@Danclrksvll...Go figure you reside in Tennessee. Texas was my second guess.
Please engage in simple research prior to any more one dimensional posting. Many
@Danclrksvill wrote: "The decree from the judge can go hang. He has no right
to force someone to violate their moral beliefs"He has every
right to order public officials to obey the law.
The decree from the judge can go hang. He has no right to force someone to
violate their moral beliefs
@Liberty for All...Let me attempt once again. For the many of us that are in
favor of equality for all our comments are constantly disapproved by D.N.
Editors and clearly we are not allowed the same free exchange as those of you
who are against equality. A simplistic read of the comments regarding this
article I believe would prove my claim quite accurate. Apparently your handle
does pertain to all. First. May I ask are you the sole voice of logic and reason
regarding "the best interest of the child"? What exactly is your
background in childhood development? Are you a practicing child psychologist?
Also, in closing I hate to burst your Utah County bubble but the State of Utah
does not have a "church". Even though the attempts continue for one on a
@Liberty for All...Apparently your handle does pertain to all based on your
previous outlandish posts. May I ask do you truly believe that you alone are the
final voice in determining what is in the "best interest" of the child?
In closing, what is your background with childhood development? Are you a
practicing child psychologist? That's right I'm assuming you are not
so your posts are just more unsupported opinion.
Shame shame shame on the AG, the state of Utah, their governor, and other
religious power brokers for dragging this couple through hell. It's ironic
that all of this is being done in the name of religion; as it turns out the real
martyr's in this case are the same sex couple.
Testimony,It's obvious you have never read the actual Bill of
Rights or you would know they are enumerated as Article the First, Article the
Second, etc.I apologize for confusing you. I should have used the
more common lay terminology of "amendments." As far as the
10th amendment. I understand it the way Madison did:"The powers
delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and
defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and
indefinite." – James Madison, Federalist 45, 1788
" It is not a personal attack on anyone " Please! Are we stupid? They
have to clarify things! You know, ... I better not say it!
Harrison Bergeron,It looks to me like you're confusing our
Constitution's Articles with its Amendments. If you are considering
reading the actual text of Judge Shelby's decision, which I suspect you
aren't, you might consider reading the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments
first. There are 7 Articles and 27 Amendments. Article 6 is the most important
for this case, and Amendments 5 and 14 should be understood. As for
the 10th Amendment, it doesn't mean as much as you think it does. Here is
the explanation from Wikipedia:"The Tenth Amendment, which makes
explicit the idea that the federal government is limited to only the powers
granted in the Constitution, has been declared to be truism by the Supreme
Court. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court asserted that the
amendment 'added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally
ratified.'" (Truism means just stating the obvious.)
Harrison Bergeron said: "This is not an Article I issue. These Federal
Judges are abusing Article XIV the same way the Roe V. Wade court twisted
Article IV to legalize infanticide. "in·fan·ti·cidenoun1.the crime of killing a child
within a year of birth.2.a person who kills an infant, especially their
own child.You mean the way you twisted the word infanticide to mean
something it doesn't? Infanticide is still illegal in the USA. (see
the PG woman in the news)It would seem that those arguing in favor
of SSM use facts and references, and those opposed use feelings and scriptures.
One of these won't hold up in court.
@SLC guy;The only disadvantage to these children is going to be
having to deal with people like you. People like you will try to make their
lives miserable; in every other respect, they'll be just like any other
Adoption is an imperfect solution to a tragedy where in general a child is
considered better off without his/her biological parents. This inevitably causes
the child some trauma in not knowing his/her biological parents and coming to
terms with their place in the world. In this case the child may never know her
father. In addition this child will be raised in a same sex environment that
puts him/her at further disadvantage. How do we as a society justify the impacts
to this child? Who as a parent plans, like these parents did, to bring a child
into the world at such a disadvantage?
Think about this a little more...To try to prevent Utah conservatives from
completely becoming unglued, this issue, and possibly others, may be brought to
light to strengthen the final decision in favor of SSM.It is tragic to
think that Reyes and his people find a need to hurt children and families even
more now.The final decision in favor of SSM will be clear and concise. It
should not be much longer til the announcement.However, one issue will
remain a lasting memory. Unfortunately, the unkind words and behavior by
many in this state, will continue to be spotlighted throughout Utah, the US, and
@U-tar: "It would be nice to see some Judges " explain their
actions" once in a while. People dressed in black robes love to legislate
and override the will of the people."Judges write their
decisions. They explain the issues before the court, review the facts and
evidence presented by both sides, examine various laws and the precedent of
previous rulings, sometimes examine other legal opinion and explain their
conclusions. Judge Shelby, for example, gave over 50 pages carefully
explaining the case, his reasoning, his conclusions and the actions that should
result. Is that not enough?
U-tar,Judges issue written rulings in all cases. It's all
there to read for any person interested.
@Harrison BergeronWhat Constitution are you looking at? The US
Constitution comprises of on 6 articles, and you are referencing the 14th?Article Four deals with the relationship between the Constitution and
National and State Governments.
To those who consider these judges activist and we are becoming an
"oligarchy of judges" I fail to see this. Virtually every judge who
looks at this issue has ruled on the side of equality and applying the U.S.
Constitution to LGBT people just as it applies to heterosexual people. If it
were only one or two judges that ruled as such, the term activist might apply.
But the fact that so many legal minds look at it and come to the exact same
conclusion, it hardly seems activist and is more in the line of rulings like
Loving v Virginia - insuring the rights of the minority are not trampled by the
views of the majority. We are a nation of laws and courts applying the highest
law of the land is most appropriate.
Quaker,This is not an Article I issue. These Federal Judges are
abusing Article XIV the same way the Roe V. Wade court twisted Article IV to
legalize infanticide. Furry,They are not upholding
the constitution, they are overturning lawfully amended State Constitutions. In
doing so, that are trampling both the spirit and letter of Article X of the very
constitution they have sworn to uphold.
@JBQ;You don't seem to understand that the "will of the
people" doesn't trump the US Constitution. It doesn't matter if
every person in this country but one were to vote for an unconstitutional law
banning that one person from something, the law would STILL be
unconstitutional.It really is very simple. The US Constitution is
the supreme law of this land.
@cjb"I don't know what explanation the AG will offer but here is
one he should offer.Children should have a mother and a
father."That would be a colossal failure for an argument. The
child at issue here is the birth child of one of those women. You can't
force her to marry a man and you can't forcibly take the child away.
It appears to be legal common sense to refuse to enforce pending litigation.
There is a law on the books banning same sex marriage which is being challenged
in a higher court. It just does not make sense for a lower level judge to
enforce a decision which is being appealed. If the State of Utah wants to ban
same sex adoption, then they are allowed to do so pending the finality of legal
action which will very well go to the Supreme Court. In California, Prop 8 was
remanded back to a lower court. If Utah's Supreme Court rules otherwise,
then it will definitely go to the Supreme Court. This is a strange chain where
the "will of the people" is being overridden through the interpretation
of one judge after another. Justice Anthony Kennedy as well as Charles
Krauthammer have opined that eventually the people will rule in factor of same
sex marriage. Until that happens, it is very dangerous for society to allow
"rule by judges". That is what caused the Boston Tea Party. Now with a
national "Common Core", we have an attempt to take over education on a
national level as well.
This is truly a sad state of affairs. There is no way on earth that two women
can create a child whether married or not married. It always takes one man and
one woman to conceive a child - one egg and sperm. Two women or two men are
incapable of furnishing both sides of what created a child. God or nature made
human beings to require a father and a mother. If two women or two men want to
marry and ignore these evident facts of life, fine, but please don't
subject innocent children to this choice.
I don't think anybody is being mean-spirited here, but it does sound like
somebody has dropped the ball.The article states that the Court gave
the Attorney General's Office the opportunity to object to the adoption
before ruling and they declined to do so. If that is accurate, the AG will have
a tough time justifying his position.
In my opinion Reyes should be in jail. He's absolutely in contempt!
@ Liberty and cjb: It may be your opinion that children should have a mother
and a father, but there is nothing in the law requiring that nor does legitimate
research support that opinion.Even the State of Utah doesn't
believe that.As for your religious doctrines, they are not and
cannot be the basis for civil laws.There is no legally valid reason
to deny these children the two loving parents they already have - and very many
legally valid reasons to create a legal relationship between these children and
@ Flashback: As part of the Kitchen v Herbert process, attorneys for the State
of Utah requested summary judgement. Attorneys for the plaintiffs followed
suit.Summary judgement is requested when the side requesting it
believes there are no material facts being disputed - in other words, they
believe all the facts are in evidence, both theirs and the ones from the other
side, and that they are indeed the truth.In other words, it was not
Shelby that decided no hearing was necessary - it was the State of Utah. Shelby
merely agreed with them that no hearing was necessary and then decided that the
facts put forth by the plaintiffs were more compelling.@ K: Utah
law does not allow cohabiting couples to adopt - only single people or married
couples. Laws governing the names on birth certificates are very clear that the
individuals listed on the birth certificate must have a legal connection to the
child for whom the birth certificate is being issued. All of this together
means the only way both mothers can be on the birth certificate for their
daughter is if they are married and the child has been adopted by the non-birth
To all of you who keep pitching a father and a mother or the "traditional
family." When I hear these phrases two couples come to mind. For both a
biological father and mother, Josh and Susan. For the step-father biological
mother combination, Nathan and Stephanie. 'Nuff said.
Children raised by stable same sex couples do as well as children raised by
heterosexual couples--they certainly do better than children who are raised by
the system in foster care. The idea that "children have a right to be
raised by their mother and father" is reductive, unrealistic and not even
true. It's a homily that people say that is not borne out by data. Reyes' decision is based on animus pure and simple.
@Flashback, who claims the Federal District Court "didn't even give the
issue a fair hearing or a trial."What, pray tell, do you base
your assertion on? Did you read any of the filings? Did you even bother to
read the judge's decision, which is very well written and took into account
all those amicus briefs filed on behalf of the State? It's 53 pages long
and covers every single base and issue you've ever mentioned in the DN
comments. You may be free to disagree with the judge's
analysis and decision, but you should have at least read the darned thing first.
I've read it, and frankly I have to tell you, I don't see a lot of
wiggle room for the State. I looks pretty conclusive and airtight, on the facts
and the law.Enter this into the search box to find it on Google:
2:13-cv-00217 #90We'll be having the 10th Circuit appeal
decision in another couple of weeks. You'll see whether they agree with
you, or the District Court. All I can say is, don't get your hopes up,
To Isrred: Concerning stock photos, I made a similar observation on the Idaho
story earlier in the week. It is one of the numerous stories that have appeared
since December accompanied by a photo of two hands. Two hands and only two
hands. I realize that photos of couples kissing are thought to be not in good
taste but most of the photos I have seen in other publications are of happy
smiling couples. What I come up with in looking at these photos is the people
for the most part look like normal everyday people. I think the mental image of
the readers in many cases wouldn't reflect this reality.
I don't know what explanation the AG will offer but here is one he should
offer.Children should have a mother and a father.
It would be nice to see some Judges " explain their actions" once in a
while. People dressed in black robes love to legislate and override the will of
Astoundingly, biology always trumps the desire for equality.
FT you basically wrote my comment for me. I am amazed at the animus and
negativity expressed by so many of the posters either in the name of religion or
the "traditional family." I've said it before and I say it again, I
continue to be absolutely befuddled why there are those who still wish to deny
to others the happiness and legal protections that the rest of us take for
Pianoman;Who stays home with kids in a same sex marriage. Those in
same sex marriages probably negotiate based on the best interests of the family.
Those in opposite sex families just default to the female. I think
that same sex couples have put a lot more thought and effort into having
children, so that their child rearing is deliberate, considered and in the best
interests of their child. Opposite sex couples often just find themselves with
a child or children by default of the biological effects of their pair bonding.
Even if the female can earn more for the family in the workplace and assure a
more stable foundation for the family, the male defaults to bread winner status.
You may not like same sex families, but you must admire the ability
of them to pursue what is difficult to do (have children), and to give that
process due consideration.
Pianoman,The DN frequently publishes articles from The Atlantic. Do
a search for articles on The Atlantic entited "The Gay Guide to Wedded
Bliss” and "What Gays can teach Straights about Marriage." You
will find research answering your questions. In short, gay couples tend to be
more egalitarian because they do not have firm gender roles to build off of.
However, as with heterosexual couples, they tend to specialize as well. They
don't split responsibilities 50/50. They split them according to each
partners' strengths and interests. I'm not gay, but I
find the gay marriage model to be a really good fit for heterosexuals who find
traditional gender roles limiting, such as when one spouse wants to participate
in the good functions traditionally allowed only to the other (e.g., fathers
whose heart yearns to nurture; mothers who excel at presiding and providing).
I find it amusing that the Deseret News always uses generic stock photos for
articles like this one instead of actual photos of the couples, children, and
families involved. What are you afraid of Deseret News? Humanizing these loving
families that you have been demonizing all this time?
@Pianoman;How did you and your wife determine who stayed at home and
who was the breadwinner? Many times both people work. I have a friend who is a
stay-at-home-dad and his wife is the breadwinner.We make our
determinations in the same way you do. Does that help you understand us
better?A quick rule of thumb in trying to understand LGBT people:
Ask yourself "how would I do it" and you'll have your answer as to
how we'd do it too.
Wow. Reading about the actions of our AG then the comments from previous
posters reveals the questinable values of numerous people in Utah. Seems our
goverment and it's leaders are encouraged to protect and promote prejudice
in our state. The founders of this country were very wise to give us the courts
to protect us from the shortcomings that lie within many of us.
@Pianoman"With same Sex Couples and their families, how is it
determined who "stays at home"?"I can only speak for us
specifically, and generally about some couples we know. We adopted
two kids with special needs - medical and other problems. My partner is in IT,
makes good money, works for a company that extends partner benefits and adoption
benefits and gives her some flex-time. She had siblings but only did minimal
babysitting and childcare. She likes kids, does not have endless patience and is
not great with icky-suff that kids do sometimes. I did a lot of
babysitting, have medical training and experience, helped friends and family
with childcare, and always wanted to be a mommy. In our case stay-at-home makes
sense due to health issues, and I do it because it is a role I like. For friends? Reasons like ours. Or one partner can work from home. Or, like
straight couples, have daycare and family help and both work. And I
know several opposite-sex couples with a working mom and stay-at-home dad. It is
Quaker, it is not fair judgement when a judge, like Shelby did, put his own bias
forward in his decision. He wasn't fair at all. He didn't even give
the issue a fair hearing or a trial.
Libert, this is absolutely about the adults.
Liberty for all writes:"... by the majority of the state and its
church ".The State of Utah has a "church"?When did this get snuck through the Legislature?By the way, which
church is the state's official church?
Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry!Right on Judge Stone!
@Harrison Bergeron 10:26 p.m. May 15, 2014We have become an
oligarchy of judges. Somehow I hope we can take back our country and restore our
once great representative republic.-----------------------------You have a problem when judges step in to protect and defend the
Constitution, and defend the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the
I have a suspicion that we will see an end to these "activist" judges
when we finally stop creating laws that create different classes of citizens.
It's sad that we often need to be reminded to treat people fairly.
@HarrisonBergeron: The only oligarchy in this country is of those billionaires
who buy elections and elected leaders to do their bidding.Judges
have to fairly decide disputes between factions. We have a lot of freedoms in
this country, and those freedoms create conflict. Freedom of religion and
freedom of individual action are sometimes at odds. Not that long ago, for
example, it was illegal to open your store for business on a Sunday in many
localities.Our courts, long ago, have interpreted the Establishment
Clause to mean that while you are free to practice your own religion,
you're not free to impose it on anyone who isn't interested, or use
the government to do so.This is not "YOUR" country.
It's everyone's, and we do not all agree on social issues. I (and my
religion) for example believe it's highly immoral to deny equality to
people on the basis of sexual orientation. It's also an active violation
of our religious freedom to prevent us from officiating marriages of same-sex
couples. The opposite is not a violation of yours, since no one is telling you
that you have to.
Small government proponents and slippery-slope arguers should be all over this,
but all I hear is crickets. So I don't think you truly believe what you
say you do.I would have liked the article to address why the AG
didn't file an objection when it had an opportunity. By not doing so, it
seems to have created a Catch-22 for itself. And what is the hold up on the
state Supreme Court ruling? Wasn't one requested some time ago?None of the State's behavior in this story is coming across as
child-centric. It's coming across as intrusive and more concerned with
supporting a religious-based belief than supporting a child and its parents.
Nice. Big Brother rules in Utah.
Here's a wild idea: we don't we stop trying to force people to stop
being "icky" and love only certain people. We've already decided
that's possible for different skin colors so why not different genders?
Also perhaps we could think about what's the best for the children instead
of worrying about how "icky" their parents "lifestyle" is. If
this baby's birth mother is injured or killed is it really right to take
her away from the other parent in her life? Are we really that callous and
I find that most of the opposition to marriage equality is mean spirited and
You don't have to be married to be on a birth certificate. The argument is
AG Reyes is not attempting to ignore, defy, or be in contempt. The office
reached out to the UT Supreme CT for clarification of the law, and is waitng for
an answer. A lower court is demanding an answer now from AG Reyes. Why would
not the lower court desire the same thing as the office - waiting for
clarification to ensure the interpretation of the law is maintained? I do not
see anyone here asking why are they not also fighting to have the father's
name on the birth certificate? They desire the natural monther as the article
states where is the natural father? It takes a man and woman to have a child,
not two of the same sex.
I hope this question doesn't come off as offensive to anyone, but I have a
question that I need clarification on:In Traditional family settings, it is
usually the majority of the time the wife (the mother) that stays home and
raises the children as the husband (the father) goes to work and provides for
his family. With same Sex Couples and their families, how is it determined who
"stays at home"? It is an honest, sincere question that has came to my
mind as all of these legal battles have been happening and it would help me
better understand the LGBT community. Thanks!
Thank you Sean Reyes in standing up for traditional values. Children are not
pets or fashion accessories.
The AG is an agenda lapdog. All he has to do is explain it. We'll see it
for what it is.
We have become an oligarchy of judges. Somehow I hope we can take back our
country and restore our once great representative republic.
@ Blue: When a child is adopted, the birth certificate is changed to reflect
the legal parents. When a couple divorces, the parents, although no longer
married, are still the legal parents of the child. As long as they are both
still recognized as legal parents, the birth certificate is not changed and
step-parents are not allowed to adopt.Should one (or both) of the
parents on the birth certificate surrender their parental rights or have them
vacated by the courts, the child becomes eligible for adoption - and once that
adoption is completed, the birth certificate is changed to reflect the legal
parents.This has been done for generations. (There is usually a
sealed original birth certificate listing the bio mom - hence the whole
searching for your bio parents thing instead of just looking at the birth
certificate.)Additionally, many children have only one parent listed
on their birth certificate - if the parents are unmarried, they must both agree
to have the father's name on the certificate. If the child was conceived
with donor sperm, there is no "father" to be listed. (At least eight of
Nadya Suleman's children have no father listed on their birth
"Rosky said the court gave the attorney general's office, which took
the position that all same-sex marriages in Utah are on hold, the opportunity to
object to the adoption, but it declined."They had the
opportunity to object, but they didn't. Now they are running afoul of a
court order. They should absolutely be held in contempt.
“Preserving the 'traditional institution of marriage’ is just a
kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex
couples” - Lawrence, 539 U.S. AT 601 Justice ScaliaSounds
exactly like what AG Reyes is trying to do here.
"To have amended the birth certificates as directed by the court would have
put the office of vital statistics in a position of having to recognize the
marriages and to accord them government benefits, which they believe violates
Utah law." This case is simple gay marriage is illegal in Utah therefor the
state office had no other choice under Utah law. The state department acted as
they should and obeyed the law of the people on this one.
The Attorney General is fighting a mean spirited battle against two loving
parents and it is shameful. The judge hopefully will find them in contempt. Liberty For All, your name hardly denotes liberty for all, it denotes
liberty for those who you think deserve it. That isn't liberty for all.
This is not about the interests of adults its about the best interest of the
child. Furthermore it demeans the institution of marriage to promote these kind
of relationships to something other than being child centric. The state is
supporting the common sense belief by the majority of the state and its church
that a child does best with a mother and father. I think a better understanding
of the Proclamation to the World is in order.
"They had spent three years planning for their daughter, who was born to
Amber Leary and is now 18 months old. Stone finalized the adoption on March 26,
making them the legal parents of the child. But when the Learys asked the health
department to amend the birth certificate with both their names, it refused on
the advice of the attorney general's office."This is a
cheap excuse for a lawsuit. It's a birth certificate, not a parenthood
certificate. How does one logically amend a birth certificate to list two
females? That's biologically impossible. Birth certificates aren't
amended when people divorce and marry someone else, so why should it happen in
this case? This isn't even a SS issue, this is a logical issue. It
doesn't make any sense.
The couple must have known the state might not recognize their adoption given
they hurried and tried to tie it all together during the lapse created by an
activist judge.....I mean the article does say they were planing for three
years? It should have been clear that UTah may have not been the safest place
to risk your adoption of your child given all the other states around who would
have rubber stamped it like Washington or Oregon!
Liberty For All, regardless of what the State does, that's not going to
change this child's living situation unless the State will be in the
business of forcing parents to become heterosexually married.What
the child does deserve is the protection of being legally connected to both the
child's biological mother and her legally-wed wife.
"Kimberly and Amber Leary, who have been together six years, married and
petitioned for an adoption during the brief time same-sex marriage was legal in
Utah. They had spent three years planning for their daughter, who was born to
Amber Leary and is now 18 months old."
"Supporters of the Learys have called the state's action
mean-spirited."It is mean-spirited to make the above statement.
Liberty For All,So you believe this 18 month old child should be
taken away from her natural mother and placed into a foster program?
AG Reyes is fighting for the family not against anyone. The state is looking out
for the best interest of the child. Every child deserves to be raised by their
mother and father.