Quantcast

Comments about ‘Couples oppose state request for more time to appeal gay marriage recognition ruling’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Aug. 19 2014 5:45 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
skrekk
Dane, WI

The court previously observed that the state appears to be stalling. This just confirms it.

The real question is why the state is refusing to recognize marriages which it lawfully granted....is there a more pure expression of anti-gay animus, especially when children are being harmed by the state's refusal?

firstamendment
Lehi, UT

Utah should not have to appeal to uphold its Constitution or government for the people etc.
I used to think gays in general were wonderful people, but it’s so sad to see what a few are selfishly doing to our Country, Constitution, and the future of humanity. I say “selfishly” because legally enforcing homosexuality does not benefit humanity in general (in fact honest research indicates that it is harmful). Gays should be protected, be free to work, vote, and so on, but the Constitution should not be trampled so that some powerful lobbyists can force the all to promote their sexual lifestyles, especially when that tax funded promotion involves oppressing people who disagree with it, and those supporting traditional marriage are fired, bullied, threatened, hated, and so on. All of this is so sad, and I worry about my Country.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

The current deadline, September 22, is over a month away. Given the voluminous briefs on this subject circulating in other courts around the country, and the comprehensive Tables of Authority in each of them, listing every known case that might give Schaerr a hope of winning, it's entirely disingenuous to be demanding an extension. He's filed 50 page responses to plaintiff briefs at the relative drop of a hat. All these arguments are queued up in his word processor already. There's no way he needs 63 more days to print them out. He could file tomorrow morning the exact same brief he'd file on October 22 if he wanted to.

The plaintiffs are completely correct that the State of Utah is gaming the system, drawing out their temporary stay on the mandate as long as possible to deny them their due legal rights.

skrekk
Dane, WI

@firstamendment
"All of this is so sad, and I worry about my Country."

I know, right? Pretty soon all Americans will have the same rights you already enjoy, and you won't have a reason to feel special anymore.

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

@firstamendment wrote: "I say “selfishly” because legally enforcing homosexuality does not benefit humanity in general (in fact honest research indicates that it is harmful)."

'Legally enforcing homosexuality'? That is a ridiculous word salad of a statement (and representative of your post generally).

There have been four arguments against same-sex marriage. Tradition, religion, 'the vote of the people', and Regnerus.

Regnerus has been debunked, tradition and religion don't hold water in a court of law, and a vote of the people does not overrule the 14th amendment.

Delaying is all that the state can do.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@firstamendment: "it’s so sad to see what a few are selfishly doing to our Country, Constitution, and the future of humanity. I say “selfishly” because legally enforcing homosexuality does not benefit humanity in general..."

I'n not a high-priced lobbyist. I'm working two jobs to make ends meet. My partner is disabled due to a genetic condition that is getting worse as he gets older. Legal marriage would make our lives better as we would not have to rely on a series of patches and fixes to make things work - we'd automatically have the same rights and privileges as any married couple.

Sorry you find that selfish.

And as for you claim about "honest research," sorry. That research has been fully discredited by researchers doing real research, not people who start with a conclusion and work backward.

FT
salt lake city, UT

@firstamendment
Huh?
The public tide for equal rights for LGBT's started turning when opponents began voicing their opposition. Hate, inequality and bias don't have strong appeals for decent men.

Mongoose
Poway, CA

How refreshing that the majority of commenters here understand the fundamental right to dignity and equality. These individual rights, granted by the Constitution of the United States to all human beings, far outweigh the right of religious people to impose their will on others just because they are the majority.

worf
Mcallen, TX

What a mockery of marriage.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

@firstamendment

"Utah should not have to appeal to uphold its Constitution or government for the people"

When "government for the people" is for only SOME of the people, then, yeah, Utah needs to justify it's actions in the courts.

Utah's amendment3, while touted as "protecting" traditional marriage is doing no such thing; traditional marriage does not need protecting. Amendment 3's sole purpose is to deny dignity, stability, and equality to a select group of adults the religious majority of the State of Utah have deemed unworthy of equal protection under the law. Amendment 3 is about "special rights" for adult heterosexuals.

Demiurge
San Diego, CA

It's clearly the state just dragging its collective feet some more, and lawyers collecting billable hours. Utah and the rest might as well face the fact that they can't defend bigotry over a civil marriage contract, and stop wasting taxpayer money.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@worf 10:20 a.m. Aug. 20, 2014

What a mockery of marriage.

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

Denying couples who married at a time when it was legal for them to do so the right to have their marriages legally recognized is indeed a mockery of marriage.

to comment

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