Comments about ‘Appeals court assigns 3 judges to hear Utah same-sex marriage case’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, March 31 2014 12:45 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Billy Bob
Eagle Mountain, UT

It is good they assigned 3 judges. That way the decision at this level won't be made by an activist judge with an agenda. I am not saying I expect it to go one way or another (although I know which way I want it to go and that is to be reversed), I am just glad that a single activist judge with an agenda can't decide it at the appeals court level.

Christopher B
Ogden, UT

I stand with Mormon Prophet Monson and Pope Francis on this issue.

It's nice to know I am on their side and the side of who they speak for

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

How about this? Let these judges make their ruling and we all just accept it.

No carping about who appointed who, or that they had an agenda, or that they are activist judges.

We just accept their ruling and accept it, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it.

Im in.

Values Voter
LONG BEACH, CA

@ Billy Bob

single [judge]?

I think we're at 14 rulings and counting post-Windsor -- all in favor of equality for same-sex couples. The "single, activist judge" charge gets more difficult (and more ridiculous) to make with each successive decision.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@Billy Bob

After last June's SCOTUS Prop 8 and Windsor rulings, not a single judge has ever ruled in SSM opponents' favor, not in NJ, NM, OH, UT, IK, KY, VA, TX, MI, not in a single court room.

guess all those judges are totally activists, not a single one is following the law, right?

I can see that some people hope the appeal court would reverse Judge Shelby's decision, however, judging by the long unbroken winning streak of marriage equality in the past year, my advice for those wishing a reversal? don't count on it.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Billy Bob
So an activist judge in Utah? Was it also an activist judge in Oklahoma? Kentucky? Texas? Michigan? Ohio? Pennsylvania? Virginia? (Most of these have stays pending appeal of course aside from Virginia which isn't appealing, only Utah and Michigan had the temporary active period).

How about this, has there been any same-sex marriage case since Windsor that your side has won?

Radical Pragmatist
Salt Lake City, UT

This information is meaningless. No matter which way this panel of judges rules, their decision will be stayed until the Supreme Court makes the final ruling.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

It was five justices on the Supreme Court that started this ball rolling. It looks to me like every other judge has been following the Windsor ruling. Considering the arguments the State is presenting, I wouldn't expect this panel to reverse Judge Shelby. Keep in mind that one of the "conservative" judges on this panel denied Utah a stay.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

To: JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

I can accept the Judges ruling whatever it is. However, if it is for Same Sex Marriage, I will never personally agree with it. That would bee a violation of my conscience. If that is the case then we will hope for an appeal to SCOTUS.

This whole issue shouldn't even be taking up the time of the courts of the land. The whole concept of so-called Same Sex Marriage is non-anatomical, non- biological and counter intellectual.

We should be talking about some sort of social tolerance for those who choose to live this deviant life style and treat them with the same type of tolerance and understanding that we treat anyone else who make poor choices in life. But for heaven sake, we don't need to change the traditional definition of marriage and it's unique role in society. You cannot legislate immorality - it is what it is.

koseighty
The Shire, UT

@Radical Pragmatist who said:
"No matter which way this panel of judges rules, their decision will be stayed until the Supreme Court makes the final ruling."

The Supremes may well choose to wait until 2 circuit courts come to opposite conclusions. In which case, they won't hear the first case decided (Utah). If they choose to wait, no stay will be forthcoming, and the decision of the 10th Circuit will stand until SCOTUS decides to hear a related case. If all the circuits decide one way, the Supremes won't have to hear any of the cases, and may just choose to let the consensus stand.

In any case, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

(I truly wish Utah's case would be the one to decide this nationally. But I see SCOTUS waiting for an opposing decision by another circuit court.)

BYU_Convert
Provo, UT

I will always side on the side of the Agency of Man. There must needs be opposition in all things. . . .even in marriage and types of marriage. I still believe as a Latter-Day Saint that it is unjustifiable to seek to steal the agency of others to choose for themselves what life they choose to live. I often wonder if these are the kinds of people who claim to be Christ-serving people filled with love and compassion for others but who in turn throw their gay children out on the streets when their kids come out. Google stories on that one. A recent case here in Utah is frightening. Hopefully, these judges will side with equality and by the grace of God, the hearts of the public in Utah will be softened and not strike with fierce homophobic vengeance. I would hope the 12th Article of Faith would be adhered.

ValiesVoter
LONG BEACH, CA

@koseighty
"(I truly wish Utah's case would be the one to decide this nationally. But I see SCOTUS waiting for an opposing decision by another circuit court.)"

Actually, there is already an opposing decision in the 8th circuit re: Nebraska's marriage equality ban, but that decision was handed down pre-Windsor. If the 10th circuit panel decides in favor of the same-sex couples (and they bypass an en banc review), a circuit split already would exist if SCOTUS wants to deal with it.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"But for heaven sake, we don't need to change the traditional definition of marriage and it's unique role in society."

I have a "traditional marriage". Can someone explain to me how my "traditional marriage" is affected if 2 people of the same sex say that they are also "married"?

Does it change anything for me? Does it affect my marriages "unique role in society"?

An analogy. In the good ole USA we have a game called football. In much of the world, football means what we refer to as Soccer.

It is just words with different meanings to different people but I don't see how it effectively changes either sport.

mcdugall
Murray, UT

Judge Shelby is by no means an activist judge, to the community who continues to call this man an activist simply because he interpreted the law differently than you, are making yourselves look uniformed. Honestly, Mike Lee, Orin Hatch, and the Republican establishment gave Judge Shelby glowing recommendations during the vetting process. Also, there are continuing numbers of conservative judges overturning similar state bans across the country, this is not an activist movement. You may not like what is happening, but a simple rule remains, the constitution is the law of the land.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ Radical Pragmatist
I don't really like what you said. But, I agree with you.

@ Mekhofahess
I totally disagree with what you said. But, my goodness I needed a good laugh. Thank You!

WOW! This is getting really interesting. Who knows, may be Utah will be the landmark case that will make SSM a national option.

SS
MiddleofNowhere, Utah

@ Joe Blow,

If everyone just accepted everything that came down from the "rulers" of this country, than this would cease to be the United States. No, I think it is okay for people not to be okay with decisions and to disagree. I wish the people in this country would quit thinking that everyone has to have the same opinion on everything.

@ BYU_Convert,

Yes, everyone has their agency. However, I will never vote for or support sin, even though others have the right to choose. You should look to what the current prophet is saying about this current issue. I don't think God intends for his people to just accept anything that comes along to allow for agency. Love people, absolutely; accept sin, no.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"No, I think it is okay for people not to be okay with decisions and to disagree."

I am not advocating that you agree with whatever decision comes out. Agreeing and accepting are two entirely different things.

I just get sick of hearing that "that was an activist judge" or "That judge was legislating from the bench" just because you don't like the decision that is handed down.

And I have no idea what the decision will be, but I will Accept whatever it is and move on.

"You should look to what the current prophet is saying about this current issue."

I am not LDS, but if I were a believing LDS, on any given issue, I would ask "the current prophet" if they got guidance from above on the issue or if they were speaking their opinion.

Because I have opinions also. And who is to say whose opinion is more valid?

HENELSON
lindon, UT

In America laws are created by the legislative branch. Separation of power means judges interpret the laws in the tradition of the founding fathers, and current legislature. An activist judge is anyone who deviates from original intent of the founders or current legislative branch and essentially makes his own law. Legislatures (senate and house) get their power from the people.
" ---We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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;--- Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --- it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happines---"
WE the people of Utah, have the sovereign God Given right, we chose Amendment3 for our safety and happiness.

Cougsndawgs
West Point , UT

I love how some are saying allow for agency but don't accept sin. That is hilarious. That statement is tantamount to saying "allow men and women their freedom as long as they make the choice that is satisfactory to me". Nope doesn't work that way.

If you're LDS you understand that allowing agency means allowing people to choose between sin and righteousness. It's not your place, just as it wasn't Lucifer's place to control and dictate the choices people make. As long as those choices don't disrupt your freedom or agency, it is not your place or the governments to take the choice away.

Live and let live...and leave the judging up to the only person that earned that right...hint:it's none of us. I would ask that you follow His admonition, "as I have loved you, love one another...Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you."

LadyMoon
Crestucky, FL

I, for one, regardless of the decision of a room of judges, I am unable to reconcile or accept a same gender marriage. Period. At the same time, I recognize their right to choose to be together as adults -- perhaps I could even recognize civil unions...but never a marriage. With me, from within, it simply does not compute.

to comment

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