Comments about ‘10th Circuit gives Utah seven more days to file appeal on same-sex marriage ruling’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 21 2014 2:46 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Here
Sandy, UT

I still fail to agree with the LGBT community's claims of "equality" as the driving argument for same-sex marriage. I believe that the "equality" and "equal rights" were - and are - good arguments for skin color, race, creed, religion, etc. But to base an equal rights argument on a behavior that is morally wrong is way too much of a stretch. I'm all for "equal rights", but I don't see the justification of using it as an argument in this case.

I'm really glad the 10th circuit court is giving this more time for judicial review instead of rushing in as judge Shelby did.

speed66
Heber City, UT

Utah should continue to drag their feet...it's the only thing that will slow the state being thrown into the future.

Bob K
portland, OR

Everyone knows that the only reasons presented in any court case against marriage equality are moral disapproval or religious disapproval --- nothing with a legal basis.

I think Utah is stalling, hoping that some other State's case will be ruled on first by the Supreme Court, so that Utahns will be saved the embarrassment of having brought the case that led to a 50 State decision that equal marriage rights apply.

We all can see where this is going.

Now, I would like to see the lds church get out of the way on the issue, and I would love to see mormon-born Gay people able to fully participate in their religion and communities.

Bill McGee
Alpine, UT

The State of Utah has had years to create a legal case for why gay marriage should not be allowed, beginning with their faulty legal rationale behind the amendment. Why does anyone think they will be able to pull together a legal argument in a week that will address this issue when they haven't been able to come up with one yet that could withstand legal scrutiny? Especially since no one, anywhere, and been able to do so.

get her done
Bountiful, UT

All Utah could do is play hurry up, and now they want delays. Make up your minds.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

Dear Bob K:

"Mormon-born gay people" (or those who struggle with SSA) can CURRENTLY fully participate in all LDS Church activities including temple worship. All they have to do is live the law of chastity the same as any other member. No blessing is withheld from any child of God, no matter who they are, as long as they live a righteous life.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

It is significant that my state, Virginia, is now joining the fight for equality.

The new Governor, Attorney General and Lieutenant General the three of them just run and won on a platform supporting Same Sex marriage and the Affordable Care Act.

The state that gave us Virginia vs. Loving seem headed to the Supreme Court to battle for equality under the law.

In 2004 Virginia put a ban on the VA Constitution 57% voted on favor of bigotry. Now the number has been reduced to 43% with 50% of Virginians in favor of SSM.

Utah, Oklahoma and now Virginia are pressing for the SCOTUS to rule on the issue.

I am surprised that Utah needed an extension when they have been advising all states in what to do about SSM. Well, I hope they have a very good NEW argument, the old rationale obviously didn't work.

Bob K
portland, OR

Here
Sandy, UT
"But to base an equal rights argument on a behavior that is morally wrong is way too much of a stretch. I'm all for "equal rights", but I don't see the justification of using it as an argument in this case."

--- Millions of people swear to you that their love identification is with the same sex.

--- You want to reduce their love and what God put into their hearts to "behavior"

--- And even if it were just behavior, your moral disqualification has nothing to do with legal rights, or, in my opinion, with how Jesus told us to deal with people.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Here said:
"I still fail to agree with the LGBT community's claims of "equality" as the driving argument for same-sex marriage. I believe that the "equality" and "equal rights" were - and are - good arguments for skin color, race, creed, religion, etc. "

Got news for you, creed and/or religion are choices based on feeling, and are on equal footing with gay marriage, if you still believe that being gay is a choice (I personally don't believe such nonsense, since I never decided which sex I'm attracted to.)

Walt Nicholes
Orem, UT

So many of the comments so far are emotional, not taking into account the nature of the legal system.

First, the court expects a brief that is factual, cogent and well organized. If the state has to "throw together" something at the last minute it actually wastes the court's time (Some contend that the whole appeal process is a waste of the court's time.)

Second, although the position of the State of Utah is both supported and decried on the basis of its "moral" underpinning, the legal case to be presented isn't about morals at all. It is about a couple of things: Does a state have a right to maintain laws in the legal arena of marriage without federal intrusion or intervention, and Do the people of a state have a right as a majority to pass a state constitutional amendment defining marriage that can stand in exception to the laws of other states and the federal government?

This decision, after ruled upon by the Supreme Court will be used in many other areas than just marriage. I expect it to have ramifications on taxing rules, gun control, voter registration, and a bunch of other things.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

It is perfectly normal for the court to grant an extension. If the other side wanted an extension they would get it, too.

Jefferson, Thomas
Bluffdale, UT

Okay try this one on for a legal argument. Marriage law is and always has been locally administered. The Feds have thankfully stayed out of this area for hundreds of years. It is the states and local govt place and right to define what marriage is and isn't. It has worked and should be allowed to continue. The founders who understood marriage quite well purposely did not suggest in any form that marriage was a federally constituted right. It was not then and is not now. It isn't there folks. It is absolutely clear where marriage administration is founded. WITH THE STATES. Best legal argument there has ever been

Here
Sandy, UT

I don't think The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints will "get out of the way". This is an issue of great importance to The Church. True, it might make things more difficult for The Church. But the Church cannot, and I would be sure, will not, change the Lord's commandments. If the Church acquiesced and "(got) out of the way" on such moral issues, it would cease to be Jesus' church.

The Church is not “judging” people. It is standing up for one of the most important moral issues of the day and trying to keep it’s religious freedoms guaranteed in the constitution. Yes, many of us can see where this could be headed. But that is no reason to give up.
Judges are not infallible. I suppose they do the best they can. But judges have ruled many things legal that the Lord still prohibits if one wants to participate fully as a church member.

Tyler McArthur
South Jordan, UT

I think the Swallow scandal is a more than adequate reason for granting an extension.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

The problem here is that the State of Utah, at first, wanted the appeal to be fast-tracked and the 10th Circuit went along with their request. Now they're dragging their heels. If they really wanted it fast-tracked, as they claimed, they should be prepared to meet the expedited briefing schedule set by the court. It's pretty clear that the State knows it ha a loser case, and is trying to delay the inevitable as long as possible.

If the State wants to be fair and equitable in getting its requested extension, it should not penalize the people whose lives it is putting in upheaval. It should agree (1) that all the marriages contracted in the 17 days in which SSM was operative are legally contracted marriages not subject to challenge or nullification and, (2) if the State delays much longer, the stay of Judge Shelby's decision should be lifted during the time the State is dragging its heels. Fair is fair.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@jefferison

As the courts have already indicated In their ruling In virginia vs loving the states do not have a complete free rein when it comes to marriage, any laws regardless of the issue cannot violate federal laws or the feredal constitution at this point the lower courts have said amendment 3 does we will have to wait and see what happens.

toosmartforyou
Farmington, UT

It's only 7 days. Why didn't Shelby stay his own opinion and then the clock for the appeal would have started that much sooner?

Gibster
San Antonio, TX

@Here
What religious freedoms do you or I lose if they are allowed to marry?

LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

The Supreme Court ruled in Windsor that marriage is a state's right, they don't call it a civil right. That is the legal basis for the 10th Circuit appeal.
The state must also show that they have a compelling interest in establishing that law. That is the higher burden. That takes time to get all the data.
The 10th Circuit should give Utah all the time it needs to form the best argument.

Listening Ears
Provo, UT

Great comment Bob K! Yes, Utah will be remembered for having brought the case before the Supreme Court that may lead to a 50-State decision that equal marriage rights apply. Quite ironic indeed!

to comment

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