Comments about ‘Same-sex couples ask appeals court to reject stay in marriage recognition case’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, June 6 2014 2:50 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage was also struck down today. Keep moving forward!

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Why doesn't the court just hurry and make a ruling on the appeal?

Why does it have to take so long?

If it's going to go to the Supreme Court anyway... why not just get this ruling over so we can move on?

This limbo isn't a good thing. We need a ruling so we can move to the next court. Regardless of the ruling... It's going to be appealed... no matter what the decision is...

Since so many States are in the same situation as Utah... it seems like this would get the express lane to the US Supreme Court... so they can decide it for ALL States (instead of each State getting their own ruling, since various judges have ruled differently in the past).

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

2 bits,

There is no guarantee that it will go to the Supreme Court. Generally the SCOTUS will step in to settle disputes where there is disagreements and clarity is required. Thus far 15 federal judges have ruled in favor of equality and zero against. The next level is the Circuit Courts and the first ruling from them has not come yet. There are five Circuit Court decisions expected this summer. If they all agree, the same as all the federal judges so far, then there will be no need for the SCOTUS to step in.

Northern Utahn
Northern, UT

Way to go Wisconsin! Marriage Equality, for all, is coming! Thankfully these (Utah) plaintiffs' lawyers could make a cogent argument against the delaying tactic of this stay appeal, within mere hours, instead of the politicized AG's office taking weeks to decide if they had the gumption to even appeal.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

...and so they should. They've been offered a repugnant indignity. A state funded one, no less.

Northern Utahn
Northern, UT

@Hutterite:

"A state funded one, no less."

They're being forced to pay, via taxes, for the the states legal abuses against them. Ridiculous!

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

"That's why we didn't file the day after the decision came because we wanted to consider whether or not that was the right choice."

Wow!! Am I missing something?

Is this an acknowledgement that you don't know if you are doing the right thing?

Well, stop wasting time and money. The State of Utah is displaying animus and has failed to present prove of harm to the state if recognizes the marriage of these SS couples.

If you are not sure on how to proceed after asking for a fast track to the SCOTUS I think the AG office's staff are not only wrong but also they are making an spectacle of themselves.

truth in all its forms
henderson, NV

Utah needs to let it go! The courts cant hold it back any longer. Utah needs to realize its OK to be gay.

MoNoMo
Fair Oaks, CA

Is there any legal precedent that has nullified legally preformed marriages performed by the Government?

NOT to my knowledge.

When these marriages were performed they were completely legal, regardless of any ongoing dispute!

cris
Hamilton, IL

It Is a matter of opinion.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

I sense the State of Utah's actions will be viewed as being petty and regressive in the future, a pointless and futile effort to hold back the tide of equality.

What are we going to tell the grandkids? How will this be explained & justified?

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

I would like to make a motion for this issue to go to the Supreme Court for the final decision.

Do I hear a second?

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Looks like all the pro-gay out of staters are posting again.

Courts may make gay marriage legal, but that will never make it right or moral.

If "one man, one woman" no longer constitutes marriage, then the definition is limitless as to numbers, genders or even species.

Marriage means one thing in the real world of civilizations extending over millennia, but it is being twisted to a legalistic term which is harmful to civilization, even if comforting to those who want it to include whatever arrangement suits their taste for the moment.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@ DN Subscriber

"If "one man, one woman" no longer constitutes marriage, then the definition is limitless as to numbers, genders or even species."

That is a pretty big "if." Do you have any evidence of where men and a women are no longer considered married in the >10 years of same gender marriage equality? If excluding people defined marriage, we would have long ago excluded spousal, child, drug and alcohol abusers from marriage.

Marriage has evolved from a hierarchical and gender role model to one where women have achieved equality, and have earned the right to exit the marriage. Prior racial barriers have been eliminated. Today, as a matter of law, marriage is a gender neutral institution with regard to gender roles in marriage. Fear that changes in marriages would be destroyed by women’s equality, by no –fault divorce and by inter-racial marriages has been unfounded. The tradition most relevant in marriage is that of being able to change. Capacity for change has been a core value that has kept marriage as a viable institution.

Allowing same gender couples to marry does not change the definition of marriage any more than freeing the slaves changed the definition of freedom.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

A federal judge overturned Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage today.

The Supreme Court turned down an outside group's appeal to issue a stay for Oregon's overturn of it's marriage ban.

Previously the Supremes having denied the supporters of Proposition 8 in California.

It's beginning to appear like perhaps the Utah State Senator who is suggesting maybe the Supreme Court may not even hear a case on gay marriage could be right. The Supremes might just let the lower courts decide this issue. Right now the Windsor case is the precedent that is wiping out marriage bans all over the country, and there is no conflict in the rulings.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

10CC wrote, "What are we going to tell the grandkids? How will this be explained & justified?"

In 1959, Prince Edward County closed ALL of its public schools rather than integrate them. A string of whites only "segregation academies" sprang up, and the state of Virginia gave grants to white parents to pay the tuition so their kids could go to school. Black kids had to make do with volunteer teachers in church basements, or live with relatives in other counties--or do without. It took five years for SCOTUS to rule this tuition assistance illegal, after which the County reopened its schools.

It would be nice if Mr. Herbert and Mr. Reyes learned something from this nugget of history. Their reputations will be forever linked with the immoral actions of trying to use the law to deny equal rights to their fellow citizens.

Alfred
Phoenix, AZ

MoNoMo:
"When these marriages were performed they were completely legal, regardless of any ongoing dispute!"

No, no. They were illegal. They were in violation of the State of Utah's Constitution which was voted on and approved by the good citizens of Utah.

We may have to wait a few years until SCOTUS makes a decision and issues their machinations on the issue.

And what will SCOTUS use for criteria to support a ruling? Likely the US Constitution's 14th Amendment which covers Equal Protection. There's nothing else to go on... unless the revert to some sort of "penumbras and emanations."

Regarding the 14th... it says 'equal protection under the law.' State law that is. And, what is Utah's state law re marriage? I think it says anyone can marry provided they: marry someone that is not already married to someone else, is not closely related, is a consenting adult, and... is of the opposite sex. Not at all complicated. And applies equally to all. Seems the equal protection requirement of the 14th has been met.

Will be interesting to see what cockamamie stuff SCOTUS can come up with should the approve SSM.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@Alfred " They were in violation of the State of Utah's Constitution which was voted on and approved by the good citizens of Utah."

Shelby''s court order ruled Utah's Amendment 3 to be unconstitutional under the US Constitution 5th and 14th Amendments. You may find it interesting that Utah's Constitution is always subordinate to the US Constitution's due process and equal protection guarantees.

Regarding the 14th Amendment: right at all. To do otherwise violates their constitutionally protected liberty interest, a necessary corollary of giving individuals freedom to choose how to conduct their lives is acceptance of the fact that different individuals will make different choices.

There are many situations in which the Constitution requires the government to provide benefits using neutral criteria, even with respect to groups that are unpopular or that the government finds abhorrent, without any connotation that the government is endorsing the group. The United States Constitution neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. The Constitution does not permit either a state legislature or the state’s citizens through a referendum to enact laws that violate US constitutionally protected rights.

Jimmytheliberal
Salt Lake City, UT

@DN News Subscriber...Yet another highly eloquent and well thought out post Sir. Certain you can sense my sarcasm. Excellent point. However, I noticed your comment begins with the word "If". As in "If" only those against SSM would apply logic and intellect to this matter.

Bob K
Davis, CA

State officials keep dragging their feet, grasping at any straw to justify their losing battle. They may have an inkling that they are not on the right side, but the Great Salt Lake will become a permanent ice rink before Utah elected officials go against what the church and the older donors want.

Every citizen ought to have an equal vote -- but many who comment here from small, and often isolated Utah cities might think about walking in the shoes of others for a minute or two. Think about the old story of the blind hindus feeling different parts of the elephant, and each being sure he knew the entire elephant.

If you believe in America, you have to believe in equality.
If you believe in the right of the mormons to form a State that was friendly to them, you have to believe in equality.
If you believe in Jesus Christ, you certainly have to believe in equality.

And when you are voting to keep some people down, saying they are not equal to you (whether you like them or not), you know that Jesus would tell you to do differently.

You do not have to understand them.

to comment

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