Comments about ‘Gay marriages are 'affront' to Utah, state argues in appeal to high court’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 31 2013 6:16 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

I doubt She'll grant the stay.

However, this case will probably be fast tracked to the Supreme Court. I am in 100% support of the State and it's efforts to defend marriage, the will of the people and the right of states to determine what their marriage laws will be.

Really???
Kearns, UT

How many of you actually believe that Justice Sotamayor will halt the "numerous couples" that are getting married each day? Will she really see this as an affront to Utah or determine that a majority cannot vote away the rights and happiness of any minority? It will be interesting to see how quickly this request for a stay will be denied.

To those of you that say the LGBTQ community is out to destroy families, please take a serious look at who we are. We are the favorite aunts and uncles in our extended families. We are the good neighbors who shovel snow from the sidewalks of the houses next door. We are the volunteers at homeless shelters and soup kitchens. We do these things next to you, yet you want to deny us the same opportunities to marry and publicly commit to the one we love.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

"The 10th Circuit rejected the state's three previous requests to delay U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby's Dec. 20 ruling allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry"

If at first you don't succeed... bug them again and again until you get what you want. At least that's what some 5 year olds do to try and get their way.

get her done
Bountiful, UT

Same old wine, new bottle. Money not spend for schools but for lack of civil rights for a hated population. I am ashame. Just a rock in a hat idea.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

"The application notes that "numerous" same-sex marriages are happening every day in Utah.

"And each one is an affront not only to the interests of the state and its citizens in being able to define marriage through ordinary democratic channels, but also to this court's unique role as final arbiter for the profoundly important constitutional question it so carefully preserved in Windsor," wrote Monte Stewart, a Boise-based marriage law attorney retained by the state."

If this wasn't so serious I would laugh. What the heck...LOL!!

This is what AG Reyes couldn't do on his own?... Please, Judge Sotomayor hear our plea, SSM is an affront to Utah and our egos are being harmed.

2 million dollars for this ? Ouch!!! I'm enrolling in an Idaho law school tomorrow. No can't do, I have a sense of dignity and morals!

Big Bubba
Herriman, UT

Finally we are starting to see some action on this issue. As part of the majority in Utah who favor traditional marriage, I can't wait to see this judge's ruling overturned by the supreme court.

EJM
Herriman, UT

I don't call it an affront. Pretty harsh language. However the SCOTUS did leave it up to the states in Windsor because it didn't want to address the issue. Why not? Because they prefer to only deal with the issue at hand (Windsor case only) and not address an area outside of the specifics of the case. Oh, they will talk about that "issue" as part of a decision but not go beyond the scope of the issue at hand (Windsor). With that said Shelby has just fast tracked this issue back to the SCOTUS. This will be resolved.

JeffreyRO555
Auburn Hills, MI

Same-sex marriage is an "affront" to Utah? Gosh, now why would anyone think that Mormons, given this proclamation, in addition to the dishonest and hateful ads they funded in California during Prop 8, are homophobic?! I mean, what could be more complimentary than to be told that the most significant day in your life, your wedding day, is offensive??

How unrelentingly sad that religionists are so obsessed with gay people, and their legal right to be treated equally under law. If this doesn't put the final nail in the coffin of religion, I don't know what will.

Vince here
San Diego, CA

If Utah is not anti-gay, but they want to secure the definition of marriage, why didn't they extend gays rights before?

Red Corvette
SACRAMENTO, CA

So funny. Too little too late.

Utah might just as well ask the Supreme Court to stop the wind from blowing.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

Gosh! I'm wondering how many people the pro-gay movement has assigned each day to blog on their behalf. Looks like they turn out in force every time any article comes out. They attempt to convince the rest of us that they are the majority and that their position actually holds water. In fact, they are actually a very small minority of this state.

Physics27
Cedar City, UT

It's strange how many people with liberal views comment in the comments section of a conservative paper. It makes it impossible to make comments without being attacked. The views and ideas of the majority of the people in this state are mocked on a daily basis here. The comments sections on nearly all political pieces have been hijacked by trolls.

worf
Mcallen, TX

A real supreme court would rule against gay marriage.

If not, it would be a an inferior court.

Town Crier
SACRAMENTO, CA

The State of Utah paid $2 Million for a pathetic defense like THAT? It reminds me of something one would see on an episode of Seinfeld.

"Why its an affront to decency!"

"Oh the humanity! The injustice! Quel horreur!"

"It will frighten the children and horses!"

DN Subscriber 2
SLC, UT

Good move by our state officials!

Edmund Burke is often cited as the source for "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

It is good to see that good men, and women, in Utah are willing to do something, and put their tax dollars behind this effort to stop what some say is evil, either on moral grounds, or on the grounds that it subverts the powers of the states and their citizens to define marriage in the traditional form it has been for thousands of years.

A judge declaring that the sky is green and that water is dry does not make it true, any more than their declaring that a same sex relationship is a "marriage." They can make something legal, but that does not necessarily make it right or moral.

Bob K
porIland, OR

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT
Gosh! I'm wondering how many people the pro-gay movement has assigned each day to blog on their behalf. Looks like they turn out in force every time any article comes out. They attempt to convince the rest of us that they are the majority and that their position actually holds water. In fact, they are actually a very small minority of this state.

.... Really? Are you conjuring up some organized and zealous group, bent on defeating the rights of those in another State, due to a whipped up paranoia created by a few?
Are you comparing the tiny mormon minority in California, which overcame the much larger Gay population by calling in thousands of their out of State church members?

... I am sad for the idea that someone can be an American and understand the Constitution to mean that the larger groups get their way, and some taxpayers lose rights that other Americans have. Reminds me of that thing in Missouri in the 1840s.

kishkumen
American Fork, UT

@Cats:

Not sure what makes you think that the population of Utahns who favor marriage equality are a "very small minority in this state". As you know, when Ammendment 3 passed in Utah, 44% of the voters were opposed to it. Is 44% a really small minority? Of course, the number of people supporting marriage equality in Utah and the world have only gone up since Ammendment 3 passed. 80% of the youth of the United States now favor marriage equality. So yeah, Supreme Court decisions aside, the narrow and backwards view of marriage that caused Ammendment 3 won't survive much longer.

J. S.
Houston, TX

In June, SCOTUS struck down a key part of Voting Right Act, because they ruled that Obama administration could not use old time data to justify the legitimacy of that law in today's situation.

Those judges in 10th circuit and SCOTUS justices are not blind nor deaf, they know public opinion on SSM is evolving fast, majority of American and 70-80% of young people support SSM, and I doubt they would uphold amendment 3 because people in Utah voted that way a decade ago.

When 10th circuit denied stay request, they already indicated that state is not likely to prevail. Now AG is wasting 2+ million tax dollars to hire expensive outside lawyers to do the job for his office. I mean, if AG and his team are not capable of doing the job for state, why should they still hold the office and keep on collecting their paychecks?

EJM
Herriman, UT

@ cats: we probably should not lump all posters on here as being on the pro-gay marriage side when in fact not all are. The issue will go before the SCOTUS. They will have to rule on the constitutionality of the issue. I do understand the concerns of those of us who believe that one day the issue could be the attempted forcing of same sex marriages as it relates to religious institutions. Will the LGBT community insist one day that churches be required to perform marriages or else lose their tax exempt status? I can tell you that the LDS Church and the Catholic Church would say no. I would at least hope so.

For some in the LGBT community they would call them bigots. I disagree. All of us are flawed. Both religions have had their issues put out there in the public domain over this and other events. But at least people know exactly what both the Catholic and LDS Church believe in this. Better to know than to have someone lie to you about their beliefs. An old saying of "better the devil you know then the wolf in sheep's clothing". It applies here.

midvale guy
MIDVALE, UT

While gay marriage is a controversial issue, What has happened here is an affront because a judge has taken away the rights of the residents that live here to choose what they want for their state. This could be on any issue. judges should not decide something that the residents should decide for themselves. This is a states rights issue and must be pursued on that grounds. If not to stop this ruling but the next ruling that is equally not in the interest of our residents and their choices and values.

to comment

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