Comments about ‘Attorney General Sean Reyes takes oath, poised to appeal gay marriage ruling’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Dec. 30 2013 7:31 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

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.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

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

@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.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

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!

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.
Provo, UT

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.

kaysvillecougar
KAYSVILLE, UT

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.

get her done
Bountiful, UT

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?

Hyhybt
COMMERCE, GA

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.

skrekk
Dane, WI

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.

Bob K
porIland, OR

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.

GaryMKlein
Salem, OR

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!

Saguaro
Scottsdale, AZ

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."

Californian#1@94131
San Francisco, CA

-- "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.

truth in all its forms
henderson, NV

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.

desert
Potsdam, 00

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 !

radiohio
Salt Lake, UT

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.

radiohio
Salt Lake, UT

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.

Clinton
Draper, UT

@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.

Ranch
Here, UT

@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?

Snack Pack
Lehi, UT

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?

to comment

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