Utah to appeal decision requiring recognition of same-sex marriages


Return To Article
  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    June 9, 2014 2:23 p.m.

    @Danclrksvll...Once again my friend "Holy Scriptures" have absolute no place in this legal argument and Obama has nothing to do with that aspect either. It's individuals such as yourself that assume everyone is a Christian. Separation of Church and State was ruled upon years ago. Welcome to 2014.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    June 7, 2014 10:10 p.m.


    "Could they not decide to stay the way God made them?"

    No one is born homosexual. God is merciful, and always provides a way for His children to obey his commandments. He has stated, through His prophets of the past and present, that sexual relationships are moral only when employed by a man and a woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. God does not create homosexuality. That is the devil's doing. Why would God do that to anyone? Temptations to commit sin can always be successfully resisted, but as mortal human beings, we sometimes give in to those temptations. Fortunately, The Atonement was put in place by Jesus Christ, allowing us to repent of our sins.

  • TimBehrend Auckland NZ, 00
    June 7, 2014 5:49 a.m.

    neece: "We fought the British to stand up for what we believe at a High cost. We fought a Civil war and are now fighting for what we believe in again at a high cost."

    Yes, but those in favour of restricting rights through slavery lost, as opponents of equal rights for LGBT will certainly lost this encounter. It's not too late to get on the humane side of this issue.

  • MtnDewed Salt Lake City, UT
    June 6, 2014 4:31 p.m.

    Would you force them to change? Could they not decide to stay the way God made them? Must everyone fit your optimal? And if they do not fit, no rights for them?

    If you were serious about only supporting the optimal, you would be lobbying for law to take all children away from single parents. Yes, people can have (or adopt) children when they are single - but you are not working to take away their rights, are you? Just gay people...and it really may be that they are just wired that way. Even the LDS church admits that maybe they cannot change their orientation.

    So all those gays that do not believe as you do, why should they change? Why not just stay the way god made them? Enjoy life and find a special someone the share that life with. What is wrong with that?

    They are citizens too, you know.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    June 6, 2014 3:53 p.m.

    @MtnDwed "Because xxy and xyy and xxx happen - and they are citizens too."

    These are surgically and hormonally correctable defects, that do not diminish the ideal way things were meant to be.

  • MtnDewed Salt Lake City, UT
    June 6, 2014 1:07 p.m.


    Washington, DC

    Science says xx + xy is optimal. What is wrong with supporting what is scientifically optimal?


    Because xxy and xyy and xxx happen - and they are citizens too.

    Why not support them too?

  • rhappahannock Washington, DC
    June 6, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    Science says xx + xy is optimal. What is wrong with supporting what is scientifically optimal?

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    June 6, 2014 6:51 a.m.


    1. It is not a State right to trample the individual rights of its citizens.

    2. Judicial review is not judicial tyranny. It is a long established and integral function of the Judicial branch. It is every bit as American as a bicameral legislature. Also, exactly how is one terrorized by these rulings? I'd hate to live in such an emotional condition.

    3. Nobody is asking you to. But you do have to recognize the right of others to believe or not believe as they see fit.

    4. Again, nobody is asking you to. The State, on the other hand, is required to honour the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendments by making no laws which prohibit the free association of its citizens (including the association of marriage), making no laws which shall disparage any right of the people not specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution or its Amendments (which includes the right to choose who one will marry), and making no laws which violate the right of the people to equal protection under the law (which includes the legal protections afforded by legal marriage).

    Want a solution that works for both sides? Get government out of marriage.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    June 6, 2014 4:28 a.m.

    If gays and lesbians do indeed have equal dignity with other Americans, then that also includes access to marriage.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 6, 2014 12:01 a.m.

    Re: Danclrksvll "4.and lastly, NO, we will not endorse gay unions as a legal entity regardless of the consequences because the will of the people has already been expressed and it will be honored." But what if SSM is upheld in the courts? What do you plan to do then?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    June 5, 2014 11:19 p.m.

    @Constitutionalistcv "..She therefore was not prepared to earn a decent living after he died, but laws were written to provide death benefits to her if he died first. Partners in same-sex couples do not have the same burden, and do not need the same safety net..."

    So two working opposite-sex couples with separate pension and health care benefits should be excluded, because they do not have the same burden?

    What about the children of same-sex couples where one parent stays at home? Are not the spouse and children entitled to spousal health care, pension and social security benefits and stability, like any other opposite sex couple? If not, WHY not?

    What does equal application of the law actually mean to you Mr. Constitutionalist? It certainly does not mean the similarly situated couples should be treated less that or their marriages worth any less?

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    June 5, 2014 9:52 p.m.


    "What arguments are being overlooked?"

    These rulings take their basis from prior federal rulings about marriage. What they have overlooked is that the earlier rulings applied to marriages between one man and one woman. Yet they refer to them as if the rulings were about marriage between any type of partner.

    They are equating apples to oranges to make their point and to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.

    @Unicorn 2000:

    You misquote me in saying, "you suggest that some people "do not deserve to be treated equally"". I said that same-sex couples do not have the same needs as heterosexual couples, and same-sex couples should not be entitled to benefits tailored to heterosexual couples.

    For example, in traditional marriages, at least in earlier times when such laws were created, the wife typically stayed home to raise children while the husband worked to support them. She therefore was not prepared to earn a decent living after he died, but laws were written to provide death benefits to her if he died first. Partners in same-sex couples do not have the same burden, and do not need the same safety net.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 5, 2014 9:35 p.m.

    @Danclrksvll: "We have Federal judges overturning the expressed will of the people..."


    Missouri ex el Gaines v. Canada. SCOTUS ruled a black had to be admitted to the the all-white University of Missouri School of Law.

    Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, the Court struck down segregation in law and graduate schools.

    Brown v. Board of Education, "...in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place."

    Brown v. Board II, SCOTUS held that school systems must abolish racially dual systems.

    In 1956 the Court affirmed a lower court ruling declaring segregation of the Montgomery bus system illegal.

    Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., the Court held the Civil Rights Act of 1866 bans racial discrimination in housing by private, as well as governmental, housing providers.

    Milliken v. Bradley, the Court halted school busing at a city's borders.

    In Milliken II, the Court ordered Michigan and Detroit schools to address educational deficits in black children.

    Missouri v. Jenkins, the Court permitted lower courts to order school authorities to increase spending on education remedies even when voters rejected raising taxes.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    June 5, 2014 7:45 p.m.

    While I respect Judge Dale Kimball, I think he ruled incorrectly. At least his ruling wasn't as obviously wrong as was Judge Shelby's.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 5, 2014 6:20 p.m.

    @Lost in DC:
    "which law should we follow, the state constitution passed through the legally accepted process, or judcial [sic] activisim [sic]?"

    Had you paid attention in your civics or history classes in school, you would understand that the State Constitution is subordinate to the Federal Constitution, and that it's the duty of the courts to overrule laws, statutes and State constitutional amendments which violate the Federal Constitution. Without that judicial review, states could pass laws and amend their constitutions to forbid interracial marriage, legalize slavery, make the Catholic church the official religion of that state, and there wouldn't be anything anyone could do about it.

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    June 5, 2014 6:07 p.m.

    this is as much about states rights, than anything else. the individual states AND their citizens should decide what is right for them, not being dictated to by the feds.

  • Danclrksvll Erin, TN
    June 5, 2014 4:54 p.m.

    This sort of thing really ought to worry most Americans. We have Federal judges overturning the expressed will of the people of Utah that is given voice through their Constitution. I applaud the Governor of Utah for his brave moral stand on this issue, and quite frankly we need a little rebellion starting with the word ''no''
    1.No, we will not obey a decree from a Federal judge that tramples upon the rights of any state.
    2.No,we will not be quiet in our moral opposition, when you use judicial tyranny to terrorize us.
    3.No,we will not under any circumstance change our definition of the family as outlined by the Holy Scriptures and our church leaders.
    4.and lastly, NO, we will not endorse gay unions as a legal entity regardless of the consequences because the will of the people has already been expressed and it will be honored.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    June 5, 2014 2:16 p.m.

    @SLC'guy: There's a big difference between "defending an impossibly high ideal," and refusing to allow anyone else to have any of it.

    Do you refuse to allow disaster relief unless it consists of lobster thermidor, asparagus with truffle sauce, chablis and espresso?

    Do you refuse to register births unless the mother is married?

    Do you refuse to allow marriages unless both parties are virgins?

    Do you refuse to allow college admissions unless the student has 1600 SATs?

    Shall we ban all clothing except hand-made designer originals from the Paris couture shows?

    Should everyone have to drive a Porsche 918 Spyder or nothing at all? (Goodbye traffic, hello open road!)

    No, you're not defending an ideal. You're just seeking to punish those who can't meet this particular one of yours.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    June 5, 2014 1:34 p.m.

    @SLC guy wrote: "Thank you Utah for continuing to defend the impossibly high ideal that families should consist of mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters."

    That's not what they're doing. What they're doing is trying to deny same-sex married couples their rights as married couples.

  • SLC guy Salt Lake City, UT
    June 5, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    Thank you Utah for continuing to defend the impossibly high ideal that families should consist of mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters. Thank you for "embarrassing" yourself by not accepting the pop culture doctrine that their is no difference between husband or wife, male or female, brother or sister.

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    June 5, 2014 11:44 a.m.

    @Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    That is your opinion but a judge has more knowledge about this even 10 years ago:
    Second Quarter 2004
    by James W. Skillen

    A gay-marriage advocate in Boston explained to a radio reporter that marriage is a civil matter, not a church affair. Those who want church weddings can have them, but marriage is a matter of civil law. And since it is unconstitutional to deny equal civil rights to citizens, it is unconstitutional to deny to homosexual couples the right to marry.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    June 5, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    When all is said and done in these cases and the Supreme Court has ruled that same sex marriage is legal in America, all the adoption cases are done, the appeals, so on and so forth. I hope someone adds up all the money spent trying to fight this so we can stand back and marvel at all the good we could have done with the money.

    We could have helped millions of Americans escape poverty or get a better education. We could have given millions of hungry children better food security. Who knows what we could have accomplished with all of this money instead of spending it in an effort to harm people, to keep them second class citizens. What a monumental waste of money, time, and effort. Conservatives seem to be willing to spend any amount of money to keep anyone they see as different down but unwilling to spend anything on trying to help those less fortunate than them.

    I really can't wait for all of this to be decided and then watch as all the doomsday warning fail to come true as the world spins on.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    June 5, 2014 11:16 a.m.

    As for the slippery slope arguments warning of inevitable legalization of polygamy: Shouldn't Utah's Mormon population be thrilled at the prospect of returning to that true and everlasting Principle of the Gospel?

    Or, are they just afraid of having their hopes dashed once again. Yeah. That's probably it. They don't want to get their hopes up too high.

  • Unicorn 2000 Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 5, 2014 11:10 a.m.

    @ Constitutionalist

    When you suggest that some people "do not deserve to be treated equally," I am assuming that you mean the people who do not fit your religious views of opposite sex marriage.In reality,there has always been people who get married and who by definition, fit your criteria for same sex marriage. Nature does not draw this distinction in sex, people do! Many people are born with both male and female attributes of sex and are married, even when they are chromosomally or even anatomically, the "same sex." Such assumptions are based on an overly simplistic view of humans and on nothing more than a false sense of outward appearance.It is time to wake up and embrace the reality of humans...we are more complex than you seem to understand. Just look up intersex and see what I am talking about.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 5, 2014 10:51 a.m.

    Self-proclaimed activists, eager to save I don't know what from I don't who in light of continuing advances in equality.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 5, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    @lost in DC

    right should never succumb to cost


    Wow! I never knew you were such a staunch supporter of the Affordable Health Care Act and SNAP. I fully agree, we should be far more concerned with doing right by our brothers and sisters than the $ attached.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 5, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    @ lost in DC

    " spend whatever it takes to appeal and keep on appealing. right should never succumb to cost."

    Lost in DC, if opponents of SSM are on the side of "right"? Please explain to me why are you causing so much harm to people you never met and their children?

    If you are on the side of right, why are you so obsessed with spending money, which is a scarce resource, that could be used in more immediate needs i.e. schools,

    Look at the state of Utah. In what way SSM will cause harm?

    Most people in Utah claim to follow the teaching of Jesus. Please examine your actions and possible impact on people in the State of Utah. Do you think Christ approves of these action and attitude?

    At what point do you stop being righteous and become cruel?

  • MtnDewed Salt Lake City, UT
    June 5, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    TheLionHeart - Please check the internet for the arguments that people against inter-racial marriages were proposing in the 1960's. You could not have parallelled them any better than if you had copied and pasted them, word for word.

    Of course, you missed the marrying your dog, brother or rose bush argument, but maybe polygamy will be allowed, as long as they are adults. There are many reasons that polygamy is illegal and those reasons would have to be worked through, but polygamy is actually "traditional marriage!"

    Why are you so afraid of polygamy?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 5, 2014 10:19 a.m.


    What about OUR rights? Oh, right. They don't matter. You lose nothing when LGBT couples marry. NOTHING. You have lost no rights (not even religious rights). You are the ones TAKING AWAY the rights of others.

    BTW; The Pledge of Allegiance says: "With Liberty and Justice for ALL" (you're the one who apparently doesn't know the words).

    Constitutionalist says:
    "...all Utahns will be spending millions of taxpayer dollars to provide benefits to same-sex couples who do not deserve them. "

    1) Why do same-sex couples not deserve the SAME benefits your family enjoys?
    2) Many of those tax-dollars COME FROM US and they're supporting your family. Your comment is just too hypocritical for words.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    June 5, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    You argue that the previous rulings legalizing gay marriage "overlooked important arguments" which would show that same-sex couples "do not deserve benefits."
    What arguments are being overlooked? Please explain the state's rational basis for allowing straight people to marry each other but denying that right to gay people.
    I've been looking very hard for a rational argument, but so far haven't found anything.

  • MtnDewed Salt Lake City, UT
    June 5, 2014 10:11 a.m.

    Constitutionalist: When women were allowed to vote, did the federal government go through every law that used the word "voter" and determine whether they should be adjusted for women? After all, those laws were written when "voter" meant "white, property-holding, male."

    What a silly thought that you are going to be taxed for SS married couples. Actually, if you had your way, in your perfect world, all those couples would be married to an opposite sex partner and you would be paying the exact same amount for them!

    Illogical, to the extreme.

    Also, even though those who were passing laws with rights pertaining to marriage might have thought of man-woman marriage, there were no laws stating that marriage was only that - for that reason Utah passed Amendment 3 - to put that defination into law.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    June 5, 2014 10:11 a.m.

    @Constitutionalist wrote: "Meanwhile, I am tapped out about the possibility that if these law suits do not prevail, all Utahns will be spending millions of taxpayer dollars to provide benefits to same-sex couples who do not deserve them."

    The same-sex couples that are plaintiffs in the suit were legally married.

    By definition, they do deserve the rights, privileges and obligations of marriage due to any married opposite-sex couple in Utah.

  • TheLionHeart salt Lake, UT
    June 5, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    There are a few major problems that pro Gay Marriage supporters don not want to face.

    People who argue for gay marriage insist it is a matter of civil rights and equality.
    If Gay Marriage is accepted nationally or enforced by the courts then ANYONE who supports plural marriage will be able to use the exact same justifications and arguments. If the courts impose gay marriage they ABSOLUTELY MUST ALLOW POLYGAMY, POLYAMORY MARRIAGE, and GROUP MARRIAGE. It is a slippery slope, because if you say denying gay people the right to marry is denying someone their rights, then you are denying a group of 5 people their rights to be in a marriage, 75 people their rights if they all want to be in a marriage 750 people their rights if they want to be in a cult marriage.

    People are not being given rights by allowing gay marriage, the only thing that is being done is the meaning of marriage is being utterly destroyed. If you don not limit marriage to be between a man and a woman then you can not limit marriage at all.

  • netsrik Draper, UT
    June 5, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    Give it up already! Let these families be. Stop hurting families and children!

  • tennerifa Orem, UT
    June 5, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    I certainly hope that the tax increases coming, to finance these shenanigans, are truly painful.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 5, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    I wonder what is really going on at the state. How are these decisions being made? Are discussions being held at official venues? Are minutes being taken?

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    June 5, 2014 9:55 a.m.


    "learning that marriage is a civil right"

    Correction. Every court ruling about marriage being a civil right -- at least until the judges of Massachusetts started the process of redefining marriage about 10 years ago -- was about a marriage of one man and one woman being a civil right. In NONE of those earlier rulings did any party to the ruling believe that they pertained to same-sex couples, but rather to the traditional institution of marriage as it had been defined for thousands of years.

    Some judges have overlooked the obvious in recent rulings, when they ignore the fact that these earlier rulings were about heterosexual marriage.

    Case law has demonstrated that a marriage between one man and one woman is a civil right. It has done nothing to demonstrate that same-sex marriage is a civil right.

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    June 5, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    @ stevo123:

    You may be tapped out paying for "losing law suits." But we sincerely hope that some judges will wake up and realize that some previous rulings overlooked important arguments, thus these will be winning law suits.

    Meanwhile, I am tapped out about the possibility that if these law suits do not prevail, all Utahns will be spending millions of taxpayer dollars to provide benefits to same-sex couples who do not deserve them. ALL current laws on the books that give various benefits to married couples were written with the intent that the benefits go to marriages where one partner is male and the other partner is female. That is how marriage was defined at the time these laws were written. NONE of these benefits should go to same-sex couples unless and until the legislature reviews these laws, one by one, and determines whether they should be adjusted for same-sex couples.

    Yet the courts, in their over-reach, are demanding that the state retroactively redefine all laws pertaining to marriage as if marriage had always been defined to include any people who love each other regardless of other considerations.

  • Unicorn 2000 Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 5, 2014 9:40 a.m.

    What is ironic is that Utah was one of the last states to repeal its own laws forbidding interracial marriage in 1963. That was not so long ago. Today, the same diatribe is being used to resist the sweeping changes around laws forbidding same gender marriage that are taking place throughout the U.S. But this time, it started in Utah. What is funny is that this resistance is coming from the same state leaders who have been so critical of the federal government for "wasteful" spending time and time again. Change is here and it is obvious from the rulings in other state cases that this change is far reaching and here to stay. What becomes clear is that the opinion on this issue has changed and that laws forbidding this type of marriage are being defined as discriminatory. We need leadership that acknowledges this change and need for fiscal restraint and responsible distribution of our limited state revenue.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 5, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    Utah = anti-family.

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    June 5, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    “We deem it a just principle, and it is one the force of which we believe ought to be duly considered by every individual, that all men are created equal, and that all have the privilege of thinking for themselves upon all matters relative to conscience. Consequently, then, we are not disposed, had we the power, to deprive any one of exercising that free independence of mind which heaven has so graciously bestowed upon the human family as one of its choicest gifts.”

    --Joseph Smith Jr.

    "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;"

    --D&C 121:41

    "When we undertake to...exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved"

    --D&C 121:37

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 5, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    So, when do the marriages of everyone else get to go to ballot? When do I get to vote on whether your marriage is valid?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 5, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    The Utah GOP thinks it can just play with people's lives without consequences. They're wrong.

  • stevo123 slc, ut
    June 5, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    Can we have the supporters of this appeal pay for it? I am tapped out paying for these losing law suits.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    June 5, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    @lost in DC
    You say that the decision of the courts is "judicial activism." The case the state is appealing was decided by Judge Dale Kimball. Have you read his decision? You can find it online if you search for "Case No. 2:14-cv-55DAK." The decision is solid. He finds no legal basis to withhold recognition of legal marriages and confirms that withholding recognition causes injury and harm to families. There is no evidence at all that Judge Kimball is an activist.
    Bio on Judge Kimball:
    - Married with six children and 24 grandchildren.
    - Degrees from BYU and University of Utah
    - Was professor at BYU's law school.
    - Member of the LDS church and has served as bishop, high councilor, stake president, and regional representative of the twelve.
    - Former member of the Deseret News Publishing Company Board of Directors.
    He gave a speech in 2003 that you can find online titled "Freedom and Independent Courts" where he demonstrates clear understanding of the role of judicial review and judicial independence. I'd suggest you review the concepts in that speech.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    June 5, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    I am anxiously waiting the day that our great state realizes that it is not good to create laws that force people to abide by somebody's religious code of conduct. The only thing such laws accomplish is to force people who believe differently to live as you would wish them to live. It creates divisions and resentment. It causes neighbors to be excluded from social circles. The one thing it rarely does is lead people to want to sincerely know more about a particular religion.

    An important gospel principle in most religious faiths is the value of choice. It's through the freedom of choice that we grow; we learn from our mistakes and search for better ways. When we don't have choice, we don't have the desire to search for anything better.

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    June 5, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    @Lost in DC

    "which law should we follow, the state constitution passed through the legally accepted process, or judcial activisim?"

    How about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights? Specifically, the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendments?

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    June 5, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    It was 10 years ago that the Utah citizens voted that marriage was between a man and a woman. Since that time they have advanced their knowledge with the rest of us, learning that marriage is a civil right and that same gender marriages do not change the rights of opposite gender marriages. I am using the word gender because there is a lot more to marriage than just sex, such as the desire to be in a relationship because of love commitment.
    How would Gov. Herbert and AG Reyes react if the American LGBT community flooded their offices with law suits claiming the stress they have created is causing a rise in LGBT medical expenses? :>) Governor Hebert and AG Reyes need to stop wasting tax payers money and make decisions based on civil, equal rights, not religious beliefs.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    June 5, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    Utah is spending taxpayer money on two appeals now? This state claims to be pro-family. First same-sex partners, many of which are raising children, were denied status as a legal family under Amendment 3. Then the courts recognized same-sex marriage. Now the ruling on Amendment 3 is being appealed, and marriages conducted during a window are being challenged. What effect does all this destabilization and uncertainty have on both the same-sex parent relationship and their children?

  • Aggie253 Logan, UT
    June 5, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    'Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."

    "What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.

    "Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."
    "Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."'

    --"Don Quixote"

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 5, 2014 8:55 a.m.


    I'll take the "judicial activism" any day when they're upholding the US Constitution - and doing their job.

  • neece Logan, UT
    June 5, 2014 8:53 a.m.

    We fought the British to stand up for what we believe at a High cost. We fought a Civil war and are now fighting for what we believe in again at a high cost. I believe it is because people aren't willing to fight for what we truly believe in. And THAT is why our nation is in the mess we are in. Too many people are too complacent. One day all our rights and freedoms will be taken away because no one fought for what they believe in. Utah is no exception. I am proud that our governor and AG are standing up for what the MAJORITY of Utahns stood up and voted for. I am tired of the minority "bullying" the rest to back down. Well they bullied us into taking "God we Trust" our of our lives, Most don't even know the Pledge of allegiance much less the Star Spangled Banner as Christina Aguilera showed us. They have pretty much taken away "Merry christmas" You don't want to participate then DON"T Here is a concept how about stop being "offended" at my right to freedom of speech? Yep looks like bullying to me.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 5, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    Must we persist in throwing state resources at a lost cause? It is a sad gesture, beyond petty, to go after the rights of these people. And for what? For politicians to entertain their masters?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 5, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    No more!

    Stop spending our money! Stop spending our children's and grandchildren's money on his case!

    Enough is enough!

  • tennerifa Orem, UT
    June 5, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    Ahhhhh, Utah Republicans. In my opinion they`re often misinformed, but never unsure of themselves.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 5, 2014 8:25 a.m.

    spend whatever it takes to appeal and keep on appealing. right should never succumb to cost.

    I M LD_ 2
    which law should we follow, the state constitution passed through the legally accepted process, or judcial activisim?

    you hate the LDS that much? I am sorry you are allowing such bitterness to canker you so heavily.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 5, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    Fifty One years ago George Wallace stood in the door at the University of Alabama and made a grand speech about segregation and then, as President Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard, Wallace stepped aside and we took another step into civilization.

    In years to come I suspect Gov Herbert and AG Reyes will be seen as standing the door of the marriage clerks office, making a futile stand based on outdated beliefs.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 5, 2014 8:10 a.m.

    Bleed Crimson: "Keep fighting Utah! The majority are behind you!"

    Because... basic civil rights are determined by majority rule? Is that how you see it?

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    June 5, 2014 7:53 a.m.

    Near the end of this story a list of the plaintiffs in this case is provided. Among them are Tony Milner and Matthew Barraza, (who have an adopted son). Mr. Milner is no stranger to these pages. A search of the DN site returns, among other items, this news story from 2011 (with photo included).


    By Marjorie Cortez, Deseret News
    Published: Monday, Dec. 5 2011

    "SALT LAKE CITY — For employees of Family Promise Salt Lake, the economic downturn isn't abstract. Homeless families who need help show up at the front door of the Salt Lake City nonprofit organization.

    "Our capacity is four families at a time. We have a month and a half waiting list, which is terrible because people are showing up with their suitcases in hand," said executive director Tony Milner."


    Here is someone who has actually helped families in Utah and look what the state of Utah is doing to him, his husband and his child.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    June 5, 2014 7:44 a.m.

    Wow. If ever there was a three-year-old throwing a temper tantrum in a supermarket...

    Utah, do you have any idea what you look like to the rest of the nation?

  • wendell provo, UT
    June 5, 2014 7:12 a.m.

    I have great respect for the legal , political, and judicial processes in America, and I respect the rights of people to have their own opinions and beliefs regarding issues such as this. Obviously the political leaders of this state have the right and the responsibility to decide how to proceed in this matter and they have done so. However, the decision to continue appealing these court rulings is beginning to appear to be based on an attitude of exclusion and a basic lack of compassion for gay and lesbian families in Utah.I certainly don't believe the Governor nor the Attorney General personally hate me or other people who happen to be gay, but they clearly do not understand that our families are every bit as important to us as theirs are to them. In my opinion, this latest decision is a misguided, futile, and sad reflection on the great state of Utah.

    June 5, 2014 7:10 a.m.

    Wow, how much tax money is Utah willing to throw into something that has an inevitable conclusion?

  • elgreco grand junction, CO
    June 5, 2014 7:05 a.m.

    And Utah continues to throw millions of dollars away on hopeless legal challenges instead of admitting that this is the 21st century and that time and social mores do change.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    June 5, 2014 7:03 a.m.

    Judge Kimball's decision is legally correct and will be sustained in appeal. This appeal will serve only as a costly way to delay the inevitable. The cost includes the financial legal costs and harm to the families being delayed recognition and their legal rights.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    June 5, 2014 6:48 a.m.

    There's no question that Herbert and Reyes will be remembered in history, but perhaps not in the way they would have liked. The names of Lester Maddox and George Wallace don't elicit memories of the positive things they accomplished as governors.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    June 5, 2014 6:29 a.m.

    Are we really going to spend more money and spend more time in court on these issues? Do we really dislike the idea that gay couples deserve to be in happy legal relationships so much that we will fight them at all costs? It's time our governor and attorney general focus on more important state issues.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    June 5, 2014 5:55 a.m.

    What a waste of taxpayers dollars. This case is over and equality won so friends lets now get on with our lives and be happy for our gay and lesbian church members and not allow anyone to denigrate them. Here in California approx.100000 couples got married ,nothing had changed besides more happiness in the lgbt community and elsewhere. Soon homophobia will be a thing of the past just like most racism has disappeared.

  • Bruce A. Frank San Jose, CA
    June 5, 2014 5:50 a.m.

    At one time it was common for some states to not recognize the validity of quickie marriages or divorces of couples who traveled to Reno or Vegas to get them. It has become common for drivers licenses from any one state to be recognized by all. Even CCW permits have become almost universally accepted across the country (my state, of The People's Republik of Kalifornia, continues to be one of the remaining exceptions).

    But, that fact, that Kalifornia both ignores Constitutional law by denying most of its own residents the exercise of that right, stated in the 2nd Amendment, while also refusing to recognize permits from any other states, seems to validate Utah's legal right to refuse recognition of homosexual marriage!

  • John Kateel Salt Lake City, UT
    June 5, 2014 5:47 a.m.

    I think that Sean Reyes is actually pro gay marriage and is running the most elaborate false flag operation the nation has seen to "defend" traditional marriage.
    These legal manuevers are cat nip to the advocates of traditional marriage crowd, but under the cover, it is secretly designed to fail spectacularly in every way, shape, and form.

    For example, "outside" counsel of the kookiest form to take the fall when the defense fails. His excuse when this all fails, will be that you the people want we to take the maximalist position. So I did. I did my job.

    If there is a guy that rallies the troops in the opponent camp, it is Sean Reyes.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    June 5, 2014 4:43 a.m.


    So much for this being about protecting families. The state is actively trying to tear apart these families, which in turn hurts their children. It is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the State of Utah.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    June 4, 2014 11:52 p.m.

    They're married, let them continue to be married.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    June 4, 2014 11:49 p.m.

    Enough already! Follow the law!

  • Bleed Crimson Sandy, Utah
    June 4, 2014 11:14 p.m.

    Keep fighting Utah! The majority are behind you!