Comments about ‘Attorney General Reyes directs counties to give certificates to married same-sex couples’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 9 2014 7:30 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Ontario, OR

It's the right thing to do.

salt lake city, UT

There's only one word to describe his decision. Legal.

Leesburg, VA

Mr. Reyes did the right thing.

Steven S Jarvis
Orem, UT

Good decision. Utah won't recognize these as valid but other states and the Federal Government likely will unless SCOTUS rules against State rights.

Idaho Falls, ID

So are the marriages for real or not?

Salt Lake City, UT

'"This would allow, for instance, same-sex couples who solemnized their marriage prior to the stay to have proper documentation in states that recognize same-sex marriage," Reyes wrote.'

Like Utah.

For those 17 days.

It is estimated that 1300 couples married in that time.

You cannot have 'some' marriages legal, in 'some' states, for 'some' unspecified timeframe.

That is not equal treatment, under the law.

LGBT Americans pay their taxes, go to work, and die for this country.

They do not deserve, this treatment…

*'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.

Bob K
portland, OR

SAD to think of the county clerks in a few counties who took it upon themselves to pick over the pending certificates and hold back the same sex ones. The poor things! As I read in another DN comment, Utah is known for unusual first names that sometimes can be confusing.

Wondering if those clerks kept aside the same sex paperwork, hoping it would be invalidated, or simply placed a pink triangle on each.
(I am making fun of the few clerks that took the extra effort to show either disapproval or possible disbelief, rather than processing all, as the big counties did. The people were entitled to the certificates.)

"Gov. Gary Herbert put state recognition of same-sex marriages on hold Wednesday on advice from the attorney general."
--- Meaning Herbert was glad to find a legal excuse.
--- Ignoring the fact that the AG office totally dropped the ball on being prepared when the perfectly expectable legal verdict came through.

Some folks think there is karma involved in Utah having all this kerfuffle and upset over the issue, since we saw the influence of some Utahns' California invasion in 2008, and the completely callous lack of taking responsibility for it.

Centerville, UT


Historically (thousands of years) marriage has been between a man and a woman. The LGBT community knows this. They know it when they enter into a relationship. It is no surprise.

Every single individual in America has the exact same, equal opportunity to marry someone under the law…in a relationship comprised of a man and a woman. The fact that some choose not to marry under that arrangement is their decision. But that does not mean the nation, or state, must change the definition of marriage, or the definition of family.

There has never been a single child born without a mother and a father. Never in the history of the world. There has always been a man providing the sperm, and a woman providing the egg. A mom and a dad.

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ

While I do not personally agree with same-sex marriage, I agree that having all this legal back-and-forth does create a lot of confusion. Because those individuals were legally married under Utah state law as of December 31, 2013, does that mean they can file a 2013 tax return using a married filing joint status? I'm assuming so, but again, there's a lot of confusion around how all this will be ironed out. Interesting to think of a scenario where you're married in a state, then that state invalidates your marriage, but if you cross over state lines you could be recognized as legally married. Or to file MFJ on a federal return but not on a state return. What a mess.

I'm also kind of surprised that SCOTUS issued a stay given their prior rulings last summer. Wasn't expecting that. I think this issue needs to be handled on a state-by-state basis, though, and definitely should not be handled through judicial activism -- that knife cuts both ways and is too unstable, as we have seen in Utah.

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ

"You cannot have 'some' marriages legal, in 'some' states, for 'some' unspecified timeframe. That is not equal treatment, under the law."

What law are you referring to? Isn't that the "law" they're trying to figure out right now? Why else would SCOTUS issue a stay?

Rational Animal
Independence , UT

This is exceptionally poor legal reasoning. "Stay" means you stop what is in process. By issuing marriage certificates after the stay, under the flawed reasoning that Utah gay couples that receive marriage certificates can have them honored by other states that recognize gay marriage while an appeal pends, contradicts Utah's basic legal position. Such basic position, apparently lost on AG Reyes, is that Utah has the right as a sovereign state government to determine/define marriage and Utah has determined that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Another state recognizing a marriage certificate issued to a gay couple by Utah presupposes that 1) Utah intended its county governments to issue such certificates and 2) such certificates are validly issued under Utah law. Neither is the case according to the AG's own legal position.

lindon, UT

Our nation was founded on basic beliefs. The Declaration of Independence..."that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Rights come to us from God, not government. Otherwise government can arbitrarily grant rights or take rights away. We the people have God given rights. We, the people, delegate a limited number of rights to government. We the people are accountable individually and collectively to God.
In Utah, we the people passed amendment3 defining Marriage as “between one man and one woman”. Amendment3, backed by thousands of years of recorded history and the Bible. How many civilizations self-destructed through this kind of moral decay - the children in these fallen civilizations are gone, because parents used their God given freedom to live contrary to God's laws. We the people should humbly thank God for our rights and must bring our lives into harmony with God's law, otherwise our civilization will self-destruct.

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

We must not judge anyone for the feelings they experience. Members of the Church who have same-sex attractions, but don't act on them, can continue to enjoy full fellowship in the church, which includes holding the priesthood, carrying out callings, and attending the temple. - From the LDS website "mormonsandgays"

In the LDS Church we believe that feelings don't define behavior, but we realize that people feel differently about this. We don't turn people away in exclusion for feeling differently. We welcome everyone. We simply don't praise and honor relationships which we believe don't lead us back to our Heavenly Father.

Likewise, we believe the state we're part of should recognize and honor certain relationships. We believe special recognition will benefit society. We do not believe in taking things away from people. We struggle ourselves every day so we very openly recognize other people's struggles and want to help. You may not want the help. You may hope to come into the savior's loving arms. But whatever the case may be... our feelings are in love. We may not welcome all choices or philosophies. But we welcome people with loving arms.

Idaho Falls, ID

@Blue AZ Cougar You state "Because those individuals were legally married under Utah state law as of December 31, 2013" They were never legally married "under Utah state law". Utah State law makes it ILLEGAL to marry someone of the same sex. A JUDGE ruled that law unconstitutional. But until a final decision eventually comes down from SCOTUS, that ruling is up for scrutiny. So, no, their tax return will have to wait for another year. They could file an amended return down the road if SCOTUS rules in their favor.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ David

Historically marriages were also arranged and women were property of the man... Also, your argument that "everybody has the same right to marry somebody under the law" is the same argument people used to try and prevent interracial marriage. It didn't work then and it's not going to work now.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@David: I have two comments on your little biology lesson.

1) Marriage has nothing to do with childbirth. Zero. Many heterosexual couples never have children. And many, many, many women bear children out of wedlock. The last two years of statistics say 41% of all births are NOT products of marriage. Neither seems to be the cause of the other, so they're clearly not related.

2) The Lord commanded us to "Go forth and replenish the Earth." Okay. We did that. We number seven billion now, and are straining the planet's resources. What's next? Maybe we should relax for bit? Have we missed God's "Stop, already" message, or is that going to be delivered in spectacular fashion?

Sort of related: I recently read a story about a woman in Provo, 58 years old, who is carrying to term the product of her daughter's egg and her son-in-law's sperm. While I commend them all for finding a solution to infertility, and wish them only good, I have to admit to feeling somehow squeamish about this particular arrangement.

no fit in SG
St.George, Utah

Again, numerous posters on these related forums ask...
If SSM is to be the law in Utah, how will the religious majority deal with this?
Will the environment in Utah, be as it was in the Southern States, where the new law became the law of the land? The South....a place where the new law was ignored by those who did not want it put into place?
Is this what Utahns should expect if SSM becomes the law?
Many on these related forums have made it very clear at what non SSM people expect from SSM couples should the law NOT pass.

Vince here
San Diego, CA


You are working under the assumption that because someone does not fit into your paradigm of marriage, therefore, the LGBT should also.

Gay men have the right to marry a heterosexual woman. True.

Lesbians have the right to marry a heterosexual man. Also true.

Technically, you David, if you were single, you had to marry a gay man in that window of time. I am not saying you would or you wanted to. But technically, you had the point.

What am I getting at?

You don't want it! It's not for you.

That's the whole argument. Why would an LGBT person want to marry someone of the opposite gender? They do not want it!

Also, to follow your logic, there have been gays for thousands of years.

Marriage, likewise, has been redefined and redefined in every society. The more I read, the more I find that in every culture, marriage customs are different.

There were relationships akin to marriage in antiquity - and granted - in antiquity, heterosexual marriage is not as we know it today, so we are comparing apples to oranges.

Salt Lake City, UT


Historically (thousands of years) marriage has been between a man and a woman.'

I am really getting sick of the Deseret news blocking this.

Utah stopped practicing polygamy in 1890. That was marriage between one man and many, many, many women.

Not 'a woman'.

If the Deseret news want to stop everyone from acknowledging factual history, then they are just a partisan rag.

Newspapers don't stop the facts.

So stop lying that marriage is 'thousands' of years old…

to fit a context that has only been in Utah for 123.

Sandy, UT

There may be justifiable reasons to oppose gay marriage but "because that is the way it has always been" is not one of them. Yet this seems to be the main argument put forth by those opposing gay marriage, at least on this board. News flash for all of you but that type of thinking has never led to progress (technology, government, finance, etc) on anything and shouldn't be relied upon in any discussion of the pros and cons of gay marriage.

to comment

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