Comments about ‘Same-sex couples oppose state's request for more time to appeal’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Jan. 18 2014 5:40 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
San Antonio, TX

Justice delayed is justice denied, let's get on with it.

Gilbert, AZ

I can see how democracy suffers irreparably if marriage is allowed to be redefined in Utah. But how do same-sex couples suffer irreparable harm?

You don't hear of one same sex couple from California whose marriages licenses were annulled by the California Supreme Court after Gavin Newsome gave them the licenses, you don't hear them saying that their lives were irreparably harmed. I think we are creating victim-hood in hopes of winning a court case. I don't think that is honest.

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

No more delaying equal rights to all.

Bob K
portland, OR

They have already had a month, even allowing that the State failed miserably to prepare for a perfectly obvious verdict, thus did not plan the appeal sooner

Meanwhile, the Gay couples are singing:

First you say you, then you don't
Then you say you will, but then you won't
You're undecided now, so what are you gonna do?

Not knowing the outcome, prudent Gay families will have to spend thousands on legal documents regarding healthcare permissions, inheritance, kids, property, etc., as well as separate taxes, health insurance, and so on.
--- No one on the anti-equality side has mentioned that on the DN

You left the door wide open, Utah, and said it was legal to come in
--- Now you want people to mill about in limbo, possibly for more than a year.

Denver, CO

Deseret News, Dec. 2, 2013, "In leaving Monday, Swallow has four years of service in state government to nearly the day and qualifies for a state pension when he turns 65. He began working as chief deputy to his predecessor, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, on Dec. 1, 2009." So, the last Attorney General delayed his departure, to the day, to get his pension. Now, "Utah asked for a 10-day extension Friday. The state pointed to the recent hiring of three new attorneys ..." But the court said, "Requests for extension of time are very strongly discouraged and will be considered only under extraordinary circumstances." The extraordinary circumstances are, after a "scandal-ridden 11 months as Utah's top cop, "the last Attorney General resigned in disgrace, stalled to get his pension, now the new Attorney General is not up to the task of representing the state, but the Governor wants to win and has two million dollars. Good reasons for a delay, malfeasance, incompetence, and a lot of taxpayer's money. But how about the rights of Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity? Anyone have an extra two million?

Alameda, CA

After being made to wait 33 years, my husband and I married in 2008, in San Francisco. We waited again, another year, to learn, if our marriage was still valid. Then we waiting another 5 years for federal recognition of our marriage.

Now we are waiting, again, for a decision about pensions - being surviving spouses, in the event one of us dies. He retired in 2001. I retired in June 2013, just before the Windsor decision.

I guess people who have never had to wait cannot comprehend what jeopardy means for seniors, on fixed incomes, who do not have full, equal, rights, yet.

Surely the legal team in Utah can decipher in a few days the arguments given for the passage of Amendment 3, ten years ago. Or do they think the people who were actually affected just disappeared, or died?

Saint George, UT

Gay marriage is not only a clear and present danger to marriage, but to a civilized society! 50 years ago Roe V Wade sent 50 million babies (and counting) to extinction, and as cultures disintegrate under the pretense of freedom from the only definition of marriage that guarantees a culture's survival-marriage between a man and a women, gay marriage will some day be viewed in a similar context! Children are to be valued and the means by which they can best flourish is with a mother and a father!

Rexburg, ID

You have the same rights as anyone. You, being a male, can marry a female should you so choose, just like anyone else. The law is the same for everyone. If you don't want to marry a female, that is your choice.

Rexburg, ID

The purpose of marriage is to bind a male and a female so that their children can have intact families. Often, because of the huge task of raising and caring for children, one spouse often has to stay home to take care of the little ones full time which leads to limited opportunities for income or career advancement for that individual. Marriage binds the couple so that his or her income is their income and his or her retirement is their retirement. A homosexual couple needs no such protections as they can NEVER have children together.

All this talk of rights is just a smoke screen so that the state will endorse a relationship which many view as immoral as moral.

El Chango Supremo
Rexburg, ID

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien. As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
-Alexander Pope

Salt Lake City, UT

There are no requirements in marriages regarding producing children. Homosexuals can adopt (after all, the state allows single people to adopt).

Marco Luxe
Los Angeles, CA

I'd love the 10th Cir to suggest a quid pro quo: a delay in the briefing deadline for the state's withdrawal of its stay of the district court's ruling. That would show a bit of class by UT.

aunt lucy
Looneyville, UT

Why all the litigation. The majority has already spoken. This issue was decided by a state vote.

Alameda, CA

@LovelyDeseret: Victim-hood?

Claiming a man and woman need marriage because of "accidentally" children; claiming they will not marry because another couple - two men or two women - can marry; and claiming an end to the human race, if same-sex couples marry; that is creating victim-hood.

It proclaims, at best, heterosexuals are "victims of biology" and this meaning and purpose is served by marriage. Or, at worst, most homosexuals marry for love, but some heterosexuals marry to receive a public "pardon" and their children are some kind of "punishment."

I worry about those "accidental" children learning of gestation and calendar math. Despite all the reasons given by their parents, many will develop questions about why and when parents married, the meaning of sex and love and the purpose of marriage. I hope the children understand marriage is neither reward, nor punishment; and wrong-doing was neither cause nor result.

Love is hard to know or teach, harder still to understand in another, and so readily misunderstood in ourselves. But love, like faith, can withstand all doubt. Marriage can too.

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

@banderson: Despite what you write, world wide, humans will continue to have offspring at an unsustainable rate regardless of any single definition of marriage.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

I am not "embracing vice" by supporting the rights of others to do as they wish with no harm to myself. Whether SSM harms society or not is probably in the eye of the beholder. I haven't seen any evidence of it.

Alameda, CA

@Serious: Are you serious? (

Castle Valley, Utah


You can't be serious! Suggesting that a gay person marry someone of the opposite sex just because it's allowed?

Now let's get really serious: Discrimination is immoral.

Kearns, UT

I logged on this morning to read the news and see what people have to say about the current issues. While I see increasing calls for love and kindness, I am sad to see so many people make rash judgments about their LGBT brothers and sisters based on misinformation. I think it's time many of us listen to one another so that we can really know the source of our real damage; it's not what you think it may be.

Orem, UT

The state of Utah has already decided whether or not we want same-sex marriage. This matter should be settled.

Just because an emboldened and loud, albeit, small minority are trying to convince us that homosexuality should be socially acceptable, taught to our kids, and isn't immoral does not mean we will conform to their wishes. We know it's immoral and is poison to our society, the same as any immoral act. We should never condone homosexuality as moral or right.

My thoughts are for the children. We need to provide them with the best upbringing we can and that is with the unique character traits of a father and a mother. That is natural, that is moral, that is right! Children deserve to be reared with every advantage we have at our disposal. God will hold us accountable if we do not.

Currently the homosexual lifestyle is trendy and, in many places, encouraged! People are choosing this lifestyle over a heterosexual one because of social pressures and trends. Many are purporting that it's actually better for society! The more we embrace it the more harm it does the children. Is this to be our legacy?

to comment

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