Comments about ‘State recognition of same-sex marriage 'on hold,' governor's office says’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 8 2014 4:40 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Let the lawsuits begin. After all, the Utah taxpayer has deep pockets for defending bigotry.

Brigham City, UT

Well, that's going to bust a bubble or two... Can't believe this board hasn't already lit up.

Salt Lake, UT


Salt Lake City, UT

It's the correct decision based on the current standing of the law, but the law is unconstitutional and should be repealed and it is the fault of Herbert, Reyes, and their side that equality is being denied.

American Fork, UT

It is an affront to everyone who got married.

Salt Lake City, UT

'SALT LAKE CITY — State recognition of Utah's same-sex newlyweds is on hold based on counsel from the Utah Attorney General's office, Gov. Gary Herbert's chief of staff said Wednesday in a memo to the governor's cabinet.'

*'Report details inequities for kids of gay parents' - By David Crary - AP - Published by DSNews - 10/25/11

'Carrigan is among a growing multitude of American children possibly more than 1.2 million of them being raised by gay and lesbian parents, often WITHOUT all the LEGAL PROTECTIONS afforded to mom-and-dad households.'

*'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09

'...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'

And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive, Power of attorney and emergency contact information...

Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond.

They were together for 18 years.

Would anyone else like to fabricate again…

how spending $2 million of my Utah tax dollars is 'not' bringing any harm to LGBT families?

Kaysville, UT

This decision made by the "Governors Office" is cowardly at best and quite frankly a purely political move to placate the Eagle Forum Right wing of the Republican Party.
Marriages were performed with legal Marriage Certificates issued by elected officials in accordance to law. Those marriages should be recognized under the rule of law followed if someone is arrested for committing a crime before a change in a law but the actual arrest being made after the law change.... that person is tried on the basis of the old law, not the new.
By the same standard, the Marriages were performed during a time of legal standing and should/must be recognized.

Somewhere in Time, UT

That judge, with his determination to enact law and implement his own activist agenda, has created a real mess. I can't believe he has been so irresponsible in his actions.

Wasatch Co., UT

I think the State of Utah is on shaky legal ground here. It was ridiculous enough when they didn't recognize legal SS marriages from other states, but how can it not recognize legal SS marriages from Utah itself?! This ruling exposes the unconstitutionality and animus of Utah's laws through and through. The State's attorneys themselves, in the first hearing before Shelby, said Amendment 3 was not based upon animus. Ha!

When Utah recognizes all legal marriages from other states, including those it does not itself allow (first cousin or young teenagers) and ONLY excludes legal marriages between SS couples, we can only conclude it is based on animus.

Kaysville, UT

The conservative religious right sing and dance to the Constitution all the time... but when a Federal Judge makes a ruling they do not agree with, based on the Constitution they are outraged.
@Cats located Somewhere in Time, UT, the mess is being created by the folks that want the Constitution to be interpreted by them to serve their purposes. I'm guessing, and I may be wrong, but I'm thinking you are part of the problem here.

Salt Lake City, UT

'That judge'

'Judge Rules Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Is Unconstitutional..' - ABC News - By Jake Tapper - 01/08/10

'Prop 8 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ – by Michael De Groote – Deseret News 02/07/12

"Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the Ninth Circuit said in its ruling on appeal in the case of Perry v. Brown.'

'Federal judge OVERTURNS Utah Same-sex marriage Ban' - By Emiley Morgan and Marjorie Cortez KSL - 12/22/13


This was only one, judge.

That judge.

Not the other, 15 judges who have also made similar rulings.

Just the one, judge.

What I cannot believe is people who continue to make the same ill-informed claim, and see no issue of being so willfully ignorant.

Let the lawsuits begin.

If Utah has no money to kick 1.3 million off of food stamps, but has $ 2 million dollars to fight against marriage equality.

Then I'm sure they can explain to a judge why they re denying legal rights and protections.

Of legally wed couples in their own state.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "QuercusQate" look up the Edmunds Act, and read some history about how early Utah pioneers were treated when that was passed. The gays are being treated very well in comparison.

Springville, UT

Marriages which were legal are now not being recognized? So if Utah changes its marriage laws in the future, for example saying that any marriages for people over 40 years of age won't be recognized even though they were legal at the time, that would pass muster? No, I think Utah has overreached here.

I still think it is a little ironic that Utah is such a stickler for "traditional" marriage in light of its background and some ongong sympathy for plural marriage that exists.

Provo, UT


This judge is constitutionally required to issue a ruling that he believes is correct based on his understanding of the federal constitution and federal law. It is his purpose even when we disagree with his decision because the point of federal judges in our system isn't to decide things finally but to initiate that process. He has an Article VI duty and Article III responsibility to declare a law to be unconstitutionally even when its not as long as he believes it is unconstitutional.

What do you think he should have done? Declare that a law that he believes is unconstitutional to be constitutional? We place these people in these positions not because they will always be right or always agree with us but because they might be right or wrong and because it requires heighten consideration by all the people. That is what is happening here. Had he issued the exact opposite ruling the same thing would have happened. The Circuit Court and the Supreme Court would have had to act. If the Circuit Court and Supreme Court upholds his ruling you can appeal to a supermajority of Americans. That's what our is designed for

Chris A
Salt Lake , UT

Order restored for the time being (let us pray for the other court sees correctly). This is a win for the Family!

Wasatch Co., UT

To "RedShirt:"
My great-grandparents on both sides of my family were impacted by the Edmunds Act. They had to move to Mexico as a result. That's all the more reason for Utah to behave differently in the case of gays.

Provo, UT


The problem isnt that we are dealing with conservatives instead we are dealing with people who do not respect the process itself. Isnt it interesting that these so called conservatives attack the district court judge for a decision and not issuing a stay and so called liberals arent attacking the Supreme Court for issuing a stay even though liberal and conservative gays arent attacking a Supreme Court decision but are handling it in a mature manner even though it harms them when Courts stay the decision. How many vicious comments are those who support Judge Shelbys decision making about the Supreme Courts stay? Not many yet everywhere we turn we see people attacking Shelby

A judge is supposed to issue a ruling based on his own interpretation of the Constitution, law and precedent and he might be wrong and disagree with me at times but I dont throw tantrums every time a district court judge does his job in representing whatever side he happens to agree with because his side only prevails if a supermajority doesn't disagree. Do we get nasty when Presidents veto acts of Congress, requiring a supermajority to override 1 man

Iowa City, IA

For those who believe that the marriages should be valid simply because they came into effect during a small window of time during which they were legal (between two periods of illegality):

Would you also agree that it would be wrong for the government to confiscate weapons that are deemed illegal if they were purchased during a time when the weapon was legal?

Wasatch Co., UT

Hawkeye,I don't whether or not it would be legal to confiscate weapons, but guns are not families and people. Guns are a purchase, not a contract. NON-SEQUITUR.

well informed
Salt Lake, UT

This is the right thing to do regardless of where one stands on SSM.

to comment

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