Quantcast

Comments about ‘Court sets deadline for Utah appeal in gay marriage recognition case’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Aug. 12 2014 4:35 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
jonsyrt
Provo, UT

Why waste more taxpayer money? These couples were legally married. Denying them their marital benefits is discriminatory.

Utah, abandon this senseless and doomed crusade.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

Its nice to see the courts are not going to allow the state to draw this futile exercise out forever, hopefully the supreme court will set a similar limit on the case headed towards them.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

This case is a no-brainer.
Just think about California. Even if prop 8 was passed to ban same sex marriage, those gay couples married before the passage of Prop 8, their marriages were still considered valid, weren't they?

Utah AG has even slimmer chance to win this one than Kitchen v Herbert case (not that I think he can win that case though).
Why wasting taxpayers' money on a case totally not winnable is beyond me.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

A shade off-topic to the question of recognizing marriages performed legally within the state, maybe, but can anyone speak to how the State of Utah deals with marriages performed legally outside the state that would not be valid here? For instance, Utah allows first cousins to marry, but only if they are nonreproductive (sterile, postmenopausal). Some other states allow first cousins to marry without restriction. Does Utah recognize as legally married fertile first cousins married in a state that allows that? Do state agencies make any effort to identify such marriages? Would the Tax Commission reject a joint tax return filed by a married, fertile first cousin couple?

The state does not recognize as valid same sex marriages lawfully performed in other states. Why should other categories of marriages, lawfully performed elsewhere but unlawful here, be any different?

The Reader
Layton, UT

Because of the difficulty of same sex married couples to get pregnant and have children there could in time be a serious decline in the population needed to pay for services such as roads, police, fire courts hospitals . . . .

It takes two of opposite sex to have children. Raising children help one to be less self centered and more charitable and loving toward others who are different than themselves.

intervention
slc, UT

@Lagomorph
That is actually one of the places the state runs into trouble in this case. They do recognize these other types of marriages when legally performed in other states.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

@The Reader, you believe that if 2% of the people in Utah are married to same-sex spouses, that none of them will procreate or adopt, and that this will somehow lead to a "serious decline in the population"? And that if Utah is successful in its quixotic effort to ban gay marriage, then all of these gays will marry opposite sex partners and procreate?

"Raising children help one to be less self centered and more charitable and loving toward others who are different than themselves." Um...if that were the case, then no straight parent would ever disown his gay child. And no reader who is also a parent would ever write a letter to the DN advocating the denial of marriage equality.

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

@Intervention & Lagomorph

It's worth stating that the second section of DOMA, which was *not* overturned in the Windsor decision, gives the states the power to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The vast majority of lawsuits challenging DOMA were focuxed on the third section of the law. I know of only one federal challenge to section 2, and that challenge sustained the law. However, that was ten years ago and obviously does not reflect the amount of judicial opinion that's occurred since then.

I expect that the second section of DOMA will be dumped in time, but whether it's through a court decision or a legislative appeal, who can say?

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Lagomorph:
"A shade off-topic to the question of recognizing marriages performed legally within the state, maybe, but can anyone speak to how the State of Utah deals with marriages performed legally outside the state that would not be valid here?"

If you have a fishing or hunting license in Colorado can you illegally fish or hunt in Utah with them?

If you have a license to practice medicine or law or CPA work in Arizona, can you legally practice these trades in Utah with those licenses?

"Would the Tax Commission reject a joint tax return filed by a married, fertile first cousin couple?"

How would the tax commission know? They don't require attaching a copy of a marriage license or genealogy tree to the return.

"The state does not recognize as valid same sex marriages lawfully performed in other states. Why should other categories of marriages, lawfully performed elsewhere but unlawful here, be any different?"

Why do you have to tell state officials that you are married to a first cousin? Or even that you are in a SSM, for that matter?

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Understands Math:
"I expect that the second section of DOMA will be dumped in time..."

I think you might be right. That August body can't seem to stay on page. They're acting like politicians... or third graders.

panamadesnews
Lindon, UT

I believe this whole can of worms would go away if the courts were to designate gay & lesbian partnerships not as "marriages" but as "unions". Many who are heterosexual, myself included, are traditionalists and do not feel a non-traditional partnership should be designated a "marriage". We feel that marriage should only denote a heterosexual relationship, as it has been for thousands of years. We do not feel it is right for a non-traditional union be designated a "marriage", whether it be two men, two women, a man or woman and his or her pet, or whatever. Once this traditionalism is changed, marriage is opened up to whatever kinds of partnerships, 4 men and a woman, or vice-versa, or whatever. Think about it.

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

@wrz wrote: "I think you might be right. That August body can't seem to stay on page. They're acting like politicians... or third graders."

I don't know which August body you are referring to (I mentioned both the courts and the legislature), so I'll just assume you meant the congress and agree with you that 'third graders' is an apt comparison.

@panamadesnews wrote "I believe this whole can of worms would go away if the courts were to designate gay & lesbian partnerships not as "marriages" but as "unions"."

Ah, but you forget that Utah's Amendment 3 specifically bans *any* legal recognition of same-sex relationships. So giving them a 'separate but equal' name would not have changed anything in Utah.

"Once this traditionalism is changed, marriage is opened up to whatever kinds of partnerships, 4 men and a woman, or vice-versa, or whatever. Think about it."

After thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that that's a Slippery Slope fallacy.

panamadesnews
Lindon, UT

Understands Math wrote: Ah, but you forget that Utah's Amendment 3 specifically bans *any* legal recognition of same-sex relationships. So giving them a 'separate but equal' name would not have changed anything in Utah

But "union" is a different word than "marriage", just as a gay/lesbian partnership is different than a heterosexual one. Let them be called unions or whatever term they would like to use other than marriage. These non-traditional partnerships are not marriages and never will be. That is how I feel and my feelings will never change, no matter what you or anyone else says.

xert
Santa Monica, CA

Just as the names of Mississippii, Alabama and South Carolina will forever be remembered as the ones who needed to be taken by the hand and led kicking and screaming into recognition of the basic human rights of their minority citizens, I will be a little sad to watch as my home state is tagged forever with being the place where the fight against marriage equality met its Waterloo. But I will be proud to claim that I was one of many who fought and won against the intolerance of so many of my, shall we say, less enlightened family, friends and neighbors and helped my beloved state grow. First Obamacare and now this. Don't tell me things haven't changed since we elected Mr. Obama!

skrekk
Dane, WI

So Utah only has one month to come up with a NEW argument to justify why it won't recognize marriages which it lawfully granted, even though no court in the history of the US has ever reversed a marriage which was lawful at the time it was granted?

Even more awkward for Herbert, Reyes and Schaerr is the fact that Utah explicitly prohibits retroactive laws. So even though Amendment 3 was restored due to the stay, it cannot impact those lawfully granted marriages.

I'm glad it's Utah's money being wasted and not mine.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

There is leadership, Mr. Herbert, and there is what you might call "pandership".

Do you really want the name "Herbert" to be remembered in the history books for your dogged dragging out the process of denying civil rights to those 1300 couples?

Don't believe me? Tell me, when you hear the word "Selma", what's the first thing people think of? (Hint: It isn't the annual Butterfly Festival).

ordinaryfolks
seattle, WA

to panamadesnews

You said: "That is how I feel and my feelings will never change, no matter what you or anyone else says" in reference to same sex marriage and your opposition to it.

Perhaps, then you fully understand why some people will label you (perhaps unfairly) with an unpleasant epithet that indicates a fair amount of scorn. They don't "feel" the same way and will never change "no matter what you or anyone says".

If you would lighten up a bit, and just say that you don't understand same sex marriage and will never partake of such a practice, then I think those who have a differing opinion would not be hostile towards your attitudes. Such are the common courtesies of civilization that hold us together.

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

In similar news the United Church of Christ has filed a lawsuit against North Carolina seeking to overturn that state's gay marriage ban. The United Church of Christ allows and performs same-sex marriages and says that the ban against it is a violation of their freedom of religion. This is applicable here in Utah as well, where 21 different religious denominations have come out in support of marriage equality, but the state still bans it.

Jeff Harris
Edmonds, WA

The federal government already recognizes those marriages. Utah needs to wake up and smell the Postum.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

@panamadesnews writes "Let them..use whatever term they would like..other than marriage. These non-traditional partnerships are not marriages and never will be."

Serious question: What does the term marriage mean to you?

To me it means two unrelated adults who commit to live together for life, to share the good times and bad times together, to take care of each other, emotionally and physically, in sickness and in health. They may choose to have or adopt children, or they may not.

I assume you think that it's OK for a man and woman to get married even if they are unable to have a sexual relationship, correct? Or if the man becomes impotent after twenty or forty years, but they want to stay together, this is still OK with you?

Gay people are not "them" or "those people"-- term indicate something distant or alien. They are your siblings, your children and your neighbors. They want marriage for the same reasons you wanted it.

The Lutheran church is a church. The Mormon church is a church, not a "church". And a same sex marriage is a marriage, not a "marriage".

Fairness demands no less.

to comment

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