Comments about ‘State wants Utah Supreme Court to intervene in gay marriage recognition case’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, April 26 2014 7:10 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
E Sam
Provo, UT

So Utah's court-shopping, apparently. It doesn't matter. This is a loser case for Utah.

Honolulu, HI

It's a no brainer that the AG would want the Utah supreme court to make a decision on this matter of adoption. The court is very conservative and likely to rule in favor of the State. The case for marriage equality won't come fast enough for those impacted. And to reiterate, this is all about EQUALITY for gay people.

Provo, UT

Ok you showed us you tried.

Good game!

Laura Ann
Layton, UT

To Red Corvette: You're completely right, but we're not winning, we're losing. It's definitely the Last Days.


Utah is just embarrassing itself and coming across as spiteful.

At most it will just delay the inevitable while having very negative implications on Utah families of same sex couples. I'm embarrassed to live in this state.

Springville, UT

All this will do is subjugate the State of Utah to more expensive litigation. You can't have different classes of marriage without violating the Constitution. While I understand the opposition to SSM, Utah will have to live with the ones that were legally performed. This is a fools errand if there ever was one.

bountiful, UT

what a waste of taxpayers funds. just wait and let the courts rule at the federal level, but gays are too impatient for that.

Robert Johnson
Sunland, CA

It would be a waste of state money because ultimately the US Supreme Court is going to make the call and the writing is all over the wall. Marriage equality will be the law of the land very soon. Why waste State resources on something that is going to be decided nationally within a couple of years?

Cleveland , OH

Nope, no animus here.

Pleasant Grove, UT

It's sad that the AG is so desperate to keep children from having a stable two-parent home that he'll go on a court-shopping binge in hopes of finding a judge who will agree with him. Even if he finds one and wins, it won't take children out of homes with same-sex couples. Rather, it just means that in the event of the death of the birth-parent, the child will end up being bounced around in foster care rather than remaining in the home where he or she was raised. We have too many kids in foster care now without trying to find ways to get more of them into "the system".

Somewhere in Time, UT

Children have the right to a mother and a father. Unfortunately, the pro gay marriage people think this should all be about their own emotional desires and not about the welfare and needs of children. Innocent children, who have no say in this matter, need to be protected from this kind of selfishness.

Ogden, UT

If the appellate courts want to see evidence that disproves Utah's claim that it has no animus against same sex couples, they need to look no further than this. If the appellate courts want to see evidence that disproves Utah's claim that it is acting "for the good of the children", they need to look no further than this. Sad.

American Fork, UT

This action is simply mean and spiteful, and about as anti family as you can get. The state is going to lose, but not gracefully.

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

"Marriage equality" is a name liberals and supporters of same-sex marriage use in an effort to paint opponents of same-sex marriage as discriminating against gays. They refuse to believe that there is an underlying moral issue at stake, that frankly has nothing to do with a person's sexual orientation. It is that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

As far as I know, if an adult man and adult woman wish to marry each other they are allowed to. Regardless of sexual orientation. However, a man and a man cannot marry because that is not marriage.

People are trying to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples, but they don't realize that doing so diminishes the sanctity of marriage. It is a sign of moral decay and the consequences will follow.

Glendale, CA

I certainly respect the traditional definition of marriage but this nonsense has to stop. The AG and the State of Utah are just starting to come across as cruel. This is not just about the married couples. It is about their children. 50 years from now these children are going to be looking back at these elected officials as the "George Wallace" of their time. I urge the Governor and the AG to think really hard if this is the legacy they want to be remembered for.

GK Willington
Salt Lake City, UT

re: Cats

Or, in the words of Helen Lovejoy, "Won't somebody think of the children."

Cleveland , OH


Gay couples have children. To provide greater long term stability for those children, they want to be able to legally adopt as a couple.

How is that selfish?

Gay individuals have children from a previous relationship. They are now in a stable relationship with a same-sex partner and want that partner to be able to legally adopt the children to be provide greater stability and protection.

How is that selfish?

Gay couples are often willing to adopt and provide loving homes to children who will stay in foster care until they age out - unwanted by "father and mother" couples.

How is that selfish?

Gay couples simply want to protect and care for their families the same as you.

How is that selfish?

Fair Oaks, CA


Your "argument" makes no sense. The children will still be raised in same-sex household whether gay marriage exist or not. Allowing SSM WILL help to protect those children.

Ogden, UT

@Eliyahu 7:23 a.m. April 27, 2014

Exactly right. That's he reality of the situation in a nutshell. What I find selfish is the attempt by people to deny these children the legal recognition of the family structure in which they live and the security of legal attachments to both of their parents -- the parents with whom they live and who they love. These children need to be protected from the people who would deny them their families and legal ties to both of their parents.

Dietrich, ID

Those that complain about the money spent on the lawsuits, Which is actually a small drop in the rain forest. Any event if you think it is too much money why are they suing, it is gay couples suing to overturn voter approved initives, And they are the ones that are fighting for the right to marry someone of the same gender, or that would have been a nonissue. For several millennia no one even thought of same gender marriage, why are people just now finding that right in the constitution, A document that has been around many years longer than people have supposedly found that right.

to comment

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