Quantcast
Utah

Supreme Court stay in Utah marriage recognition case not automatic

Comments

Return To Article
  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    July 17, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    mrjj69,

    You said, "why should 4 people be allowed to overrule the majority of voters? What is the purpose of voting?"

    This is very true! If your vote is not going to be fully respected, you should boycott the polls from now on! Get all your friends and neighbors who voted for Amendment 3 to also boycott the polls! None of you should stand for such disrespect any longer. If America won't listen to you, you should refuse to participate ever again.

    Only by clearly showing your nonparticipation will anything change for the better.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 17, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    @mrjj69;

    Why should the majority of voters get to vote on the civil rights of a minority? What is the purpose of liberty?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 17, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    @mrjj69 1:08 a.m. July 17, 2014

    why should 4 people be allowed to overrule the majority of voters? What is the purpose of voting?

    ---------------------

    A better question would be this -- why should the voters be allowed to overrule the US Constitution. Answer -- they can't. If they want to vote for something that complies with the Constitution, no problem and their votes count. If they want to vote for something that overrules or violates the Constitution, no number of votes will allow them to prevail. That's how a Constitutional republic (like the United States) works.

    The voters voted to deny some of Utah's residents their Constitutional rights. The judges rightly overturned the vote.

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    July 17, 2014 1:08 a.m.

    why should 4 people be allowed to overrule the majority of voters? What is the purpose of voting?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 16, 2014 12:18 p.m.

    @Avenue,

    Satan did not create homosexuality. I assume you are LDS, but if I am wrong, I apologize. If you are, I think you need to look at the LDS church's Mormonsandgays website. You will not find anywhere on that website any current LDS leader claiming what you claimed in your post.

    Quite frankly, God is our source of love, and homosexuality is about love. After years of introspection, study, and prayer, I finally realize that God allowed me to be gay in this life because of love. I am here to help some people in my life understand that we love one another even when something about that person may make us uncomfortable. Our history shows us that we have a difficult time with that concept, and it's something that I work on becoming better at every day.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    July 16, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    Avenue,

    Before you start invoking Doomsday revenge prophecies, ask yourself who has been cast out of what by whom. Who has been despised by whom?

    I submit to you that it is conservative religious "traditionalists" who have despised and cast out their very own LGBT children, brothers, and sisters, from their churches, their communities, their very families. A heartlessness I'll never understand, to do that to another human being, let alone a child. Reread your Alma 33:10 with that thought in mind.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    July 16, 2014 9:27 a.m.

    "Yea, and thou hast also heard me when I have been cast out and have been despised by mine enemies; yea, thou didst hear my cries, and wast angry with mine enemies, and thou didst visit them in thine anger with speedy destruction." Alma 33:10

    It's only a matter of time.

  • Br. Jones East Coast, MD
    July 16, 2014 8:41 a.m.

    @wrz

    You said, "So, Br. Jones, where's the court ruling that polygamists can't marry, because they can't? Or children? Or siblings? Or father/daughter? Or mother/son?" There doesn't have to be a court ruling because there are existing laws against those unions, and if someone wanted to overturn them they'd have to go to the legislature or prevail in the courts. Thing is, there are substantive legal reasons that bar marriage to children or family members. They've been listed before so it's not worth listing them again.

    Polygamy also has some strong legal reasoning against it, chiefly the complexity of adapting current marriage and family laws as well as the negative social effects that often arise in polygamous families. "But the gays can marry!" is not sufficient in itself for the courts to throw open the gates to polygamous unions, though I suppose the legislature and Congress could change that if they really felt like it. (Unlikely.)

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    July 16, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    @ Laura Bilington

    "CONGRATULATIONS" on the wedding of your daughter. She is very lucky to have a mother and family so supportive.

    @ Avenue
    " While God did create all of us, he did not create homosexuality. That is a temptation from the devil. Like all other temptations, they need to be overcome if we are to return to our Father in Heaven."

    Perhaps you are right and God didn't create homosexuality. Some school of thoughts teach that we are eternal beings un-created and un-destructible, may be sexuality is also part of the eternal.

    Temptation? Wine, lust,tobacco, certain things are temptation. Homosexuality or Heterosexuality are not temptations. If I am sleeping I am still homosexual.

    The Devil? Another source of disagreement among Christians. Some believe that exist others deny it. Judaism traditionally believes in a literary "adversary" Like in the Book of Job.

    Overcoming homosexuality would be denying what we are and all the talents we can bring to the world. A repressed personality cannot fully multiply his/her talents. Our Father in Heaven wouldn't want that....actually, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't approve of your way of thinking.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 16, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    @Avenue: In my religion, we believe that all creation, and all love emanates from a merciful and loving God. Many of our Meetings have discerned the truth and love of our committed same-sex couples and are pleased to witness their marriages in our houses of worship.

    You, in your religion, may believe what you wish about homosexuality, but homosexuality is not at issue in the law. There is no law against being a homosexual, nor being a homosexual in love with another homosexual, nor living in a homosexual relationship. As a matter of public policy and law, the Supreme Court made that very clear in Lawrence v. Texas. No law may interfere with the private romantic lives of unrelated consenting adults.

    What is at issue is marriage and whether a lawfully cohabiting (or wishing to cohabit) same-sex couple might make the same lifetime commitment to each other in the eyes of the law as opposite-sex couples are free to make.

    Your wish to force them instead to "live in sin" is your doing, not theirs.

  • UT Brit London, England
    July 16, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    @Avenue

    "he did not create homosexuality"

    Hope you are not a member of the LDS church because that is in direct contradiction to what they teach.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    July 16, 2014 1:49 a.m.

    I have a question for the wrzs, Avenues, RedWings, of the board. What will you say once same sex marriage has been the law pf the land for a while and not a single one of your doomsday predictions comes to pass? When there is no destruction from on high, no cats trying to marry dogs, no destruction of what is so laughably called traditional marriage (laughable that is to anyone who has studied the actual history of marriage), when none of this happens what will be your reaction?

    This is the time I'm really looking forward to. Yes I'm eagerly looking to the time in the near future when our nation legalizes same sex marriage thus becoming a better and more moral nation. But I look forward with even more excitment to that the time past the legalization, when the world keeps on spinning and the country keeps existing. I can't wait to hear the silence.

  • Michael-D Riverton, UT
    July 16, 2014 1:14 a.m.

    May the Gods ( Light & Liberty ) save us.. just wondering who at SCOTUS will take hear their case with regards to He or She?

    Liberal America... just keeps getting better.. True Voice,, I'll take that bet..

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    July 15, 2014 10:28 p.m.

    @Really???

    "I was taught that God created all of us--Adam, Eve, Steve, Matthew, Mary, etc."

    While God did create all of us, he did not create homosexuality. That is a temptation from the devil. Like all other temptations, they need to be overcome if we are to return to our Father in Heaven.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    July 15, 2014 8:58 p.m.

    @USU-Logan:
    "@wrz, If you want to know why there is no legal basis for polygamy, incestuous marriage, child marriage, just read the ruling of 10th circuit court on Kicthen v Herbert, the judges explain it very well."

    I read the referenced case and I see nothing that identifies why other types of marriages such as polygamy, etc., should not be authorized just as readily as SSM. If you see it please elucidate.

    And the Judge erred in citing the 14th Amendment as support for his position. The 14th says 'states... will not deny equal protection of the law.' It says nothing about the validity/legality of state law.

    The question them becomes: What law? And since there is no federal law re marriage it must be state law. And under state law all adults have equal protection re marriage, i.e., marry one person who's not already married, an adult, not closely related, and of the opposite sex. This applies equally to all state citizens. That's equal protection of the law.

    The logical conclusion is... if SSM is authorized under the 14th, all other marriage combinations should also be authorized.

  • Pac12guy Harrisburg, PA
    July 15, 2014 8:51 p.m.

    More and more, as you look around the rest of the country, it looks like the world won't change for those who believe in traditional marriage if same-sex marriages are recognized and legal in the eyes of the government. Life will go on, and it doesn't change at all for traditional marriages. In fact, promoting fidelity among gay couples isn't a bad thing, when you think about it.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 15, 2014 8:39 p.m.

    On Saturday our daughter Lisl was married to the woman she loved. 80 people were there, at least half of whom had flown in from across the US. The judge performing the ceremony had known Cate back in the 80's, and said that she never dreamed that Cate would be able to get married, let alone that she, the judge, would officiate. Our daughter spoke--and we were moved to tears. Cate spoke--and there wasn't a dry eye to be seen. Our son spoke--and again the kleenex box was passed. It was the most moving ceremony I have ever witnessed.

    Life and Liberty, Wrz, higv, U-tar---I wish you could have been there. These were real, live people and their love and their joy was palpable. I would challenge you to attend one wedding of a gay couple and still write the stuff you write.

  • BTRP Orem, UT
    July 15, 2014 5:51 p.m.

    @ ExecutorIoh

    Ok, so if marriage is not a constitutional right then why is it that you are allowed to be married and others (of legal age, etc) are not? If that's your reasoning, then it sounds like we need to get rid of marriage altogether.

    Maybe that's the answer; if others are not willing to "share" in marriage and benefits associated with it, then it must needs be removed from society so that everyone is afforded the same treatment under the law.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 15, 2014 5:46 p.m.

    @ExecutorIoh

    "First, marriage is more than just love and commitment."

    Correct. it is a legal contract administered by the state between two consenting adults.

    "I know a gay couple with kids where the children don't know and don't have access to their mother."

    And there are thousands of blended heterosexual couples where the children are in the same position.

    "marriage is NOT a Constitutional right"

    It, in fact, is. Read Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

    "there have been too many judges recently that are either serving self interests, or like their names in the news."

    No, they are ruling based on the law. You just don't like the rulings.

  • Danclrksvll Erin, TN
    July 15, 2014 5:46 p.m.

    You know it really is a shame that we have taken this very dark path .The worst part is that we have snubbed the commandments of God,and now Federal courts have stomped upon the expressed will of the people. What a sorry mess!

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 15, 2014 5:43 p.m.

    "I see nowhere in ANY scripture where he created Adam and Steve."

    I was taught that God created all of us--Adam, Eve, Steve, Matthew, Mary, etc. Isn't it time to realize that we are all in this together?

  • BTRP Orem, UT
    July 15, 2014 5:41 p.m.

    People seem to forget that we have the judicial system to rule on our laws and to make them null and void if they are not found to be constitutionally sound. It amazes me that everyone clamors about "activist judges" yet one such judge is an active member of the LDS church, not to mention all 20+ judges that have ruled are "activist", despite being nominated by republican presidents. At what point does judicial rulings not become activist? 40 judges? 50 judges?

    I'm confident there will be those who will still feel this turn of events has come about because of judicial activism even if our "activist" Supreme Court judges rules in favor of gay marriage.

    I hope that if the Supreme Court finalizes this issue either by ruling or upholding the current decisions that everyone can move on and see each other for their similarities and not differences.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    July 15, 2014 5:41 p.m.

    "The Judge" says:
    [It will be more interesting to see what convoluted legal reasoning the supremes might have to grant that same sex marriage is a "right."]

    It's pretty simple.....gay couples have the same right to equal protection of the law that straight couples have, and that mixed-race couples have. The state has no legitimate interest whatsoever in the relative race or relative gender of your spouse.

  • BTRP Orem, UT
    July 15, 2014 5:34 p.m.

    I understand those with religious objections to gay marriage and I see nothing wrong with people advocating their point of view, just like those advocating gay marriage.
    However, in my opinion, creating laws (amendment 3) that prevent others from enjoy the benefits you enjoy is pretty selfish and self centered. I will be the first to defend religions from officiating gay marriages because there is no reason they should be required to do so. The LDS church has gone many many years without having to admit unworthy members into the temple so I don't see why this becomes a threat all of a sudden.

    I really am curious how someone's marriage is lessened or is demeaned by a marriage of two gay folks.

  • ExecutorIoh West Jordan, UT
    July 15, 2014 5:08 p.m.

    First, marriage is more than just love and commitment. I know a gay couple with kids where the children don't know and don't have access to their mother. It seemed okay until the daughter started to go through puberty. At that point, no amount of love could substitute for what that girl needed emotionally.

    Second, marriage is NOT a Constitutional right. Marriage isn't mentioned once in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. So it is clearly not a Constitutional right. Since it isn't mentioned, then by the 10th Amendment, the power to regulate is delegated to the states. Which it did through a legal and democratic process. Which rules the 10th Amendment, which clearly applies or the 14th Amendment which might not apply since we have already determined that marriage is not a Constitutional right.

    For whatever the issue, there have been too many judges recently that are either serving self interests, or like their names in the news. Despicable.

    It should be understood that this isn't as clear cut as liberals would like to think that it is.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    July 15, 2014 4:31 p.m.

    @wrz,

    If you want to know why there is no legal basis for polygamy, incestuous marriage, child marriage, just read the ruling of 10th circuit court on Kicthen v Herbert, the judges explain it very well.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 15, 2014 4:28 p.m.

    @Reasonable thinker;

    When Odin judges you he's going to feed you to the Kraken; HE doesn't care about the genders of loving couples.

    @Utah Businessman;

    Every black man has the right to marry a black woman and every white woman has the right to marry a white man. Didn't work then, still has the ring of bigotry and discrimination to it today.

    The only "suffering" we experience for our "attraction" is due to people like you who tend to do everything you can think of to make our lives miserable.

    @birdbath:

    How many times do they need to be told "you were wrong, the law is unconstitutional" before they call it a day?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    July 15, 2014 4:29 p.m.

    @Br. Jones:
    "@Utah Businessman: you know that was the PRECISE reasoning used by Southern courts against interracial marriage, right?"

    So, Br. Jones, where's the court ruling that polygamists can't marry, because they can't? Or children? Or siblings? Or father/daughter? Or mother/son?

    If the court has decided that barring inter-racial marriage is discriminatory and unconstitutional, shouldn't it also be ruling that barring any other marriage combination is also discriminatory and unconstitutional?

    The court's failure to rule that any conceivable combination of marriage is legal is discriminatory. In fact a whole neighborhood should be allowed to marry each other. Remember, Hillary Rodham Clinton advising 'it takes a village to raise a child?'

    Who would have guessed that SCOTUS is about to become guilty of creating massive discrimination in the institution of marriage when they rule for SSM and not all other conceivable combinations.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    July 15, 2014 4:27 p.m.

    @Confused
    "If you google the case, it will show you that UTAH did indeed file a "Stay"..."

    If you read Kitchen v Herbert on wikipedia, it will show you that:

    "Because the state's lawyers had not filed a motion for a stay in district court by the time of the ruling,[31] some of Utah's county clerks began issuing marriage licenses immediately to same-sex couples.[32]"

  • BTRP Orem, UT
    July 15, 2014 4:15 p.m.

    "Everyone indoors! The sky is falling!!!" @wrz, I don't think I have heard anything but the slippery slope argument from you. Is it possible that someone is secretly hoping that polygamy or marrying cousins becomes the law of the land? The slippery slope argument is such a farce, and I'll tell you why: it could be used for ANY decision that anyone ever makes. If you give people the right to bear arms, then everyone in the United States will have 20 guns on them at all times. If gay people are given the same rights and privileges we do, that will be the destruction of society. Never mind the fact that heteros have done an awesome job preserving the sanctity of marriage with the 50+ percent divorce rate, spousal abuse, oh and the bachelor.

  • pbunny Salt Lake, UT
    July 15, 2014 3:37 p.m.

    Utah Business Man says we all have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. In other words, one group of children have the right to grow up and find spouses they love romantically and desire sexually and another group of children have the 'equal' right to grow up and find spouses they are incapable of loving romantically and will never desire sexually. Obviously, both groups of children can look forward to marriage, equally, as each marriage will have one boy part and one girl part. Fair, see?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    July 15, 2014 3:25 p.m.

    @BoringGuy:
    "It's time to stop the hypocrisy. Quit denying our gay brothers and sisters their God-given Constitutional rights."

    Is there a God-given constitutional right re polygamists marriage? What about marrying your mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, uncle? Seems that's just as much a God-given right as SSM.

    @YoungPuppy:
    "The whole debate on the legalization of marriage will be coming to an end in the next few years... adults will be able to legally marry any other adult of their choosing for whatever reason."

    Would that include several adults at a time? And why are you limiting it to adults. Cutting children off from marriage would be discriminatory.

    "Conservatives and religions can kick and scream that they don't like it but it will happen."

    It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules. It can't be the 14th Amendment which says 'states cannot deny its citizens equal protection of laws.' There is not federal marriage law so it must apply to state law which says that anyone can marry provided they choose one person of age, not closely related and of the opposite sex. Couldn't be more clear.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 15, 2014 3:06 p.m.

    @birdbath: "But isn't it the AG's job (as a voted official) to uphold that vote until there is another one?"

    Good question. Reyes seems to think his job is to uphold the law, no matter what. AGs in other states seem to think that if the law is not constitutional their job is to let it be overturned, that defending an unconstitutional law is wrong.

    I guess it comes down to perspective. What do you think is more important? Following the rules or doing the right thing. It isn't always the same thing.

  • philipcfromnyc Far Rockaway, NY
    July 15, 2014 3:03 p.m.

    Gay marriage is now legal in 20 states, and at least 22 federal courts (including the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit) have ruled against state bans of gay marriage, holding such bans to be violative of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection. Conservatives are already admitting that they have lost this particular civil rights struggle, and that they cannot stop gay marriage from eventually becoming legal in all 50 states (probably as the result of one or more US Supreme Court decisions). Conservatives, including members of the misnamed "National Organization for Marriage" (NOM), now admit that all they can do is delay this outcome.

    This leads me to ask -- why would they wish to delay this outcome, given that it is inevitable? What possible reason exists for delaying an inevitable victory for civil rights? Do these people honestly wish to be portrayed as cruel bigots when they have to explain themselves to their children and grandchildren?

    PHILIP CHANDLER

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    July 15, 2014 2:45 p.m.

    Think of it this way. If SCOTUS rules for marriage equality, then Utah will be known as the place where that monumental change in society took place. Instead of 'the place where all the Attorneys-General are crooks!'

  • birdbath SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 15, 2014 2:12 p.m.

    "I bet if Amendment 3 was offered again for a vote, it wouldn't pass."

    But isn't it the AG's job (as a voted official) to uphold that vote until there is another one? I agree with those who have shown skepticism at the arguments that will be made in the appeal, but if there are arguments to be made, shouldn't they be made?

  • Br. Jones East Coast, MD
    July 15, 2014 2:11 p.m.

    @Utah Businessman: you know that was the PRECISE reasoning used by Southern courts against interracial marriage, right? "We're not discriminating against anyone or preventing marriage, everyone is free to marry...as long as it's to someone of their own race." SCOTUS quite handily called that reasoning out as racism in the Loving v. Virginia decision. This particular argument against same-sex marriage is not a convincing one.

  • ThornBirds St.George, UT
    July 15, 2014 1:30 p.m.

    Lots of attention for Utah lately.
    A few years ago, people actually would say,
    "Where is Utah, anyway?"

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 15, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    Here's hoping the right thing happens and the marriages are recognised. What the state is trying to do is embarrassing.

  • Utah Businessman Sandy, UT
    July 15, 2014 1:15 p.m.

    Just a note of clarification. So many are saying that if a same sex union is not recognized as "marriage", then LGBT people do not have "equal rights". Yes, they do: ALL people have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. You may have many arguments for SS marriage, but "equal rights" is not a legitimate one--EVERYONE (gay or straight) has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. NO-ONE (gay or straight) has the right to be "married" to someone of the same gender. Thus, we all have equal rights in that context.

    That being said, I recognize that SS attraction is very real and that many (perhaps most) who have those desires suffer much because of it. The reasons for the suffering are many and varied, and my personal opinion is that recognizing SS unions as marriage is not the “panacea”, but I respect many of those who have the opposite viewpoint.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 15, 2014 1:14 p.m.

    @TheJudge: I'm guessing you haven't read the 10th Circuit's decision affirming the District Court's ruling. The reasoning, the law, and the facts, are all clearly laid out in that decision. It's worth a read, if only to see how they deal with each argument presented for or against SSM. If for any reason SCOTUS decides to take the case, that's the reasoning they start out with. They'll either affirm it or explain why they think it's incorrect.

    However, unless there's something in that Circuit Court of Appeals decision that they wish to either amplify or deconstruct, or put into effect in the entire country at once, they'll simply refuse to hear the case and leave that as standing law for the states of the 10th Circuit: Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas and New Mexico.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 15, 2014 1:12 p.m.

    @Confused;

    Sorry, you're wrong. Utah did not request a stay until AFTER marriages were being performed, and then, they thought they could skip around protocol and just ask for it without making the request properly. When they finally got around to properly filing the stay request, Judge Shelby, refused the request (as was his right). Utah then went to the 10th (again not following correct protocol initially) and were refused. The 2nd request (correctly filed) was also rejected. Finally, they went to the SCOTUS which, for whatever reason, granted their request.

    The marriages performed between the ruling and the SCOTUS granting the stay are 100% valid marriages.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    July 15, 2014 1:02 p.m.

    No no mo, yes, to your sorrow, I do get out of my bubble as you call it. I actually lived in your very town years ago. I like it here much better. Your moon beam governor was governing your state the first go-round. You guys can have your bankruptcy, gangs, and high taxes, along with your moral decay. The state is beautiful in places, I will grant you that.

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    July 15, 2014 12:59 p.m.

    another day another article about same sex marriage on Deseret news.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    July 15, 2014 12:58 p.m.

    USU- Logan...

    If you google the case, it will show you that UTAH did indeed file a "Stay"...

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 15, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    @The Judge
    "It will be more interesting to see what convoluted legal reasoning the supremes might have to grant that same sex marriage is a "right." "

    Probably a similar one to the ruling for interracial marriage.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 15, 2014 12:52 p.m.

    @ Confused: Amendment 3 is not "in force" right now - Amendment 3 is unconstitutional right now, but acting on that is on hold pending the Supreme Court decision. Same-sex marriages in Utah are legal until and unless the Supreme Court says they are not. During the short time between Amendment 3 being struck down and SCOTUS issuing a stay, legal same-sex marriages took place in Utah. Even if SCOTUS reverses the decisions of the lower courts, there will still be the question of the validity of the marriages that were performed.

    If the state had requested a stay immediately upon the issuing of the ruling, Shelby may have issued it. The state instead skipped protocol and asked for a stay from the 10th Circuit (who denied it twice). By time the state got around to asking Shelby for a stay, marriages were already taking place.

    @ RedWings: Contrary to your assertions, most judges have issued stays following the precedent set by SCOTUS issuing a stay. Shelby (the first judge to rule) did not issue a stay because the state did not request one from him until after marriages had already started taking place.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 15, 2014 12:40 p.m.

    @ rik-nell: You seem to misunderstand the polygamy ruling. Bigamy, having more than one purportedly valid marriage license, is still illegal. What was challenged and struck down was Utah's unique definition that criminalized living with one person while being married to another. With this change, Utah's law is now the same as the law in the other 49 states.

    @ TheJudge: It will take even greater gymnastics to uphold Amendment 3.

    @ mauister: Reyes did not miss the deadline - he has until Monday of next week to file. Yesterday was just the first day a stay request could have been filed.

    @ U-tar: This case has national implications which is why so many from all over the country are interested in it.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    July 15, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    @Confused
    "All this trouble would not have happened if Shelby had issued a stay when the State asked for it."

    The problem is, the state did not ask for a stay when the ruling came down, even the plaintiffs were surprised. It was the state which did a terrible job in the first place.

    Judging by the performance of state legal team in this case, I doubt they have a chance to win before Supreme Court.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    July 15, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    @ Reasonable Thinker:

    You wrote:

    "God will be the final judge and I think we all know where he stands on the the issue. "

    Well, I don't think we all know where God stands on this issue. I think I do and you think you do, yet, our beliefs are different.

    Let think about this reasonably:

    I'm a Child of God in the pre-existence.
    I know I will be genetically born a homosexual
    I am happy to be born that way

    Of course, there will be trials:

    What is the trial? To overcome homosexuality or overcome those who refuse to accept you as a complete and perfect child of God ?

    If the trial is to overcome homosexuality...then God is being awfully unfair to a group of his children, since our sexual orientation (Hetero or Homosexual)is one if not the strongest forces in our body and is "impossible" to change it.

    If the trial is to overcome people who rejects you, It would make more sense since you would have to develop more love, patience, understanding and depend more on God for strenght to forgive.

    I think that to LDS philosophy my second argument makes more sense.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    July 15, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    @U-tar
    "The Guy from Sacramento seems really interested in Utah politics."

    People in CA might just say the same thing 6 years ago to you and Mormon Church during the debate of Prop 8.
    The guys from Utah seem really interested in California politics.

    What goes around comes around.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    July 15, 2014 11:28 a.m.

    @ Confused:

    Excellent point. Typically, judges issue stays until the legal process has run its course. For some reason, this is not happening in SSM cases. The judges not only rule one way, but then deny stays thereby forcing the results of their opinion on the people.

    The couples who married in December really should be blaming Shelby not the State of Utah.

    We need to remember that governors, attorneys general, etc. take an oath to uphold the law, not their version of it. Herbert and Reyes are ultimately doing their sworn duty, regardless of political opinion. This is the same as a county clerk authorizing those marriages last December even if he or she did not agree personally.

    In reality, CA should have impeached their governor and attorney general for violating their oaths and not defending the law at the time (Prop 8).

    But then, Integrity is a value our secular society jettisoned long ago...

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 15, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    @Reasonable thinker

    "God will be the final judge and I think we all know where he stands on the the issue."

    And I'll bet a months pay that "God's" stand is exactly the same as yours. So, thinker, are you created in "God's" image or is "God" created in your image?

    I'm going with the latter.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    July 15, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    Here is what bothers me with some of the comments made by the Pro Gay posters...

    Reyes is stuck in a hard place....

    1. Amendment 3 is "in Force" right now because of the Stay issued by SCOTUS.
    2. The Lower court ruling said that they must give rights to the gay couple because they are "legally" married. Which is not correct, because Amendment 3 prohibits gay marriage.

    So what does Reyes do? from all that I have read, Reyes just wants the stay to be in place until the final verdict (after all the appeals)happens.

    That way if the ruling is in favor of the State the gay marriages performed would be invalidated. If the final Ruling favors gay marriage, then Reyes can fulfill his duties and allow all benefits to these couples as well as new ones.

    All this trouble would not have happened if Shelby had issued a stay when the State asked for it. then innocent couples would not be left in limbo, waiting for our illustrious court system to figure it all out.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 15, 2014 11:00 a.m.

    God created Adam and Eve. Not Matthew and Ashley. Sorry, you have to get your name changed before you get married.

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    July 15, 2014 10:55 a.m.

    "Reasonable thinker,"

    I thought God created all people, including Adam and Steve?

    If He is so against gay people why does he allow so many straight couples to produce them?

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 15, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    Reasonable Thinker,

    For one, there are 21 different Christian denominations that disagree with you. For two, most of Utah was saying that exact same thing after Loving v Virginia. However, Islam is staunchly against homosexuality and there are several countries where the law is based on those beliefs. Why don't you just move there.

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    July 15, 2014 10:52 a.m.

    U-tar,

    This issue is much more than UT politics.

    The District Court ruling affects the entire District and heading to The Supreme Court affects the entire Nation.

    As a former Idahoan and a gay man, this issue has a big interest to me.

    You ever get out of your bubble?

  • Reasonable thinker PAC Country, CA
    July 15, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    Regardless of how the judges rule of the LGBT community think, God will be the final judge and I think we all know where he stands on the the issue.

    God created man and woman and were commanded to cleave to each other. I see nowhere in ANY scripture where he created Adam and Steve.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 15, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    mauister,

    Charles Stormont is running against Sean Reyes. But Reyes knows that his performance as AG has nothing to do with his reelection. He can miss deadlines and do his job as poorly as possible. The moneyed interests in this state will still keep him in office because of that R next to his name.

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    July 15, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    @U-tar Although I live in Massachusetts with my partner of over 52 years I am originally from Idaho, a neighbor of Utah. Many of us have been all over the USA and we like to see our neighbors join us in equality. I am also looking for Idaho to be joining us soon.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    July 15, 2014 9:09 a.m.

    @U-tar, we don't live in a vacuum.

  • lonepeakstudent Alpine, UT
    July 15, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    @Furry1993

    That was one of the most well-thought out and intelligent comments I've read on this sad excuse of a forum. Thank you for being someone who understands not only Constitutional Law and Theory, but theology from a secular point of view as well as religious.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    July 15, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    The Guy from Sacramento seems really interested in Utah politics.

  • mauister Wailuku, HI
    July 15, 2014 7:47 a.m.

    Ten days to file a request for a stay with the Supreme Court to hold the course of no gay marriage for the time being and the Utah Attorney General misses the deadline. The Utah Attorney General in Utah is an elected position. Doesn't the guy want to keep his job? Is there some polling that reflects that more Utahns now favor same-sex marriage than oppose it? I am at a loss why he missed the deadline.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 15, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    Jamescmeyer says:
    "... and support a selfish mockery of the most beautiful and most difficult promise we make to one another, to complete one another."

    Why is it that your straight marriage is "the most beautiful and most difficult promise we make to one another, to complete one another", and the marriage of an LGBT couple is "the selfish fulfilling one's self"?

    I just don't get it, James. Seriously, why is it that LGBT couples are selfish for wanting to marry but straight couples aren't?

  • The Judge Kaysville, UT
    July 15, 2014 7:23 a.m.

    It will be more interesting to see what convoluted legal reasoning the supremes might have to grant that same sex marriage is a "right." It may even exceed Justice Roberts' gymnastics in ruling Obamacare is constitutional.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 15, 2014 7:11 a.m.

    @LightAndLiberty 8:37 p.m. July 14, 2014

    Which God should be accepted as "the" God? The God accepted by Latter-day Saints? Evangelicals? Catholics? Protestants? Jews? Muslims? Wiccans? Buddhists? Pagans? Satanists? Deists (like a lot of the Founding Fathers, who accepted a Creator but not any of the established religions)? By [fill in the blank with every other religion practiced in the United States]? And what about the people who are agnostic or atheist?

    That is the crux of the problem. I know and love God and His gospel that I know from my faith. Others feel the same way about the God and gospel they know from THEIR faith (which is different in several ways from what I believe). And still others don't accept the concept of God, or aren't sure whether there is a God and, if there is, which one is correct.

    That is the wisdom and brilliance of the First Amendment. NO God or religion can be established as "the" God and religion of the country. We believe as we deem correct, but don't impose our belief on everyone else. That is the right, fair and equitable thing to do.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    July 15, 2014 7:10 a.m.

    "I bet if Amendment 3 was offered again for a vote, it wouldn't pass."

    I'll bet you are correct.

    However, Amendment 3 was an illegal construct, as citizens can not "vote upon" the civil rights of their fellow citizens. Those caught up in the trappings of magical thinking need to understand that not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringment on your freedoms.

  • YoungPuppy west Jordan, UT
    July 15, 2014 7:10 a.m.

    The whole debate on the legalization of marriage will be coming to an end in the next few years. It will be legal in all states in the country and adults will be able to legally marry any other adult of their choosing for whatever reason.

    Conservatives and religions can kick and scream that they don't like it but it will happen. Equality and civil rights in this country move forward despite those calling to halt progress. There are already many churches that now recognize that SSM is acceptable and many more will follow. Most churches in the next few years will do the same. There might be a few that a decade from now still do not recognize and perform SSM but they will be considered extreme and irrelevant. The LDS church will probably have a "1978 style" revelation in the next 10 years on SSM and in 30 years they will try and argue that they were never against it.

    Equality will move forward. It is just a matter of time now. The war is mostly over, it is just time to clean up the battlefield.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 15, 2014 6:50 a.m.

    At this point Herbert and Reyes are just kicking the can and trying to buy more time with taxpayer money. Did Utah fight interracial marriage this hard?

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    July 15, 2014 6:35 a.m.

    If people looked at marriage as the selfless union of families and not the selfish fulfilling one's self, families wouldn't have many of the problems they do now. Fewer breakups, less heartache, and not so much pressure to mandate by word of federally appointed kings that we award and support a selfish mockery of the most beautiful and most difficult promise we make to one another, to complete one another.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    July 15, 2014 6:01 a.m.

    Be great if we could all accept the validity of the various court rulings on Same Sex Marriage - which will harm no one - and move on to things that are really important like taking care of the poor the sick and the afflicted.

  • rik-nell San Mateo, CA
    July 15, 2014 5:51 a.m.

    Utah gave up any hope of logical legal reasoning to not accept same-sex marriage, when the Judge Waddoups ruled Utah's criminalization of cohabitation violated the due process and First Amendment religious freedom rights and ruled Utah's law criminalizing polygamy is unconstitutional. If the state allows polygamy marriages, then logically shouldn't the state allow and recognize same-sex marriages, especially since over 1000 were legally performed already?

  • BoringGuy Holladay, UT
    July 15, 2014 12:26 a.m.

    If you're really pro-marriage, you won't see anything wrong with same-sex couples who are in love with making the ultimate commitment to one and other.

    It's time to stop the hypocrisy. Quit denying our gay brothers and sisters their God-given Constitutional rights.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2014 11:45 p.m.

    @ Light and Liberty

    That argument doesn't fly in a court of law due to the fact that we are a secular nation. SSM should, and will be, legal soon.

  • intervention slc, UT
    July 14, 2014 11:39 p.m.

    @light and liberty
    While you may believe your version of a God, which just happens to always agree with you, is the Supreme Court luckily for us mortals your version of God holds no relevance in our legal system.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    July 14, 2014 11:05 p.m.

    "They said allowing the ruling to stand would put Utah at odds with its voter-approved Amendment 3..."

    I bet if Amendment 3 was offered again for a vote, it wouldn't pass.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 14, 2014 10:15 p.m.

    Interesting. A citation to this article appears in the Twitter stream of EQCF, which I've been following for some time. EQCF aggregates filings and court decisions, with links to the full text, usually posted on Scribd. It's a valuable source for those following legal developments on the subject of marriage equality.

    And now, thanks to a retweet of AppellateDaily, it includes Dennis Romboy as one of the quoted authorities!

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    July 14, 2014 8:37 p.m.

    The Supreme Court is God and He has already ruled!

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    July 14, 2014 8:14 p.m.

    Place your trays in the upright and locked position folks, things are about to get interesting!

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 14, 2014 7:25 p.m.

    I wonder what new and novel objections that the state of Utah will conjure up when it appeals to the Supreme Court the now confirmed ruling that same sex couples in Utah have a right to legally wed.

    The states rights bugle call isn't working all that well. Arguments about children have been laughed off by most of the Federal district courts. Can't use religion (unless you are a corporation seeking to end birth control that is). We all know that voters can not pass an initiative that violates Constitutional law ( the Supreme Court already decided that part).

    I doubt the "icky" argument will work, so I anxiously await the innovative arguments that will be put to the Justices of our Supreme Court.