Same-sex couples oppose state's request for more time to appeal


Return To Article
  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    We live in such a sexually charged society that people are getting bored of being heterosexual I completely believe that many are giving up heterosexuality to jump on the homosexual bandwagon for many reasons. And they would say, what's wrong with that?

    There may be some, especially women, who may be open to experimenting and some may decide to "switch teams", but how many of those people would otherwise have happy long term heterosexual relationships if SSM remained illegal? VERY FEW! My guess is that they'd remain single and have relationships with both sexes. It's not worth denying a large group of people their constitutional rights of equality and equal protection to keep so few from something that is only subjectively harmful.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 20, 2014 8:55 p.m.

    Bob Bohey: Where, may I ask, is there any state in the United States of America where any religion has been established by the state? There is a myth out there, perpetuated by some that separation of church and state was meant to disallow religion in the public square. There are far too many citizens who don't understand the difference between a state established religion that our founders pledged their honor to keep from happening and allowing religion in the public square, which they not only wanted, but understood the necessity of in a free republic, all of which is ironic because of the athiest's position, which is to allow their opinion in the public square at the expense of everybody else's opinion! Please do some research (a little is all that is needed) to know exactly the truth on this matter!

  • Legal? Saint George, UT
    Jan. 20, 2014 2:27 p.m.

    I oppose their opposition to the state's request for more time.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 20, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    @jasonlevy: Your comment says far more about you than it does about society or our fellow citizens.

    Speaking as a certified, card-carrying heterosexual, who enjoys the love, companionship and intimacy of my wife of 30+ years, and who has only ever had romantic interests in women, I find your statement impossible to believe as something a heterosexual would say.

    Some 95% of us men and women are straight, only attracted to the opposite sex, constitutionally incapable of forming a romantic bond with our own sex. Of the remaining 5%, some may have found themselves pushed early on towards "normal" relationships, but those pressured relationships usually fall apart. With the exception of true bisexuals, and they're probably a similarly small number, the only people you'll see "switching sides" are people who were pressured, through guilt, fear, or belief, into a relationship that could never work for them. I hope and pray your comment is not because you're personally bitter from a similar experience.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 20, 2014 11:01 a.m.

    There are already truckloads of briefs against same-sex marriage available. All the appellant attorneys have to do is cut and paste what they think are the best parts. This shouldn't be any harder than a college student plagiarizing wikipedia for a term paper, two days work, tops. I don't know how many man-years (and woman-years) have already gone into case preparations arguing against marriage equality before all the various state and federal courts to date, but this case and these arguments are as mature as they're ever going to get. Although hope springs eternal, ten more days isn't going to turn up anything new that the conservative think tanks haven't already tried.

    The fact that all the previous cases have lost doesn't mean the facts were wrong. Perhaps they just weren't presented right. But, the facts aren't going to change in ten more days, the weight of all those losses clouds the chances of this appeal, and this is little more than stalling for time.

  • jasonlivy Orem, UT
    Jan. 20, 2014 1:39 a.m.


    One of the natural consequences of promoting gay/lesbian relationships is that it will inevitably cause many to stumble. We live in such a sexually charged society that people are getting bored of being heterosexual. There are more than you think that let their curiosity get the best of them and without an understanding of sexual morality, what's to stop them from participating? Society is in the process of normalizing homosexuality and it is no longer taboo. People who have struggled to find their place in the world are being welcomed with open arms into the homosexual community if they subscribe to their way of thinking. This sexual confusion, especially among our youth, will cause many to make very regrettable life choices. Thus they are on the path to chaos and misery.

    The end result for those who are fighting for the homosexual lifestyle does not end with gay marriage, but for society to consider homosexuality as a moral and normal way to live. And, yes, I completely believe that many are giving up heterosexuality to jump on the homosexual bandwagon for many reasons. And they would say, what's wrong with that?

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    Jan. 19, 2014 5:45 p.m.

    Your first post: Love is a choice. The law recognizes heterosexual love-marriage only.

    The second: Marriage is financial protection for straight couples, not gay couples because they do not have children. Gay marriage is immoral.

    The last: Discrimination is not immoral. You say you chose, discriminated. Yes, we all do.

    But then you say: Marriage is biology, the "make up" of women and men is "different yet complimentary." (Did you mean complementary, or both words, but not just the word you used?)

    Well, you are serious. So am I. Your posts seem confused about why, or about how other people can be just as serious for other reasons. That could be why we married different people.

    Biology - nature - does not have intentions or have to be "proved" by humans, by marriage. And human nature is as variable as the number of human beings.

    Some of those things may be true for you and your marriage.
    Some are true for me and mine.

    Don't we agree to disagree about some things, seriously? And we both belong to the human race. Isn't that progress?

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 19, 2014 4:45 p.m.

    aunt lucy: "Why all the litigation. The majority has already spoken. This issue was decided by a state vote."
    Dear Lucy,
    America is a secular representative democracy. Now, what that means is, if one lives anywhere in the union, lets say a state,that has a majority of lets say, one particular religion and that religion wants to create a law based on it's beliefs and that law is deemed to infringe upon the rights of a minority as judged by the United States Supreme Court based upon the Constitution of the United States of America then that law is deemed unconstitutional and invalid. A great example of this type of democracy is the rulings that struck down prop. 8 in Cal. and DOMA. These are the types of issues that true fighters for freedom hold out to the world of examples of a free and great nation that our founding fathers envisioned and so many have fought and died for.

    I hope you found this informative and pass it along any chance you get. Have a great day.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 19, 2014 4:33 p.m.

    Words such as discrimination, and equality, is for pushing in an unwanted law. Period!

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 2:52 p.m.

    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.
    If you change the words male/female to White/Black, that is what the voters in the South told the Lovings 60 years ago.

    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.
    What do retirement, Social Security and pension protections/benefits have to do with having kids? Don’t childless heterosexual couples need & receive those same benefits/protections?

    People are choosing this lifestyle over a heterosexual…
    Do you REALLY believe that a guy, who is naturally attracted to women, will simply choose to have relations with men because it’s fashionable?

    Discrimination isn't immoral. We do it all the time.
    It’s one thing for people to do so and another or government to do so when no harm comes from it.

  • Chilidog Somewhere, IL
    Jan. 19, 2014 2:41 p.m.

    The states position seems a bit duplicitous to me. They were all for an expedited appeal until SCOTUS grsnted the stay, and the judge in OK made the same ruling.

    Oh, to the lawyers for the state: Look up the word "fulsome". It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

  • Chilidog Somewhere, IL
    Jan. 19, 2014 2:30 p.m.


    A couple things. 1) we are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. 2) the 14th amendment takes prescedsnce over the 10th amendment. Each amendment modifies all previous ones as applicable. The 14th amendment explicitly bound the states to the provisions of equal protection. 3) how is assuring that all citizens are treated equally bad for the country?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    When, as in this case, a party is trying to deny the Constitutional rights of a group of people for no rationally-based reason, and especially when that party first requested that its appeal be fast-tracked and is now trying to renege on that request, they deserve to be on as short a track as possible. here's hoping Utah loses this request too.

  • Serious Rexburg, ID
    Jan. 19, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    EDM, Leslie,

    Yes, I'm serious. Discrimination isn't immoral. We do it all the time. Colleges discriminate against those with lower IQs. People who are dating discriminate against less attractive candidates. When I was dating, I discriminated against those who were much older, younger, family members, less attractive people, and those of the same gender. The NFL discriminates against females and less athletic people. In marriage laws, we discriminate against family members marrying. But I guess that's wrong because it's discrimination!

    The make up of a female and a male is so different yet complimentary, no other combination of people can do and become what a male and female can. You can't replace a bride with another groom and possible thing it's in any way equal. The biggest argument against gay marriage isn't religious, not by a long shot. It's biology. Our very make-ups that dictate that a man belongs with a woman and vise-versa.

  • jasonlivy Orem, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    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?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:20 a.m.

    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.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:05 a.m.


    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.

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    Jan. 19, 2014 8:39 a.m.

    @Serious: Are you serious? (

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 19, 2014 8:20 a.m.

    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.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 19, 2014 8:16 a.m.

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

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    Jan. 19, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    @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.

  • aunt lucy Looneyville, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 7:44 a.m.

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

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 19, 2014 3:27 a.m.

    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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 1:51 a.m.

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

  • El Chango Supremo Rexburg, ID
    Jan. 18, 2014 9:45 p.m.

    “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

  • Serious Rexburg, ID
    Jan. 18, 2014 9:39 p.m.

    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.

  • Serious Rexburg, ID
    Jan. 18, 2014 9:34 p.m.

    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.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 9:29 p.m.

    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!

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    Jan. 18, 2014 7:57 p.m.

    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?

  • Hugh1 Denver, CO
    Jan. 18, 2014 7:41 p.m.

    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?

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 18, 2014 7:25 p.m.

    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.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 18, 2014 7:05 p.m.

    No more delaying equal rights to all.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Jan. 18, 2014 6:17 p.m.

    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.

  • Gibster San Antonio, TX
    Jan. 18, 2014 6:00 p.m.

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