Quantcast

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
Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

They just hired the counsel for this case 4 days ago. When there is new counsel brought in, there is time given for them to get up to date on everything. It is not a special favor by the judge.

Those who think a week delay for the sake of justice is too much to ask need to get over themselves. This is the United States of America, I am happy to say. Due process is guaranteed, and that includes reasonable time for preparing your defense.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@ the truth

When did you choose to be heterosexual?

Homosexuality has consistently occurred in the human population at a rate of about 5%. So you're saying that, every generation, 5% of the people - millions and millions of people - choose to be gay despite knowing that they stand a good chance of being rejected, shunned, reviled, assaulted, imprisoned, and/or murdered. That's just absurd.

BTW, something that consistently occurs over time, regardless of the rate, is by definition a normally occurring variation. Like left-handedness - something we humans also recently believed was a sign of immorality.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@toosmartforyou 5:54 p.m. Jan. 21, 2014

Why didn't Shelby stay his own opinion and then the clock for the appeal would have started that much sooner?

--------------------

He didn't stay the decision because the State didn't ask for a stay in its pre-decision pleadings. When the decision was handed down, the State went to the 10th Circuit to ask for a stay, rather than requesting one from Judge Shelby. The 10th Circuit rightly refused the request.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ Badgerbadger

You wrote:"Birthday cakes for homosexual people are not a problem. We are all sinners."

Your statement clearly delineates your way of thinking. You equate homosexuality as a spiritual flaw.

You have the right to believe that way and sincerely offended we are not. But do you really expect that any court of law will accept that argument to deny privileges to a sector of the citizenry?

Those against SSM will have to do a lot of window dressing to mask the real reason for your opposition.

Imagine Orthodox Jews claiming that Jehovah is their God and they are the chosen people. Therefore, no others, should be allow to marry. Gentiles are not among the selected children of God unless they convert.We know that conversion to Jewish Orthodoxy is extremely hard.

Do this sounds absurd to you? Well, is very close to what you and many others are proposing.

The Orthodox Jewish of my example have no chance to prevail in court and neither those against SSM who base their arguments in their religious beliefs.

By the way, many of us LGBT and our families feel very much in harmony with our Heavenly Father.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

This could prove to be very, very bad for the State of Utah.

The response from the plaintiffs is due well into the 2014 Legislative session - and they will have access to lots of new, fresh statements on newly proposed legislation that may show quite the bias against homosexual individuals.

This delay could make it a lot easier for the plaintiffs to prove animus.

Jeffsfla
Glendale, CA

I am glad the court provided the additional 7 days. This will take away the argument that the State did not have enough time to prepare a credible defense. Sure they had years to prepare and if they think 7 days are going help them it just confirms they are delusional. No matter what they say in their brief they are going to come across as being religious zealots on a crusade.

IMAN
Marlborough, MA

@Cats:"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."

Is promoting discrimination and actively fighting against equal rights as defined by the constitution of the U.S. considered to be righteous? if yes w,hat does the definition of leading a righteous life mean to you?

iron&clay
RIVERTON, UT

Last night, the local news stations were highlighting a 'gay' couple with a innocent child on the lap of his father.

As a viewer, I could not help but be concerned for the child's welfare, any concern for the father's right to 'marry' another man became secondary.

Where is the child's mother?

Children have a RIGHT to be raised in a home with their own father and their own mother honoring marriage vows and providing, protecting and nurturing their own off-spring

worf
Mcallen, TX

No country with half its people supporting gay behavior, has ever prospered. Period!

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Rocket Science
"And yet in all three jurisdictions, they were told they could not do that."

Actually they could, they just couldn't get gov't subsidies for it. Catholic Charities chose to shut down its adoption services in Massachusetts but LDSFS continues there without adopting to same-sex couples because they use their own funding.

TheTrueVoice
West Richland, WA

@LovelyDeseret: You have severely misinterpreted the Winsor ruling.

The Winsor ruling indicated that states do indeed have the authority to regulate marriage within its borders, HOWEVER, all state laws *must* comport with the US Constitution.

Amendment 3 clearly failed to comport with the US Constitution. That's why it was correctly struck down.

Do you contend that there is demonstrable harm caused by allowing same sex couples to marry? That there is a compelling state interest in denying marriage that overwhelms the constitutional mandate to equal protection of the law?

NO such argument has yet been produced that is not rooted in animus.

This is why marriage equality is winning in case after case, and will continue to prevail.

iron&clay
RIVERTON, UT

@ Quaker from brooklyn NY,
Thanks for emoting the intolerance you have for those who are concerned about children.

Maudine
SLC, UT

@ iron&clay: "Children have a RIGHT to be raised in a home with their own father and their own mother honoring marriage vows and providing, protecting and nurturing their own off-spring."

What happens if one parent dies? What happens if there is a divorce? What happens when the parents don't honor their marriage vows? What happens if the parents can't support or nurture their off-spring? What happens when an unmarried woman gets pregnant?

Are you willing to apply this "right" universally, or does it only apply to children being raised in situations you oppose?

As A Quaker asks, what are we supposed to do with children whose "right" to "their own father and their own mother" gets violated?

As Kalindra points out, this delay may prove very harmful to the State of Utah. With comments like yours and the comments on the story about the non-discrimination bill, it is going to be extremely easy for the plaintiffs to prove animus - especially once the members of the Utah Legislature start making their comments.

iron&clay
RIVERTON, UT

@ Quaker in Brooklyn

Here in Utah we have a prevalent notion to care about one another and especially the innocent.

The Book of Mormon is not a Broadway play. It was translated by a young boy from New York state who said that when taught correct principles, people can govern themselves.

The Book of Mormon teaches us to have our hearts knit together in unity and love one towards another.

When a society cannot control themselves by obeying the above principle, then you would need to suspend liberty and set up a new world order collectivist government where Cuomo would dictate intervention and put offenders in detention.

the truth
Holladay, UT

@Karen R.

Whether being heterosexual or homosexual is choice or not (and again science has no conclusive evidence that it is natural and therefor you cannot argue it is a civil right) is irrelevant.

All you do IS a choice.

How you act and behave is a choice. Having sex and how you have sex is a choice.

Forcing anothers labor and service for you is a choice.

Civil unions, Marriage is a choice.

Whether you believe you are born that way, everything after is a choice.

Forcing others to support your choices is wrong.

There is nothing in the federal constitution about marriage. It is left up to the states and the people according to the tenth amendment.

The crux of the matter is gays argue they need marriage to have certain rights, I do not believe that is so.

Getting government out of marriage period would better for all and solve all problems.

Let the churches do what they want and let the people do what they want. That is true freedom.
And if some one chooses not support your choices then so be it, live and let live.

Jeff in NC
CASTLE HAYNE, NC

@ Here
"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."
The equality has to do with marrying someone with a compatible sexual orientation, which straights get to do but not gays...ergo: not equal. If you disagree, I take it you have no problem offering your daughter to marry a gay man and having a loveless life (ever after). Or is it that you think gay people should just be expected to remain celibate and lonely? PS, sexual orientation is not itself a behavior. Whereas acting ignorant and spiteful, well those are behaviors thare morally wrong.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@the truth

So how exactly are you "forced to support" their choice? All you are going to have to do is get out of the way so they can be free to make thier own choices. Beyond that you are not being "forced to support" their choices anymore then anyone else is being "forced to support" any of the many choices you make on a daily bases.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@ the truth

Religion is a choice. Some have chosen gay-friendly versions. Others have chosen versions with less than gay-friendly views. In Utah and several other states, the less than friendly groups made a choice to deny some of their fellow citizens the choice to marry whomever they please - a choice they freely enjoy themselves. Why should gay-friendly religions and gay people be forced to abide by the choices of the less than friendly's? Live and let live, right?

MoreMan
San Diego, CA

They are doomed. Wait til the other side brings up #12 of the Articles of Faith.

Inis Magrath
Fort Kent Mills, ME

The State of Utah as no valid legal basis upon which to argue that the SSM ban passes Federal Constitutional muster. Waiting one week isn't going to help them at all. It will, however, give a few high-priced lawyers more time to rack up billable hours on the backs of the taxpayers.

to comment

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