? Marriage is not a basic right. If we were passing laws preventing same-sex individuals from romantic relationships, that's one thing. That is infringement on an inalienable human right. Maintaining the religious definition of a religiously ordained institution is not.

ute alumni

if you don't fight to uphold what the majority legally voted for, then what is worth fighting for? just because a very small minority wants to call it marriage doesn't make it so. APPEAL


Ute Alumni writes: "if you don't fight for what the majority votes for, then What is worth fighting for?". With all due respect, at various times majorities of Americans have voted to support slavery, disenfranchise women and steal the property of Native Americans. If our history teaches us anything it is that liberty and freedom are not guaranteed by majorities, but by the rule of law. indeed we have a Constitution precisely so that minorities are protected from the tyranny of the majority (hopefully you agree with that sentiment).

A federal judge--the CONSTITUTIONALLY delegated authority to review such appeals did so. Based on a SUPREME COURT ruling he overturned a STATE LAW which must comply with the 14th amendment. This is our process. It is working as our framers intended. You are more than welcome to disagree, but not to say I is unfair. You had your day in court. And lost.

Salt Lake City, UT

I can't wait until this goes to the Supreme Court. The court will rule the ban is unconstitutional and all the state bans will be overturned at once. Thank you Utah for pressing this issue to its ultimate conclusion. Who knew that Utah, of all the states, would be responsible for making gay marriage the law of the land in the U.S. Let freedom ring!

Murray, UT

@confused "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or 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." -14 Amendment Section1. Take note, your analysis is wrong. Judge Shelby has ruled in favor of all US Citizens the right to marry. The 10th circuit in some capacity also agrees, by not issuing the stay they felt the State of Utah does not have a solid legal argument to overturn Shelby's ruling.


Reflectere is right there is no Constitutional right to marry. There is however a constitutional right to be treated equally under the law. Utah or any other state for that matter may not confer benefits (social or financial) to some citizens but deny them to others. It violates the 14th Amendment. Hence, shelby's ruling, based on Windsor.

Furthermore I am puzzled as to why this is so surprising to Utahns whose admission to the Union was held up until the federal government was satisfied the state complied with a FEDERAL definition of marriage. Utah was not then, and is not now able to avoid federal scrutiny or judicial review. The century may be different but Federal law still trumps state. And Utah still has to be in compliance. The process of Congressional admission of states, NOT citizen referenda clearly establishes this Federal primacy

So, Reflectere, the 14th Amendment protects me as well as you, guaranteeing me all the privileges conferred to you. Your only constitutional recourse is for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether.

Riverside, CA

"With all due respect, at various times majorities of Americans have voted to support slavery, disenfranchise women . . ."

Slavery was abolished following the Civil War when three quarters of the states ratified the 13th Amendment. It did not become law because some enlightened judge said so.

Women were guaranteed the right to vote with the ratification of the 19th Amendment -- 50 years or so AFTER the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment. Again, it became law only after being ratified by a super majority.

During the 70s the Equal Rights Amendment failed to be ratified.

No, the framers would be SHOCKED that a judge would one day usurp authority to write SSM into the Constitution.

Cedar Hills, UT

The US Supreme Court will strike down this activist judges ruling and restore Utah's constitution. I wish the US Supreme Court would just rule once and for all that gay marriage is NOT provided for or protected by the Constitution and avoid all these activist judges and their unconstitutional rulings. What a waste of money and time. I predict if the BIG BROTHER federal govt continues to stomp on states rights and create a socialist like political environment here in the US you will see states begin the process of secession in the next 15-20 years. I just returned from California and I spoke to relatives who live there and they are furious with Gov Jerry Brown and how he is bankrupting their state and opening the flood gates of illegal amnesty and immorality. The LA area is quickly turning into Detroit - the infrastructure is crumbling away and business is leaving for Texas and Utah and the mid west to escape the insane corporate taxes. Liberalism is a cancer.


SoCalChris: the 14th Amendment says that NO citizen (that includes gays and lesbians) shall be denied equal protection under the law. If Utah disenfranchises a group exclusively because they are different they have been denied equal protection. You are welcome to disapprove of my lifestyle. You may not marginalized me because of it. When Utah PETITIONED to become a state it agreed to uphold the constitution. Nothing has changed. The 4th amendment was there when Utah arrived. It's there now. You may not like it but you DO have to obey it. It applies to you too.

Salt Lake City, UT

Liberalism is a cancer? You're the one talking about how conservatives may end up wanting to secede. Talk about destroying the nation...


No one is prohibiting gays and lesbians from making vows to each other or living together. If the issue is tax treatment, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, etc. that can easily be remedied through civil unions.

The core issue in gay marriage is not about "equal rights" as proposed civil union legislation that would grant the same technical relationship for legal purposes is opposed by most gays and lesbians.

The core issue is the desire by homosexuals to feel accepted and validated by society, even if this must be accomplished by legal force. Not all unions are treated "equally" by the government, even if they involve consenting adults (see laws regarding bigamy, adult parents marrying adult children, adult brothers marrying adult sisters, etc.) There are very good reasons why we "discriminate" against those unions and it has nothing to do with our "hate" of parents, children, brothers, or sisters.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that marriage is a fundamental right of citizenship. In the DOMA case, the court ruled that while states have the right to regulate marriage, their regulations must be in accord with the U.S. constitution. In this same case they found that part of DOMA violated the civil rights of gay and lesbian citizens. That decision was the basis of the recent ruling by Judge Shelby.

The most important factor in determining when to issue a stay is if, in the court's opinion, the appeal is likely to prevail. The fact that stays have been denied on three occasions now means that the court doesn't think that Utah has a very good case.

to comment

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