Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah argues for more time to file appeal in gay marriage recognition case’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 20 2014 12:36 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
mufasta
American Fork, UT

Good Luck on getting the extension.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

Why more time? they have a new found argument? I highly doubt about it.

More likely than not, they would just repack same old arguments that have been again and again rejected in different courts.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

I've yet to hear a valid claim as to why it's legal to discriminate. Everyone deserves the same legal rights.

mufasta
American Fork, UT

The Supreme Court obviously saw some merit in Utah's appeal just as they did in Virginia's appeal. If Utah were asking for a long extension, I could understand your concern. They are, however, asking for a month to complete the drafting of a complex appeal. It makes sense to have the Supreme Court vet the issue thoroughly so there are no more issues surrounding the laws legality. They are uniquely qualified (by the Constitution) to be the ultimate determinant of the laws merit.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

This is just getting pathetic. Let it go, Utah. Freedom won.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@mufasta 3:09 p.m. Aug. 20, 2014

They've already had over three months to draft a brief for which the research has long been done. The brief and motion should have been filed well over a month ago. Enough is enough.

Hugh1
Denver, CO

Is this what's happening behind the scenes? I am requesting a delay because I cannot come up with a good reason to deny gay Utahans equal marriage rights. I have tried morality, public health, child welfare, majority vote, states' rights, economics, and freedom of religion and nothing seems to work. I even hired a new Attorney General and outside council. I need a new reason, a more complex reason, one that obscures the real reason that I don't want gay marriage - because I just don't like gay marriage and neither do the voters in Utah. Dear U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball, I am asking the court for a temporary delay to help me find a better reason for a permanent delay - as in never. Please?

Mark l
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Every one discriminates, all the time. I discriminate when I choose to patronize one establishment over another. I also discriminated when I chose a wife. Discrimination is not a bad thing. It used to be a compliment that a person had discriminating tastes. The answer is for people to be honest with each other. I will still be polite to those I don't like, but in a free society we don't have to like everybody. Religious people don't hate others that choose to live what they consider to be a sinful lifestyle.

MtnDewer
Salt Lake City, UT

Utah is being "hurt" because they cannot enforce their laws?

Their laws are being enforced right this minute! What a bunch of hooey...

They remind me of a spoiled brat that is stomping this feet and holding his breath. "But Mommy, I'm not getting my waaaaay! I want to take my ball and go home, but those mean judges won't give me my ball back. They want me to share with others. I'm just going to make them wait as long as possible so that they can't PLAY!!!!"

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

"...attorneys haven't acknowledged the "equally true proposition" that Utah is hurt by not being able to enforce its laws."

Wait, I'm confused. Utah is 'not able to enforce its laws'... but said decision to recognize legal in-state same-sex marriages has been stayed pending appeal.

Because of the stay, the State of Utah has not had to do anything differently whatsoever. It's business as usual. And if Utah wins the appeal, they still won't have to make any changes. And they are saying they need the extension to avoid the 'hurt'.

So essentially, Utah is saying that without a 30-day extension, losing the appeal is a dead certainty.

And in that I believe them.

I also believe that *with* the 30-day extension, the state will also lose the appeal.

I suspect the court will grant the extension. Because they always do.

And Utah will lose the appeal.

mdophoto
Salt Lake City, UT

Utah's AG is filing motions anywhere he can to try to stop what appears to be inevitable when it comes to gay marriage in Utah. I realize many people in Utah are concerned, but the Constitution seems to guarantee the rights of ALL Americans certain rights. The AG is desperate to do what he can to stop this from happening, but it only seems that he is just doing the dance. It seems to me that there probably isn't anything that can be done. Why waste all of the money trying to stop something that is all but inevitable, and use it for the common good of ALL people in Utah.

Dekawar
Riverton, UT

This issue is about the state of Utah being able to govern itself by the consent of the governed, not about recognition of the marriages performed last year.

If all your neighbors were to tell you that you have to live by the rules of their homes and could not have control of your own house, you would be up in arms trying to defend your right to keep your neighbors OUT of your business. The marriages which took place late last year were "authorized" when a left leaning federal judge saw an opportunity to create an issue in the state of Utah. His inappropriate actions put Utah into the position where they have to defend the right to govern themselves.

Now here's the rub, the US Constitution declares that powers not granted explicitly therein were RESERVED to the states or to the people. Federal authority overstepped its bounds by the actions taken by the federal judge and now Utah is fighting to retain control of its own state against the rising tide of corrupt federal power grabs.

Are happy to turn over control of your home to your neighbors? This is really the core issue here.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

It's shameful to see resources wasted to try to deny people rights.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Hugh1:
"Is this what's happening behind the scenes? I am requesting a delay because I cannot come up with a good reason to deny gay Utahans equal marriage rights. I have tried morality, public health, child welfare, majority vote, states' rights, economics, and freedom of religion and nothing seems to work."

Did you try 'equal protection under the law (14th Amendment)?'

Let's see, how that might work...

Everyone can marry provided they (1) choose one other person who is not married, (2) of legal age, (3) not closely related, and (4) of the opposite sex. Sounds like equal protection to me.

Furthermore, if 'equal protection" applies to SS couples who wanna marry, it must also apply to others who want other marriage combinations... such as polygamy, siblings, close relatives, children, and a host of other marriage combinations that can be conjured by the human mind. Else, discrimination would have been established within our very own US courts. Not good!

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@mdophoto:
"I realize many people in Utah are concerned, but the Constitution seems to guarantee the rights of ALL Americans certain rights."

I suspect you would then say all other marriages such as polygamy, siblings, close relatives, and children would fall into the realm of guaranteed rights of all Americans? No?

"The AG is desperate to do what he can to stop this from happening, but it only seems that he is just doing the dance."

The AG is desperate to see that the provisions of Amendment 10 to the US Constitution are honored and sustained... which say: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution... are reserved to the states or the people.' And that would include the right to define marriage since that power is not delegated to the United States by the US Constitution.

John Locke
Ivins, , UT

You can install a of rule of law by judge, but it is not necessarily right. If it is consistent with God's law, (not man made or woman made philosophy), then it is right. We should all know the difference between right and wrong. That comes from the Ten Commandments, the Torah and in my own case, The Book of Mormon, dictates these laws. If they are not consistent with these, the law cannot be recognized as right. This is the case with gay marriage. Is God wrong?

If you've studied the Talmud, Torah, Qu'ran, Bible, Book of Mormon, et al., you would know what they say, consistently, that homosexual activity, including marriage, is forbidden. No new news there, just the beliefs of a judge(s).

hanfrina
Buffalo, NY

... All this adds up to is legal stalling tactics. A waste of $$$-&-TIME!!!

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

@Dekawar wrote: "This issue is about the state of Utah being able to govern itself by the consent of the governed, not about recognition of the marriages performed last year."

I'm pretty sure that the lawsuit, being from a family whose marriage was performed last year, is for the recognition of their marriage.

@wrz wrote: "Furthermore, if 'equal protection" applies to SS couples who wanna marry, it must also apply to others who want other marriage combinations... such as polygamy, siblings, close relatives, children, and a host of other marriage combinations that can be conjured by the human mind. "

Slippery slope fallacy. This outcome is only inevitable in your mind, and not in reality.

@John Locke wrote: "If you've studied the Talmud, Torah, Qu'ran, Bible, Book of Mormon, et al., you would know what they say, consistently, that homosexual activity, including marriage, is forbidden."

Welcome to the United States of America, where religious texts are not the law of the land. If you want to go to a place where religious texts are the law, there are daily flights.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Understands Math:
"Slippery slope fallacy. This outcome is only inevitable in your mind, and not in reality."

If marriage is extended only to SS and not to all other marriage combinations including polygamy and incest the courts will have introduced discrimination into the law.

Dekawar
Riverton, UT

@Understands Math
If the Fed Judge had not overstepped his bounds by his rewriting Utah Law, those "marriages" would never have taken place and there wouldn't be a lawsuit.

Start at the beginning if you want to find the problem.

1) Fed Judge overturns Utah Law which was ratified by the voice of the people and supported by the State (both of the components which have reservations against the Federal usurpation of powers not granted by the US Constitution).
2) Marriages take place under the guise of law by SS couples, contrary to Utah Law.
3) Stay gets placed, to allow for appeal (original Fed Judge should have done this before allowing SS marriages in Utah to allow for vetting of arguments).
4) SS couples file lawsuit for recognition
5) Appeals process working its way through Fed courts, now all the way to US Supreme Court

If step 1) above had not taken place, step 4 wouldn't have been an issue in Utah.

It is ENTIRELY proper for Utah to have all the time needed to ensure Due Process works. This is America. As you noted, if you don't like it, there are daily flights.

to comment

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