Quantcast
Utah

Attorney General Sean Reyes takes oath, poised to appeal gay marriage ruling

Comments

Return To Article
  • radiohio Salt Lake, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    @Snack Pack

    Gay Marriage wasn't prevalent in the 18th Century, but in the 1800's the Mormon Extinction order sure was. People wanted the Mormons gone and to do whatever it took. Why?

    What side would you have landed on for Judge Shelby say he was around back then? To go against the majority will of the state and provide freedom for Mormons or would you have said "Missouri wants us all gone, so we should agree with the state?"

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 6:58 p.m.

    Ranch,

    You have had just as much power to influence government as I have. The law equally protected our voting rights until now. While voting is constitutionally recognized as our unalienable right, marriage in any form or design is not recognized as such.

    Polygamy, race, gender-attraction, and other historical and sensitive issues have risen around marriage. But in each case, the courts cite designs not declared in our supreme and highest law. For example: the men who wrote our constitution wrote laws against practicing homosexuality. When Roe V Wade was ruled on, they cited a right which also was not in the constitution.

    Right or wrong, those laws were valid by the same constitution. Such a process isn't sustainable. I support a dynamic constitution, not judicial tyranny.

    The usual response is that these are simply cases of minorities trumping tyrannical majorities. But one must eventually face the fact that all one must do is convince others they have a "right" in order to repeal all votes, revoke democracy, and usurp power.

    When you convince people you have rights, then use that conviction to invalidate votes... it became my business.

  • RM-PTM Lehi, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 4:48 a.m.

    I can't find anything in any Holy Book that says God wants His followers to make sure the Government is managed according to His commandments. It's pretty arrogant of People of 'Faith' to pressure a completely separate government to create laws based on their 'beliefs' How do we decide which Religion does the deciding? Isn't it dangerous to tell the government to make laws based on Religious beliefs? What happens when the Government starts telling Religions what commandments they have to get rid of? If 2 men marry and receive the same government status and credits as a married man and woman how does that effect anyone? How does it denigrate God or His followers? It doesn't. It just makes Molly Mormon uncomfortable answering her child's questions. You'd think with the recent article on on Black's and their membership in the LDS Church that people would stop jumping to their own conclusions.

  • let's roll LEHI, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:06 p.m.

    Nice to see all the out of state interest in our local politics...you're all invited to come visit us here in Utah.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    Candied: I am glad you believe in equality for everyone in a secular society. now we can allow polygamy, bigamy, adultery, fornication, incest, and Social justice. it is about time we reformed our justice system to confiscate wealth, redistribute income to all, promote any form of marriage, anytime abortion, adoption at any age, compulsion for those who think differently, and, of course, confiscation of firearms, and promotion of pornography. freedom and equality for everyone in a new, glorious secular society.

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 1:29 p.m.

    The best way to protect the religious aspect of marriage and religious liberty is for the state of Utah to back out of recognizing or utilizing any religious ceremony at all. Like Europeans do, there should be a civil component (licensing the marriage/swearing an oath to fulfill the terms of the marriage agreement) and a religious ceremony (if desired by the couple).

  • Big Joe V Rancho Cucamonga, CA
    Dec. 31, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    If you have followed the repercussions of gay (counterfeit) marriage to those here and internationally who refuse to issue marriage licenses or serve the gay (very unhappy) community losing their jobs, forced out of business, suffering lawsuits (targeted)it makes me wonder where the moral backbone is in Utah. I hope all is well, all is well, hasn't become the state motto.

  • radiohio Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    @PhotoSponge who told you/taught you that America was founded on Christian Beliefs? It may have had Christian Forfathers, but some of them were Masons too (some people think masons are Christian, but they do "meet in secret" and worship a great architect...whatever). Just because I am a LDS and my friend is an LDS member and we want to start our own country doesn't make our new country LDS beliefs, unless its stated that way from the beginning.

    No where in our constitution does it say to read your bible or anything.

  • jsucese ,
    Dec. 31, 2013 12:19 p.m.

    Stop wasting our tax paying dollars on a frivolous chase to stop something that is morally wrong. Denying anyone the right marry whom they choose is immoral and unconstitutional. It will be defeated and we end up paying the freaking tab! Stop this now! Write to your congressman/woman and other legislatures to include the governor and tell them to cease this chase. IT'S EMBARRASSING!

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 12:12 p.m.

    It seems to me that making this a States' rights issue makes no sense. How does it make sense for a couple to be married in one State and not all the others? And as we cannot avoid doing business with corporations from other states (think Life Insurance Companies, Hospital Chains)or the Federal Government (IRS, SS), wouldn't the interstate commerce clause necessitate a national approach?

  • DraperUteFan Draper, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    Civility is dead. Whatever happened to respecting one another? I agree with Jon Huntsman. Gay's should have equal rights under the law. People who believe in traditional marriage and religion should be respected as well. Neither side tries to respect or show some degree of deference or understanding for the other side.

    Please don't talk about tolerance unless you practice it. We aren't going to agree on everything, but how about practicing a little civility and respect in a civil society? Some people believe in religion, God, the Bible, and traditional marriage. The LGBT community has nothing but open contempt and mocks anything to do with these values. Conversely, as a practicing Christian, I believe gay people should have equal rights and freedoms under the law.

    @Ranch, before you castigate Mr. Reyes, he is sworn to uphold two constitutions, including the state law. It is his job to uphold state law and let the case play out in court. Don't blame this situation and its handling on Mr. Reyes. He is doing the job he was sworn to do, which is to inherit a constitutional crisis between state and federal law.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    Since it is the IRS tax law that discriminates against singles, then all those who feel that they are being discriminated against by these tax laws should attack the IRS not the states that are charged by the US constitution 10th amendment to maintain the public morals and health of it's citizens.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    ..........and the final word will be for all you mormons,equal rights for ALL Americans,so sorry!

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    Perhaps the State of Utah should only be issuing civil union certificates and leave marriage and it's definition to the religion of the couples choice?

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    It seems there is a lot of corruption in the State of Utah:

    "House GOP majority leadership gave Reyes the go-ahead last Friday to spend the money.
    Monday, he justified the expenditure to reporters by describing dealing with the Supreme Court as "a very unique and specialized expertise" and said when his office doesn't have that expertise, it'll pay to get it."

    1st: I understand that the GOP is the majority in the Legislative Branch and everything else in Utah. But,do they rule without even the appearance of a democracy i.e. vote on the floor?

    2.- "a very unique and specialized expertise" Wow! I thought that SSM is a new legal field and that somebody can claim to be an "expert" in this area sounds....fishy! I'm sure they refer to the SSM experience. I would be surprise that a State doesn't know how to deal with the SCOTUS.

    3.- The AG office is anticipating the outcome and doesn't want to be blamed for the defeat. On the contrary they want to be perceived as having done everything to protect "traditional marriage". They are putting a good show in legal window dressing.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    Mike in sandy: I like liberty so much I want the federal government out of everything that the Constitution didn't and doesn't allow, including a federal definition of marriage! I am glad you want liberty so much that you will agree with me. States Rights is where it is at, not if I agree or disagree. if you vote for liberty, most of everything federal will disappear and for good reason; it allows the people of each state to decide and it gives every state a chance to define liberty. slavery would have died on the vine, with 600,000 more men to pursue their dreams. It may have taken a little longer, but that is the great thing about liberty, in the end people get to decide, not a tyrannical and oppressive government. I am happy that you are for liberty.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    @Earnest T. Bass

    Utah will accomplish something important though. This case will legalize Gay marriages nationwide in the next 18 months. No other case out there is anywhere near reaching the Supreme Court. Consider the following:

    The 10th Circuit Court is expediting Utah's appeal. A ruling by late spring is within reach. Utah's new legal team specializes in this area of the law. The Marriage Equality advocates are bringing in counsel experienced in this debate. The two sides will make the arguments the Supreme Court wants to hear.

    In June of 2015, The Supreme Court will vote 6-3 to uphold Judge Shelby's decision. If you are an advocate of marriage equality, you don't want to oppose Utah's appeal.

  • Wadyaknow Baltimore, MD
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:41 a.m.

    @ Snack Pack - " I thought the founders intent was provide three rights, not four; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I must have missed the homosexual marriage." Gee - and I must of missed the straight marriage in this same quote!

    I am enjoying this from afar. The new AG pledges transparency, yet he cannot show one reason how gay marriage hurts anyone. Spend baby Spend! With the income from gay marriages taking place in Utah you certainly have the money to fight - gay marriages! oooops

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    This is the Utah Oath of Office:

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.["]

    ---

    Mr. Reyes takes the Oath of Office and IMMEDIATELY turns around and promises to violate that oath by refusing to defend the US Constitution and the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equality.

    Oathbreaker.

  • gary47290 Berkeley, CA
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    People ask, "Why not polygamy?" Because Polygamy has historically, and based on Warren Jeffs, currently been shown to be abusive to women, and creates welfare fraud. Based on recent Fundy LDS news, it also kicks male children to the street as soon as they turn 16, a serious harm to stable families.

    On a purely practical level, all evidence points to plural marriage as 1 powerful man, multiple less powerful women. There is nothing to suggest an equivalent number of women want more than one husband.

    The simple result of that fact is large number of disadvantage men with no hope of a wife or even a date. That will be highly disruptive to civil society.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    Since the Constitution of the United States was founded on HUMANIST beliefs and principles, it would, therefore, be unconstitutional to support anything other than marriage between anyone and anyone, since that is the will and intent of the very secular Thomas Jefferson.

  • TheRealU HERRIMAN, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    @1994
    I believe the Consitution is evil? Well, that is news to me. I believe in the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land, which is why I support marriage equality. As the 14th ammendment clearly states that no laws shall be passed which deny equal protection under the law. Thus, anyone who believes in the constitution and for which it stands, should be happy to see our LGBT friends allowed the right to marry (along with the 1,100 or so benefits that come with it).

    As I am quite confused as to where you got the idea that I "believe the Constitution is evil", I can only assume you derived this from my comment that "Your God has no basis in law." Too clarify, while I believe in your right to excercise your religion freely, you do not have the right to use your God as a means to justify law. Law is justified solely by the US Constitution.

  • gary47290 Berkeley, CA
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    One important note missing in the whole discussion: Does a state have the right to make bad public policy? Utah's Amendment 3 is bad public policy, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

    That said, I've been waiting for years for the anti-Gay side to explain why it is their business if a same-sex couple wants to wed. The Prop 8 documented that there is no harm to extending civil marriage.

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    Reyes should first and foremost seek a criminal indictment against Swallow for Evidence Tampering and Obstruction of Justice. His first obligation to the citizens of Utah is to clear out the stink he inherited. Without a criminal resolution of Swallow and Shurtleff, his term in office will always be subject to the lingering stink of scandal.His chances of re-election will certainly be enhanced if he brings resolution to the criminal activity that the whole Stste now KNOWS about.I emphasize "KNOWS ABOUT" because with the recent revelation that Swallow had refused sworn testimony before the House Investigative Committee everyone is now clear as to Swallows real motives which were to ride out the storm without cooperating and take the first exit that would protect him from criminal prosecution. The citizens of Utah cannot allow that to happen. Our judicial rights must be supported with criminal indictments if they are warranted.If they are NOT, then say so!!

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    @Marine1;

    The LGBT community has hurt a number of people? Kettle, call pot.

    No, businesses do not have the right to refuse to serve customers for petty religious reasons. Now, if they were to refuse to service ALL "sinners", then it would be okay to refuse to serve LGBT people for their "sins"; but since they continue to service other "sinners" and simply single out LGBT "sinners", their so-called "religious consciences" are not sincere.

    If you'd been following some of these cases, the Florist in Oregon WAS a friend to the gay couple. She'd provided flowers to them many times and they *thought* she was a "friend", at least until she refused to provide flowers for their wedding.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    2 Million is just the beginning folks. If the state of Utah is defeated yet again regarding this matter they won't stop. We will be a minimum of 10 million before we are through.

    I weep when I think of how much good this money could do for our school systems. The good it could do for our homeless. The good it could do for our roads. The good it could do for our state employees.

    Maybe the best use for the money would be for the AG to hire outside services to investigate the clear collaboration between a certain Utah origination and the Governors office? Their is clear corruption in our Governors office folks and your either to naïve to see it or your in complete denial.

    I urge the Governor to resign before he and his cronies cause un-repairable damage to this great state!

  • 1994 Cottonwood Hts., UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    TheRealU
    A couple of thoughts:

    Since you seem to think that the Constitution is so evil, what would you replace it with?
    Sharia Law? Its happening in Europe (since they too have abandoned the Bible) they would stone a GLBT.

    As for your "few quotes:" Allow me to expand if I may.

    "As the government of the United States of America is NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION" - George Washington. --> True, the book of Deuteronomy was the most quoted (it is not a CHRISTIAN but rather Jewish document).

    more to follow...

  • Instereo Eureka, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    Interesting, he is going to fight against gay marriage instead of fight for marriage equality.

  • Matt9898 Salt lake, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:19 a.m.

    @Snack Pack
    If you are using the 18th century as a benchmark for behavior ("why gay marriage prevalent in the 18th century"), then I suppose you think slavery is something we should re-establish? And women's suffrage should be repealed? many traditions of the past no longer exist for a good reason.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    The failure that has haunted the Utah Attorney General's office is continuing. The waste of taxpayer dollars on this hateful and bigoted appeal will haunt the new Attorney General. Hiring outside legal help to chase nonsense is so "Puppy" like. It takes "Bulldog" courage to face the majority, when the majority is clearly wrong. Having a puppy, or puppet, for Attorney General is not good for the State of Utah.

  • TheRealU HERRIMAN, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    @Candide
    There are lots of sins listed in the Bible, but we don't make it illegal to work on Sunday or wear clothes made from different fabrics. I don't care what you think a Sin is, you have no right to legislate your religious beliefs into law in a secular society."

    Don't forget:

    Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

    If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

    Any person who curses his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)

    Anyone who curses God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

    Eating shellfish is an ABOMINATION! (Leviticus 11:9-12)

    If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10)

    Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)

    I think we need to pass an amendement to the Constitution, so that these things may come to pass. They are, afterall, the word of God.

    Either live these words to their fullest, or stop cherry-picking. Live and let live.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    If you want to have a total perspective on the New Year, read the Deseret News and then the New York Daily News. The issue of the judge overruling the Constitution pales in comparison to what is unfolding in New York City. The Bible was used to swear in Mr. Reyes with a heartfelt "so help me God". In New York City, Bill Clinton will swear in the new mayor Bill de Blasio with the hordes from Les Miserable standing right behind him.

  • 1994 Cottonwood Hts., UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    To those who argue "You Can't Legislate Morality" may I suggest, all law is based upon a moral standard, our nation's founders were influenced more by the Bible than by any other book or philosophy (see Donald S. Lutz of the University of Houston. The American Political Science Review, 1984). The Constitution is based upon the Judeo-Christian biblical standard of right and wrong (The 10 Commandments). The biblical standard is not eligible for "redefinition." It does not change "with the times." It is not "evergreen" it does not bend to popular opinion.

    The Founders in their wisdom chose it because history and wisdom showed them that it was the only formula that consistently preserved *individual liberty* in the long run. Only as we have deviated from the *highest intents* of that original blueprint have we run into trouble. Will anyone dispute that rock-solid fact? (Yes, I'm sure someone will, it is a fact nonetheless.) Those of us "cretins" who seek Judeo-Christian based legislation (i.e. "God-given" not "state-given") on marriage are not seeking to enforce our morality, just the reverse, we are seeking legislation that will simply allow us (the religiously "moral") to LIVE!

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    @TheRealU

    Good stuff!

    @ those who are for banning gay marriage...

    I can't believe that you could ever be described as Christlike.
    Christ wants nothing to do with bigots. He is mad that you use his name in your "church".

  • TheRealU HERRIMAN, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    @Snack Pack
    "So why, oh why, wasn't gay marriage prevalent in the 18th Century?"

    Well, interracial marriage, women's rights, and many other minority rights were not prevelant in the 18th century - should we take away those rights?

    @PhotoSponge
    "Since the Constitution of the United States was founded on CHRISTIAN beliefs and principles, it would, therefore, be unconstitutional to support anything other than marriage between a man and a women, since that is the law of God."

    A few quotes:
    "As the government of the United States of America is NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION" - George Washington.

    "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises."--Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Samuel Miller, 1808

    "Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another."--Benjamin Franklin

    "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on a man."--Thomas Jefferson

    Your God has no basis in law.

  • aislander Anderson Island, WA
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    LOL Unique and specialized expertise? Really? Translation: NO one has yet come up with a legally sustainable argument to deny law-abiding tax-paying gay U.S. Citizens equal treatment under law. We've seen this in case after case. The best lawyers and experts of the anti-gay forces have failed utterly to advance such an argument, and further, have had to admit openly under oath that no harm is caused by gay marriage only benefits to society.

    Whatever firm the Governor and AG choose will love having millions of dollars thrown their way, but they won't be able to produce a case that hasn't already failed miserably. It will be interesting to watch all this taxpayer money thrown at such a hopeless and mean-spirited cause. When Justice Scalia himself predicted that decisions like this one inevitable after Lawrence and Windsor, it doesn't take a genius to understand that this is an exercise in futility. Far more likely that Utah's pursuit of this case will lead to 50 state marriage equality rather than a reversal, if so, it will be sweet irony it's paid for largely by Utah taxpayers. Can you say schadenfreude?

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    So much hatred and bigotry.
    What happened to live and let live?

    Who would deny equal rights to all?
    Oh yeah...Utahns

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    John 3:16
    There are lots of sins listed in the Bible, but we don't make it illegal to work on Sunday or wear clothes made from different fabrics. I don't care what you think a Sin is, you have no right to legislate your religious beliefs into law in a secular society.

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    Here in Arizona we have an elected Attorney General who has personally argued cases before a federal Circuit Court of Appeals. But then, appellate practice experience should not be a mandatory requirement for the job. The AG supervises other lawyers who represent the state. And of course, he or she tries to recruit the best lawyers who have chosen public service.

    Let's consider how that recruiting will work. "We need you to work in local courts for convictions in misdemeanor crimes, and civil cases involving tax controversies," the AG might say. "You won't have to worry about career advancement, because if anything difficult comes up, we'll trust it to outside law firms whose partners make much more money than you ever will."

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    PhotoSponge: "Since the Constitution of the United States was founded on CHRISTIAN beliefs and principles, it would, therefore, be unconstitutional to support anything other than marriage between a man and a women, since that is the law of God."

    Faulty premise, meet faulty conclusion.

  • Marine1 Apollo Beach, FL
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    Gary,
    Here you are wrong. I am not for or against gay marriage, but the LGBT community has hurt a number of people and continue to hurt and sue individual business owners who would like to be able to run their business by the way that they believe. Why is it not okay for a person of any faith or religion or race or color to say that in their store they will not service a particular person. This should be their right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Yet the LGBT community is not willing to be told no and go to another person. I could understand if they had no other choices, but a cake decorator or a flower shop please. Go to one of your LGBT friends who own a shop and leave the Christians alone.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    @I know it. I Live it. I Love it;

    You can vote on my marriage the day I get to vote on yours. Otherwise, you should MYOB. God didn't give you the right to discriminate against your fellow citizens; Jesus TOLD you to treat others are you want to be treated.

    @PhotoSponge;

    Your god doesn't get to say who marries in this country and who doesn't.

    @Hank Jr;

    Appealing to the SCOTUS could backfire on the LDS church run Utah legislature and make same-sex marriage the law of the land. That'll really suck for you, having to marry a gay guy.

    @John 3:16;

    Blah, blah, blah. Haven't we heard enough about *sin* to turn our stomachs yet?

  • Jeffsfla Glendale, CA
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    I am disappointed the conservative legislators just dont stick to their values and reduce government waste. But I am glad this very important question is finally going to be brought to the SCOTUS. Then maybe Utah can take credit and is doing a favor for the remaining 32 states which will finally be told they cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians. I guess it has to happen somewhere.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    I would recommend that we all stop worrying about other people's sins and focus on how we can improve ourselves. Perhaps it's more love and charity that we need. Maybe we need to be more forgiving of others. On this day when we put our old faults behind and set goals for improvement, I suggest we all work on ways how we can get along in this state in spite of our differences.

    I suggest we all pray for understanding, empathy, and charity. We need to look out for and be kinder to everyone in this state.

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    I applaud Mr. Reye's actions in bringing in "experts". There are so many facets of law, an attorney is not expected to be at the top of every game. Come on people, if you need brain surgery, you probably won't have your GP perform it. And good luck to those fighting this battle to preserve the quality of life in Utah as defined by the majority that believes God defined marriage as a contract between one man and one woman. We are bound to fight this battle to uphold His will.

  • Gary Federal Way, WA
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    This is going to be a $2 million waste of tax payers money. And some of the comments here show how little people understand the US Constitution and how it currently protects them as US citizens in a state. It was not written with only Christian values in mind but written to protect the minority and people from a government tyranny that would make religion the reason for policy and thereby harming a class of people.

    The allowing of Gay marriage has not hurt anyone in the state. Show me someone that's been hurt from this. You won't find any. The only people you're wanting to hurt are the gay people who marry because they have great love for their spouse partner.

  • John 3:16 West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    A SIN will ALWAYS be a SIN even if the laws of the land legalize gay marriage.

  • Hank Jr Draper, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    By appealing to the Supreme Court I firmly believe this will make it a State's right to decide the future of homosexual marriage.

  • Joemamma W Jordan, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    A hispanic brother huh?
    Finally a hispanic conservative man who thinks for himself and chooses how to think politicallly instead of being told what to think politically based on his race.
    Before you call me a racist be advise that I'm hispanic my self.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 7:52 a.m.

    So the new AG wants to spend who knows how much to fight what has to be a losing battle, and he refuses to tell us who is representing the state? What is going on? The veil of secrecy must come to an end in that office. Haven't we suffered enough?

  • Mlawrence Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    These tired old talking points "Utah's voter-approved constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman", Let's be truthful "Utah's voter-approved constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman as being unconstitutional, unfair, discriminatory, hateful and bigoted." They seem to think that "voter approved" makes it right. It doesn't, it just makes the voters look bad. Stop making the voters look like twisted bigoted hateful people, stop reminding us of this tragic mistake of 2004 and let's move forward.

  • Disgusted American deptford, NJ
    Dec. 31, 2013 7:24 a.m.

    awe you poor dears...all verklempt, do you need "fainting couches"??? Guess what - how has anyone whose MARRIED Affected YOU????? HINT: They HAVEN'T!

  • Funzi Italy, 00
    Dec. 31, 2013 7:22 a.m.

    This is a real battle and they will need the best fighters! This vile attack against democracy must be defeated to give a precedent and an example to every one! Moreover, the definition of marriage must be defended to the very last moment! Marriage is between a man and a woman!

  • Ryfren Coralville , IA
    Dec. 31, 2013 7:18 a.m.

    So, Utah, why is defeating gay marriage worth $2 million+ ?

    Here's is a survey dug up from 2005 (and, btw., to the "55%" in that survey I say: You just outed yourselves!):

    "In a 2005 paper in the Journal of GLBT Family Studies, University of Utah researchers Emma Gross and Edward Cahoon Byrnes suggest a uniquely Mormon reason Utahans are so nervous about gay people:

    "Utahans appear to worry that homosexual youth will try to recruit heterosexual youth to homosexuality…For example, [of 521] respondents, 55.3 percent [believe] that “when gays and lesbians are involved in any organization there is a risk that they will influence youths to become gay or lesbian.” Significantly, Mormons grow their religion by extensive, aggressive proselyting. Mormon youth serve two years as missionaries whose primary function is to convert others to Mormonism. Interestingly, focus group discussions indicate that there is a connection that exists between the society’s religious preoccupation with conversion, to which Mormon youth are socialized, and the widespread perception that homosexual youth are somehow similarly committed to recruiting."

  • AllBlack San Diego, CA
    Dec. 31, 2013 7:16 a.m.

    @Ernest T Bass,

    I agree with you that this is a lost cause and it will probably pass a SCOUS test.

    The question for me though is why can two adults marry, hetero o homo, but not 4 or 5 or 20 in a polygamous or polyandrous marriage? Why is this definition of marriage changed to include gay men, for example, marrying but not Brady and his five wives.

    It would appear that no one considers the banning of polygamy in all 50 states to be discriminatory because only some fundamentalist mormons, some muslims hindu or african families are affected but its OK to change the definition of marriage for two men or two women to marry.

    If it's OK to allow two dudes to marry legally with a licence because they love each other and smile during their wedding photos then it should be OK for Brady (or others like him) to marry his five loving wives since they too can smile for the cameras during their polygamists marriage ceremony.

  • The_Laird Patchogue, NY
    Dec. 31, 2013 7:12 a.m.

    Jon Huntsman deserves some credit for this shift, having pushed for civil unions four years ago as Governor when a majority of Utahns were opposed to the idea. He, like few others, represents where the party needs to be to remain viable into the future.

    Huntsman 2016.

  • PhotoSponge nampa, ID
    Dec. 31, 2013 7:02 a.m.

    Sorry, but you can't say where your tax money goes, on an individual basis. If that were the case, many of the U.S. Citizens would demand that certain things NOT be covered, out of personal beliefs: no abortions paid for by tax dollars, no benefits to illegal aliens, no welfare for those ABLE to work but just don't feel like it. Oh yes, and no tax dollars going to sex-change operations to prisoners.

    Since the Constitution of the United States was founded on CHRISTIAN beliefs and principles, it would, therefore, be unconstitutional to support anything other than marriage between a man and a women, since that is the law of God.

  • Hora Cleveland, OH
    Dec. 31, 2013 7:01 a.m.

    We no Have enough a good patriot honest Lawyer, Guy must trike down, one time and forever, a solution is purge all judges State and federal, only judges who Obey and enforce very clear all laws can be in power, all another fired and quit his or her Law license. Very small minority of mental disturbing can have no right. We need start clean of any mental American take out street.
    Voter have more power who any judge.

  • Snack Pack Lehi, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 6:49 a.m.

    That's funny. I thought the founders intent was provide three rights, not four; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I must have missed the homosexual marriage. Unfortunately we don't live off of the Constitution but case law which is now making the Republic unrecognizable. Another note on founders intent; surely we would have expected the founders to live under the law which they formed. So why, oh why, wasn't gay marriage prevalent in the 18th Century?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 6:25 a.m.

    @Ernest T. Bass;

    You're asking them to look at *sinners* for crying out loud. What are you trying to do, turn them into pillars of salt?

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 5:14 a.m.

    @RanchHand That is not correct. The taxes of LGBT citizens will be used against their will just as my tax money will be used for Obamacare, which is against my will.

  • radiohio Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 4:24 a.m.

    It would be nice to see the Deseret News post more PRO-LGBTQ stories. I know they like to cover "family stories" and thats one thing I respect them for.

    You did such a great article yesterday thats now hidden deep in the site about Gay families. How about more pro-gay stories.

    Now of course the ownership would probably prohibit any pro-gay stories, but just saying it would be nice to incorporate the 5% for a change.

  • radiohio Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 4:22 a.m.

    Thank you Deseret News for posting this part of the article:

    "It apparently has been difficult for the state to find lawyers willing to take on the appeal to the 10th Circuit, and potentially the Supreme Court."

    Ah, it's been difficult? Well a good reason might be because no lawyer wants to lose, especially against the supreme court. If a good firm wants to protect their dignity, going up against the supreme court in a losing battle is often egg in the face.

    Maybe it's because most law offices have open hiring policies and look at their legal attorneys and aides as equal people under the law because they understand the constitution. For an attorney to "defend" this would look like they are a bigoted law firm, again egg in the face.

    Now there will be some firm that will represent Utah and the new AG. Why? They are Money Hungry, they will think of it as their 15 seconds of fame win or lose and they ultimately may just be a bigoted firm to begin with.

    Good luck Utah, thank you for wasting MY money and MY business money.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 31, 2013 4:13 a.m.

    Hopefully money does not make them feel better.
    If they can't be smarter this time, how then ?

    Issues like harm and that china-copy of the term marriage, and new legal interpretations considered in a win/win approach against those who are trying to change society for more "Un-equality". If they can't divert the softening of language, then lost already.

    It is not so much a legal battle, rather a war on the mind.
    Mind me saying that, but coming from AG and having big money does not give them intelligence.
    The results will count !

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    Dec. 31, 2013 1:55 a.m.

    Utah should have made who ever is getting that $2 million to be the next Attorney general. Since that person is obviously the best money can buy and capable of appealing gay marriage.

  • Californian#1@94131 San Francisco, CA
    Dec. 31, 2013 1:54 a.m.

    -- "Can't handle the case itself, the AG's office has to bring in 'outside experts'. The AG's office is not looking good. Not looking good at all." --

    Not so. The Utah AG's office is looking quite good: being resourceful in using outside assistance, but acting in its official capacity as the People's counsel to avoid another fiasco over legal standing.

    Contrast this to what happened in California, where the AG and Governor refused to carry out their oath of office to uphold the law of the state, a constitutional amendment passed by initiative. The National Organization for Marriage volunteered to represent the People in court, because legal representation is a basic constitutional right. This is what led to the US Supreme Court decision that nullified the decision of the People while sticking to the narrow issue of legal standing.

    By acting as counsel, Utah's AG is making sure the People will not be deprived of every American's right to representation the way people of California were. By being willing to consult a private attorney, he is being extra diligent to ensure that the People get the best possible representation.

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Dec. 31, 2013 1:16 a.m.

    And what does the rest of the country think? David Socarides, writing for the New Yorker blog, notes "It’s hard to know if Utah officials had any warning signs, but if they did, they surely should have been better prepared. They could, for example, have asked the judge in advance to delay implementation of any possible ruling pending appeal. That they did not do so seems to have handicapped them: since the weddings have already begun, the state can’t really claim to be seeking to preserve the status quo by stopping them."

  • GaryMKlein Salem, OR
    Dec. 31, 2013 1:03 a.m.

    Every day, we here another refrain of "today or tomorrow" as to when this appeal will be filed.

    The new attorney general raised the subject of TRANSPARENCY, but will not name the private attorneys or law firms that will represent the State in this lawsuit.

    How many other states open up their government's checkbooks to hire outside attorneys when appealing a case through the Federal courts?

    HOW MANY UTAH RESIDENTS think that the outside law firm's bill will be UNDER the $2 million projection?

    Will the governor or attorney general issue guarantees that the cost will not go above that estimate?

    How often does any state government projection wind up UNDER BUDGET? Versus the percent of times they go OVER BUDGET?

    Be careful of what you wish for, since it has a price tag in real life & real money!

  • Bob K porIland, OR
    Dec. 31, 2013 12:54 a.m.

    Meckofahess
    Salt Lake City, UT
    "... Mr. Reyes, please remember that the majority of Utahns want a fair hearing of our concerns over the legal definition of marriage. As we the majority of citizens pay the bulk of the taxes, please deploy as many millions as needed to ensure that we have the best legal team possible to represent the point of view of the majority of the people... God Bless!"

    --A: I am not sure the part about most citizens paying most of the taxes gives them the right to see the proven rights of a minority rehashed over and over.

    --B: I certainly do not think the "as many millions as needed" will float with the majority of Utahns, but I could be wrong.

    --C: I really do not see how one can wish Mr Reyes success as Attorney General while sending him off on an expensive "fool's errand" that will only polarize people more, and cause further damage to the reputation of Utah and its citizens.

    --D: From outside Utah, any appeal is pretty much going to be seen as lds church motivated, since there is no correct legal argument for appeal. Acceptance might be better strategy.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Dec. 31, 2013 12:41 a.m.

    Isn't Monte Stewart the guy who filed amicus briefs to support the losing side in the Windsor and Prop h8 cases (2013) as well as California's In re Marriage Cases (2008), Iowa's Varnum v. Brien (2009), and Connecticut's Kerrigan v. Comm’r of Pub. Health (2008)?

    In fact the only marriage equality case he's been on the winning side was back in 2006 in Nebraska.

  • Hyhybt COMMERCE, GA
    Dec. 31, 2013 12:13 a.m.

    The question is, what is his goal with the marriage thing? If it's to make himself appealing to certain segments of the population by being able to say "I fought hard," filing every appeal possible is the right tactic. But if the goal is to keep gay marriage unrecognized in as much of the world as possible for as long as possible, it's exactly the wrong one. There is no reason to believe either the appeals court or, if it accepts the case at all, the Supreme Court will reverse the decision; appealing only means potentially spreading the effect either circuit-wide or nationally.

  • get her done Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 12:02 a.m.

    Get your tickets now to see the most useless appeal ever presented to the U.S. supreme court. Make sure you get your life jackets for this ride on the titanic. Oh, by the way bring 2 million dollars to throw in the ocean while watching it buying nothing. Utah is making the most expensive three stooges movies ever made. I am going to wear a bag on my head and change my license plates. Where is common sense?

  • kaysvillecougar KAYSVILLE, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 12:01 a.m.

    Congratulations Mr. Reyes. We applaud your efforts to defend the constitution of this great state. It's unfortunate that one man with an agenda gets to make a political decision from the bench and ignore to will of we the people of this state. That is worth defending. So is traditional marriage. We've got your back and we hope you have ours.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 11:38 p.m.

    RanchHand,

    If your rights are derived from the U.S. Constitution, so can they be taken away by the U.S. Constitution and those who govern it. With no disrespect, I offer this idea... that where we place our trust is just as important as why we are doing it.

    I vote on marriage for the same reason we have laws regarding libel and why we have traffic lights. We do to govern and regulate society in order to foster the freedom/potential for human happiness. None of these have taken rights away that did not already exist.

    You remain free to interact with your fellow man, peruse your own happiness, and so on. You may disagree about such freedom, but I again caution... if you succeed in the government regulating this affair according to your interpretations... then we the people, we the government, will have just as much power to take away what you have given us permission to.

    God gives us what we have and can just as rightfully take it again. We can try to justify ourselves and our governments... but we cannot exceed His authority. We inherit rights, we don't create them.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:28 p.m.

    The only thing the "outside experts" are going to do is make millions from Utah taxpayers only to lose this so-called 'battle' in the end.
    It's time to deal with reality: There are no legal reasons two adults cannot marry. This isn't a religious issue, this is a Civil Rights issue and your side lost.
    Stop wasting taxpayer money and accept the inevitable. Take a look at the photos of the people who are finally becoming families. This is a great thing!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:24 p.m.

    @Meckofahess;

    Fortunately for those of us who also live in Utah, our Constitutional rights are not subject to the "will of the majority"; but derive from the US Constitution, which invalidates Utah's Amendment 3 due to it's Constitutional violations.

    You are welcome to send money, but the state is not welcome to use the tax money of LGBT citizens in it's efforts to pursue further discrimination against us. I can see a lawsuit in that too.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 8:55 p.m.

    Congratulations to Attorney General Reyes on his recent appointment. A wise move by our Governor. Mr. Reyes, please remember that the majority of Utahns want a fair hearing of our concerns over the legal definition of marriage. As we the majority of citizens pay the bulk of the taxes, please deploy as many millions as needed to ensure that we have the best legal team possible to represent the point of view of the majority of the people. We wish you success as our Attorney General - you are off to a good start. God Bless!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 7:47 p.m.

    Can't handle the case itself, the AG's office has to bring in "outside experts".

    The AG's office is not looking good. Not looking good at all.