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

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Baltimore, MD

@ 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

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

@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.

Saint George, UT

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.

Leesburg, VA

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.


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?

Bountiful, UT

From a constitutional legal perspective, this is a good step and it needs to happen for future legal clarity.

If memory serves me correctly, this would be the first case to appear before the U.S. Supreme Court where a State Constitutional Amendment on marriage has been overturned by a lower Federal Court where the State has legal standing. The previously argued California case (Proposition 8) did not have legal standing according to that decision from SCOTUS. In other words, SCOTUS really did not rule one way or another because the State of California did not take exception to the California Supreme Court decision before the U.S. Supreme Court (they did not rule on the legal validity of Proposition 8 per the U.S. Constitution).

This case will be the first to appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court where it has legal standing. It is the State of Utah that is appealing the lower Court decision.

It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules on this one, which will have an impact on all other States that have like amendments/laws regarding marriage.

Los Angeles, CA

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


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.

Draper, UT

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.


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?


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!

Salt Lake, UT

@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.

Big Joe V
Rancho Cucamonga, CA

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.

Woods Cross, UT

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).

Saint George, UT

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.

let's roll

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

Lehi, UT

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.

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


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.

Salt Lake, UT

@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?"

to comment encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments