Interesting choices for Utah’s legal counsel to oppose SSM. Monte Stewart
was one of 4 sponsors in the creation of Utah’s Amendment 3 now
unconstitutional, delivered amicus curiae brief in a 2008 in California which
outcome approved SSM, and delivered amicus curiae brief for United Families
International in Iowa’s Varnum v Brien which outcome also approved SSM.
Gene Schaerr was counsel at Winston, a legal firm that boasts of its pro-LGBT
affinity and defense. John Bursch has litigated only 6% of his cases, has
promised to cap his earnings, and played the clarinet. Not sure this is the 2
million-dollar winning team Utah requires for its appeal. In agreement with
pervious comments regarding millions for a losing battle, I support aiding the
homeless youth and education for the millions-dollar price tag of a losing court
Is it possible that the $2 million dollar tag will be fruitless as
Sewart’s 2 previous amicus curiae delivered positive outcomes for SSM in
Iowa and California as well as his participation as one of the sponsors for
Utah’s Amendment 3 now ruled unconstitutional; Schaerr’s recent law
firm which is pro-LGBT, and Bursch whose litigated 6% of his cases. Could this
be the winning million dollar team? Caution tax payers of Utah - the new A.G.
Reyes appears to need assistance.
To "Two For Flinching" you are wrong. I know of a group of women that
all love the same man, and that man loves all of the women. They are not
allowed to be married and get the same legal protections as homosexuals. We
still have an inequality, since marriage is now the union of people that love
eachother.Also explain how my rights have been expanded when if I
disagree with gay marriage and run a wedding related business I can be forced by
a judge to provide services for them? It seems to me that I have lost rights.
How do you explain that?
@ Fan BaseIt's unequal because heterosexual people get the
wonderful experience of marrying the person they love. Until December 2013,
homosexual couples were not able to so. However, now everybody can marry who
they love regardless of gender; including you. Your rights have been expanded.
Each person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. You don't
wan to marry someone of the opposite sex, then don't. There's nothing
unequal about that.
If same sex marriages are upheld by the Supreme Court, then polygamy will also
need to become lawful as well. Polygamy is a tenet of LDS doctrine. The Church
has declared that it would obey the law of the land and stopped plural marriage
in order to become a State of The Union. We live in most interesting times and,
indeed, God works in mysterious ways to achieve his ultimate righteous
To "Shelama" read the study. It combines married and unmarried but
co-habitating hetersexual couples.Yes there is a problem with
hetersexual relationships, but when you have gays co-habitating as a married
couple or not, the violence rate is significantly higher than it would be
otherwise.Please go and read the study.
@Redshirt(I believe the DN limits comments on any one article by a
single person to three so this probably won't even show up).The
abuse claimed in polygamy is argued to be fundamentally different in that there
is claimed to be a large element of coercion inherent in the culture and the
practice. Including, or especially, that inflicted on minors unable to give
meaningful consent.In any case, you've said nothing at all
about the incidence of violence in same-sex MARRIAGE as opposed to
co-habitation. In essence, what you're arguing against is not same-sex
marriage but co-habitation. Is that, in reality then, an argument FOR same-sex
marriage?Given the huge and even lethal problem of domestic violence
in heterosexual relationships, both co-habitation and marriage, perhaps we
should ban both? In any case, for yours to have merit you need to show the
comparative incidence (including under reporting) of heterosexual vs. same-sex
domestic violence, for both marriage and co-habitation.
To "Shelama" if harm or abuse is all the justification you need to ban
polygamy (I agree that there isn't a good study showing harm in polygamy),
then you should be against gay marriage.The DOJ has a study that
shows that when homosexual couples co-habitate they are much more likely to be
abused by their intimate partner or be victims of violence. See "Extent,
Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence" by the DOJ. Other
studies point out that homosexual intimate partner violence and abuse is severly
under reported, and that it is likely to be a much larger problem than currently
@ Red ShirtAs long as they are all consenting adults and
legalization of polygamy didn't bring forth a significant risk of harm
(such as incestuous relationships do), then yes I would support it.
@ RedShirt USS Enterprise, UTYes, absolutely, I believe
– absent a rational basis to not allow it – that polygamy should be
legalized.At least Canada seems to have found and defended and
applied a rational basis argument against polygamy in a claimed inherent high
risk and incidence of various types of abuse in polygamy. If that's true,
that's a rational basis to NOT not allow polygamy. I'm not totally
convinced.Yes... I want to be fair to everybody. Including opening
the door for the saints to return to a more full and faithful living of The New
And Everlasting Covenant. Legalize polygamy.
To "Shelama" and "Two For Flinching" are you prepared to defend
plural marriage, the same as you defend gay marriage?The same
arguments that you use to defend gay marriage can be used to justify polygamy.
Not just 1 man and 3 women, but 2 men and 3 women, 4 women, 4 men, or 1 man and
6 women.If marriage is the legal union of people who love each other
and want to "share not only physical and romantic attraction but also
psycho-emotional depth connection, sharing, commitment & intimacy", then
there are no longer any boundaries to define what makes up a marriage. It can
be any group of 2 or more people. If you restrict it to 2 people, then you are
not being "fair" to those that have the same attractions and desires
with multiple people.You do want to be fair to everybody don't
1. Utah officials are saying "we don't believe in our own people, even
our own economy." They instead are sending 2+ Million Dollars out of the
state. That is money that could be spent on hiring a great LOCAL law firm,
giving money to the state.2. Utah AG office is supported with 20+
Million dollars a year in salaries. Yet their new boss and the governor are
both saying "we don't believe in our own AG office." If I were a
lawyer for the AG office, I wouldn't want that egg on my face of being a
untrusted lawyer, but maybe you do.3. Utah is building an
anti-business climate by paying 2 Million dollars to protect a bigoted law.
Harming companies from hiring the most qualified candidate because they might be
LGBTQ and want equal rights as non LGBTQ could hurt companies from hiring the
right people.4. If Utah loses and history says it probably will,
this isn't the government trying to protect a law, it's Gov. Herbert
and the AG protecting their political futures. They will say "we
tried." Thats all, it's a political game, not for you but for them.
@ wrz"All citizens are equal... they can marry anyone they wish
(that agrees to marry them) so long as they marry someone of the opposite
sex."So they can marry anyone they wish, except for the person
they love and want to marry? That's not equal. Allowing SSM has no effect
on you. It begs the question, why do you care so much about something that has
nothing to do with you?
@wrzPhoenix, AZAnd now you are equally free marry someone of
the same sex, too. At least as long as they want to marry you.@wrz,,
if marriage and the right to marriage – by definition – does not
include the right to a a unique and voluntary association with someone with whom
you share not only physical and romantic attraction but also psycho-emotional
depth connection, sharing, commitment & intimacy, then the definition and
concept and its protections is incomplete if not meaningless. It's a sham
and forcing people, as their only marriage option, into a marriage inherently
devoid of those characteristics and incapable of them IS hurting them.@wrz, for people who want to marry, providing for them as the only route
marriage to someone with whom they do NOT share all of those qualities of a
marriage relationship IS hurting them.Beyond which, it's also
not the equal protection of the law.
@Rosco:"I tend to believe most, if not all, people with same sex
attraction were born with such propensity."Almost everyone is
born with propensities of one kind or another... Some propensities might include
polygamy. Some might be propensity toward other sexual eccentricities (which the
moderators will not allow to be listed).Everybody should love their
fathers and mothers.All propensities, including homosexuality, must
be dealt with on a personal basis.Why is it that all propensities
except homosexuality has to be reined in?
@Lane Myer:Yes, the state has the power to regulate marriage - as long as
they are not harming a section of the population (see Loving v. Virginia)for no
apparent reason."The state which bans same-sex marriage is not
hurting anyone. Anyone can marry so long as they marry another person of the
opposite sex. This is not rocket science."Either gays are
citizens with equal rights or they are not equal citizens."All
citizens are equal... they can marry anyone they wish (that agrees to marry
them) so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Sounds like equality
to me. If someone wants to marry someone/something other than a person of the
opposite sex, they're asking for special treatment contrary to state
I appreciate the many well-articulated thoughts on this complex matter. It is
disappointing, however, that so many writers seem to abhor those with differing
points of view. They denigrate the predominant religion of the State as well as
all who adhere to its doctrine. They mock others sincere concerns. I have
family members who are gay—each is pleased with the possibility of
marriage. I tend to believe most, if not all, people with same sex attraction
were born with such propensity. I certainly believe individuals in such
relationships should be treated with civility and respect. It is easy to also
argue that they should be granted the rights afforded heterosexually married
couples. I think the hang-up for many of us is a seeming redefinition of
“marriage”. While I think it is clear that same sex relationships
will eventually be given the right to “marry”, my preference would
have been a legal arrangement recognized by the States that did not define
itself as “marriage”. I suspect such would have little pushback for
the religious right. I understand that some see that as discriminatory but I
fail to see it that way.
The state will lose the case and the $, and they know it. It's about
pleasing the perceived wishes of the conservative voters, who expect the state
to respond.So just tell it like it is, save a few sheckles, and move
It is funny how many people on here from outside Utah are worried about Utah
spending money to defend Utah's law. It is also funny how everyone blames
this on the LDS Church. The LDS Church didn't get a vote. It was the
majority of Utah citizens that voted for this law.
Liberty For AllCedar, UT"I'd like to see the $2million used
to require same-sex couples to undergo reparative therapies before obtaining a
civl marriage license. One people saw how many people have changed or had their
same-sex attractions diminish, the civil marriage idea would become pretty much
a non-issue for them."....Uh, maybe change that handle to
"Liberty For Those I Approve Of"BYUalumSouth Jordan,
UT"One of the most important issues here, in my opinion, is that ONE
activist judge overturned a vote in an election"I went to UC
Berkeley, another fine school, where they taught me how courts work. In this case, people brought a Federal lawsuit, claiming discrimination by the
State of Utah. They proved their case, the State having no legal argument to
disprove it (just as in every other case)The judge was wise, but any
impartial 10 year old would see that the plaintiffs were in the right, and the
law was unfair, no matter the popular vote.All Utah is going to do
by fighting this is to make the State look less and less modern, and affirm that
it puts the church ahead of the Constitution
Joemamma..." This state was founded by Mormons and it's
constution was written by Mormons.. Now we have a few gays from CA in
retribution for the church's involvement in prop 8 and thanks to Obama
helping by placing activist judges decide they want to intrude on the majority
of people in this state and force their societal views on us..".... Really? Sounds like the arguments used in other States against mormons
150 years ago.I personally think that God is waiting for you to apologize
for Prop 8.boatersteveFruit Heights, Utah..." Since
without help homosexual marriages produce no children and therefore do not
contribute to the perpetuation of the state, government by defifintion, has an
interest in determining whether those marriages should exist."...So Utah and he lds ought to keep the present system, which results in:A--Young mormons pressured by society and internal guilt to marry people to
whom they are not attracted, in order to raise messed-up children.B--Young
mormons forced into a 2nd class citizenship of celibacyC--Young mormons
leaving.All of this is what Jesus would choose?
Gov Herbert should quickly sign legislation to spend what is needed to
defend the state againstJudicial over reach.
To "Lane Myer" if harm is the concern, then I guess you are for banning
gay marriage. According to a study by the DOJ, when homosexuals mearly
co-habitate with their intimate partner they are at a higher risk for violence
and harm.I feel oppressed that I am only allowed to be married to 1
person at a time. Are you ready to defend my right to marry multiple people of
any gender that I want?
IMHO The LDS Church is the organization that has the most to gain or lose in
this issue.The LDS church has grown from a small sect to a worldwide
church. The world outside Utah values diversity, social justice, equality,
progressive religious thinking.The dollar amount of this seems
irrelevant to me. I'm sure for Utah wouldn't be too much if it has to
spend it. Thousands of us left the church because of this issue.
Some of us feel nostalgic about our time as missionaries, members, holding
positions, etc. However, we believe in being honest with God and ourselves.After 1978 The church grew exponentially when the priesthood issue was
resolved. It took courage and humility for the brethren to reach the right
decision. Today, the church again faces a decision that will shake
it to its foundations. Will the church become the Zion for all people of the
world or will decide on favor of bigotry. The impact will have worldwide
reach.As an LDS and a LGBT man I pray of the First Presidency of the
church to reach a decision that best resembles what Jesus would do.
This is such a joke. Only in Utah would voters overwhelmingly
strike down a $50.00 a year property tax increase to fully fund a school
district yet they are all for spending 2 million to overturn a law that
guaranties Constitutional rights to all men. Of course were the same state that
Re-Elected a Governor who was caught in a 13 Million dollar scandal paying a
construction company for work they never did. Have any of you
fighting this so hard ever really sat down and thought about what God's
take on this issue is? I know you guys have your heads buried in the scriptures
and that is where your coming from but have you really taken your time to think
about it from the perspective of God? the all loving all knowing God? I guess
I just don't understand how anybody with a pure heart stand in front of the
Lord and explain to him that you were for taking away the rights of one of his
children. I just don't understand.
Sorry but I am confused as to exactly what offends conservatives. Judge Shelby
based his opinion almost entirely upon the dissent of Antonin Scalia who decried
striking down DOMA on 14th Amendment grounds, pointing out quite articulately
how that led inevitably to legalizes SSM. So are Conservatives now also offended
by the 14th Amendment and one of the Supremes' most ardent conservatives?
Just take a deep breath, conservatives. Tomorrow when you wake up
YOUR lives Will be exactly the same. The only difference will be a thousand or
more couples who were once second class now enjoy all the benefits you and your
spouse take for granted. Hardly the road to ruin
It's funny how much people want to protect a constitutional amendment that
is bigoted and unequal. I wonder how many of these people remember the famous
Missouri Executive Order 44 from 1838. Thats right, Missouri Executive Order 44
was also known as the Mormon Extermination Order. People in 1838
thought that it was the best thing to do and to protect the people of Missouri
by "EXTERMINATING" the mormons! Would you be calling the
judge a liberal and activist because he let the Mormons be equal? What if Judge
Shelby said "hey, you can't do that...because all people are created
equal." What would you be saying then? If it were your family
that was being judged by the citizens of Missouri? Would you say, hey the
majority said that we should leave the state so we are just going to do it. Or
would you want the judge to rule in your favor because you realize that we
aren't a Theocracy but instead a land of freedom.
BYUAlum"I still feel the same way and will not lock myself away in a
cellar as you suggested. I have a right to speak every much as you do! Let
freedom ring!"Of course you do...it's just that what you say is
Soddam and Gomorrah
ahh UTAH - Maybe NOW - I'd consider spending My Tourism money in your
state.....before this ruling, to me...it was JUST A FLY OVER state.....I spend
my tourism money in Equality states.....so, who knows.....tourism could pick up?
Yes the proponents of SSM will argue vehemently that the state should drop this.
If they do then we will have the same situation that occurred in CA where the
supreme court dismisses the case due to lack of standing by the supporters.No...The state, in order to give this the fairest hearing MUST take this
on all the way to the supreme court. It is sad that Utah has to lead the way
where CA failed to argue for it's own duly elected and enacted law. Let us
not make the same mistake.I feel personally that Utah will lose this
battle but the nation cannot come to a full agreement one way or the other
unless it is fought. I would think the proponents of SSM would support the
taxpayer funded defense of our amendment. If they win, they win big!
Just because he has not yet signed off doesn't mean he won't. They are
in strategy mode.They will bring a case, they will spend the money...and 2
million is just the beginning my friends...and it will be the case that
forces the SCOTUS to declare all same sex marriages legal throughout the
land.The irony is rich. The country will move on and in no time at
all...it'll be a non issue.I say...let it go...this cake is baked.
To ebur and Spellman789You do realize we live in a Republic and not a
theocracy, don't you? Your version of what God wants and my version of what
God wants is different. My God thinks that gay marriage is wonderful. So which
version of what God wants is the correct one? This is the very reason why we
have separation of church and state. “Religious institutions that
use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons
of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state
support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to
their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the
'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is
absolutely essential in a free society.” ― Thomas Jefferson
"So, if it isn't in the Constitution then per the 10th ammendment, it
is a state issue. The state decided that marriage was defined as a union between
a man and a woman."Yes, the state has the power to regulate
marriage - as long as they are not harming a section of the population (see
Loving v. Virginia)for no apparent reason. If they are discriminating against a
minority, there had better be a reasonable argument that they can use to defend
that law against those who might feel oppressed by the states laws. Can you
give me the reason that Utah feels it must oppress gays from marrying? One that
can be used in court?No state may pass laws (even if the majority of
the people vote for it) that "shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States;...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws."Either gays are citizens with
equal rights or they are not equal citizens. Are all men created equal or only
those we approve of?
“The attorney general's office would need a supplemental
appropriation to cover the cost of the outside counsel from the 2014
Legislature, which begins meeting on Jan. 27.”“A request
for a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court has been delayed pending the hiring of
outside counsel. A spokesman for the attorney general's office, Ryan
Bruckman, said the stay should be filed Monday.”How are they
going to use outside counsel (apparently our attorney general is not up for it
or needs to line friends pockets) that will not be approved until after the
legislature begins meeting Jan 27 to file an appeal today? Sounds like the same
old funny business different day in the corrupt world of Utah politics.
In Spain, gay marriage, was a battle won, I think it was for wanting resemble
traditional marriage, but the reality now is that after these past years, now
not many gay weddings are as before, and that took place have ended with
divorces and breakups, this actually did it to annoy, time to time, there will
be many gay weddings for my studies observed that there are more breaks in these
Many people are attracted to Utah for the wholesome atmosphere and good values
the state has always maintained. As we slip toward trying to please the voices
that call for a liberal society, we will lose the voice of conservative values.
That is a shame because someone must stand up for the traditional values that
made this country the envy of the world.
A Sin will always be a Sin even if the laws of the land say they are legal.
The fight for traditional marriage IS money well spent. Marriage is ordained of
God, He created it, and only He can say what it should be.It is time for
the silent majority to break their silence and speak out for what is right. It
is not hate or bigotry to say that I believe in traditional marriage. I know
many gay people are wonderful, caring people who truly love their partner.
Defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is not about hating
gays or trying to deny them due process. Defining marriage traditionally is
about following God and trusting that He loves all of us and truly knows what is
best. Sometimes we don't see why now. But we will eventually.
To "Lane Myer" tell me where in the Constitution it says anything about
the definition of marriage.I have looked, and it isn't
there.So, if it isn't in the Constitution then per the 10th
ammendment, it is a state issue. The state decided that marriage was defined as
a union between a man and a woman.
This is going to be a colossal waste of money that could be better spent in so
many ways. Whether or not you believe that gay people should be allowed to marry
here in Utah (or anywhere)it is inevitable that sooner or later, gay people will
be allowed to marry in every state.If private individuals want to take up
this cause and spend their own money to do it, perhaps there's a way they
can do it.But no way should Utah spend a penny toward it.What will
they do when they get to the end of their 2 million? Just drop it? I don't
think so. It could end up costing far more and for what?It will amount to
a lot of money for lawyers and no return for those in Utah who want to fight
this.And legal marriage for polygamists isn't far behind. Better get
used to it, because it is coming.
People, the problem here is the lack of Faith. God will help us to win
this fight, why are we so scare to fight against evil? Has ever God
abandoned his faithful children? Even in the most terrible time of
persecution, it was faith in God what kept us strong and protected us. Fight! do not be scare. GOD is in our side. Darkest hours have come and will
come, but those who believe and have faith in GOD will be never be defeated. Prayers! that's the solution, and follow the scriptures' advices.
We should love everybody, but defend from the power of Satan.
"What you fail to recognize is that we now have contradicting laws. We have
one law that says if it isn't in the constitution the states can decide
what to do"--------But what you fail to recognize is
the ending of your sentence..."We have one law that says if it isn't in
the constitution, the states can decide what to do AS LONG AS IT IS
CONSTITUTIONAL. Pretty simple to understand with that added, isn't it?
@Mike in Sandy:Your response wasn't very kind to what I thought
was a logical statement that I made.I still feel the same way and
will not lock myself away in a cellar as you suggested. I have a right to speak
every much as you do! Let freedom ring!
To "Lane Myer" so you are saying that the judge made a bad decision.
The 10th ammendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people." Since the State acted on its Constitutional
right to determine what the legal definition of marriage is to be, the
ammendment to the Utah constitution should stand and define marriage.What you fail to recognize is that we now have contradicting laws. We have
one law that says if it isn't in the constitution the states can decide
what to do, at the same time that it also says that federal law runs supreme.
Since the US Constitution does not say anything about marriage, and according to
the most recent DOMA ruling, it is a state issue.But how do you
balance things when one law tells the state they can do whatever they want at
the same time another law says they can't?
So what it really boils down to is:Religious people... believe we should
live in a theocracy, however they can't decide on which religion should
rule, perhaps just a state sanctioned "American Christians" church.Americans...believe that All men are created equal and deserve equal
rights under the constitution.The lines seem to be drawn at this
intersection, so what national religion should we adopt?
I see no need to spend $2 million on outside attorneys when it is obvious that
we have so many well qualified Constitutional attorneys here posting on the Des
News board. Hey, we even have a few Declaration of Independence attorneys. Also
those giving their personal interpretation of The Constitution... Let's
get them together and go present the case to the Supreme Court. Sprinkle in a
few moral observations and scriptures, a few statistics on the ability of
same-sex couples ability to reproduce and this looks like an easy slam dunk. If Chris B is OK with spending the money, I see it as a done deal. We
all know that he speaks many times on behalf of the PAC, The University of Utah,
and the University of Utah fan base. Yep, this is a battle that the State of
Utah will win! Mark it down!!!Utah's continued effort to
"define" marriage our way is money well spent.After this
battle, can we spend a ton of money to have phone spelled fone? That has always
bugged me.Props to those who have tried to help educate the masses
citing case law.
Try asking a law professor from anywhere but Utah how badly this case was
mishandled. Apparently the Utah AG's office has no one with a clue about
federal appellate procedure. If you want to ask the District Court judge for a
stay, you do that first. He still has the case. If you want to bypass him and
go directly to the Circuit Court of Appeals, you first have to appeal, to get
the case moved to its jurisdiction. They're likely to wonder why you
didn't ask the District Court judge first. Then, when you finally have
your paperwork in order and the Circuit Court of Appeals turns you down,
it's not a good idea to dally for a week, while all the same-sex couples
get married, before going to the Supreme Court to claim that irreparable harm is
being done if they don't act right away.Where are all the
people who helped finance Prop 8 in California? They should have chipped in for
competent lawyers, back when it might have made a difference.
@Chris BSalt Lake City, UTAs soon as liberals fight for
polygamists right to marry then I will be a little more open to their claims
[that] they are fighting discrimination..."This liberal, while
not "fighting" for anyone's right to marry, has no problem with
polygamy as long as it is done within the same strictures as any other marriage.
I.e., consenting partners of legal age and not committing welfare fraud to get
by. If it was good enough for the biblical patriarchs, it should be good enough
for our standards of morality.
Not a good idea to use tax money to support or oppose a divisive measure. A
better idea would be to donate to the causes which you value most. This would
be like legalized plunder to the minority who view gay marriage as okay.Now lets say we are in Washington or another liberal state and the roles
were reversed. Would many of the conservatives on this board be in favor of
having your tax dollars collected to defend gay marriage?Leave this
to the organizations and to the courts.
"So what is the right thing here. Do we go with the US Constitutinally
backed Utah ammendment that defines marriage, or do we go with the idea that
federal law trumps all state laws including constitutional ammendments?"----------Please read the whole constitution.Here is the Supremacy clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the
United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
IMHO the judge acted poorly. The 10th ammendment clearly states that anything
not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is up to the states to decide.
The state decided what the legal definition of marriage was to be, and put it
into the Utah Constitution.Now, the judge used the 14th ammendment
to justify his decision.So, the question is what is the supreme law?
We have the the Utah constitution vs. federal law? We won't even go into
what "equal protections under the law" means with regard to marriage.So what is the right thing here. Do we go with the US Constitutinally
backed Utah ammendment that defines marriage, or do we go with the idea that
federal law trumps all state laws including constitutional ammendments? If we
go with the idea that Federal Law trumps all, then why is the DEA ignoring all
of the states passing laws that violate federal law?To "The Real
Maverick" you are ignoring the amount of money that the gays cost the
government for their "frivolous" lawsuit.
I keep reading comment about how we will be seen in the eyes of others around
the world if we fight this ruling. I think it is more important how we will be
seen if we don't fight the ruling. There are really thick black lines
when it comes to homosexual behavior and allowance for the justification for
such behavior through the bonds of marriage. If we don't stand up, say no
on fight this we will pay dearly as time goes on. We read in scripture to love
the sinner but hate the sin. We should continue to have this in mind as we move
forward. I know many great people who have chosen to lead homosexual lives. I
know many great people who have chosen poorly in other areas. We all have our
temptations and vices. We as a society much choose to have laws, statutes,
rights and privileges that promote good behaviors rather than behaviors that are
condemned by the almighty.
Money well spent indeed. Immorality doesn't improve society (that goes for
heteros too). Families do. It may be a losing battle, but I want to show what
side I'm on. Let's not kid ourselves and think that this money would
go elsewhere to help clean the air or something.
I'd like to see the $2million used to require same-sex couples to undergo
reparative therapies before obtaining a civl marriage license. One people saw
how many people have changed or had their same-sex attractions diminish, the
civil marriage idea would become pretty much a non-issue for them.
Of the 18 states with legal same-sex marriage only THREE were approved by the
people; Maine, Maryland, and Washington.10 states had laws voted by
the people banning same-sex marriages that were overturned by the Federal Court
or their own legislature. (Yet, are no longer counted as opposed to the new
marriage laws.)3 out of 51 states and districts is hardly a changing
of popular opinion.Federalism rules.
Spend the money on schools. Utah doesn't have to prove they are the Vatican
Directed to: vidottsenPayson, UT"The larger issue is not to deny
consenting adults their desire to be legally united, but rather what this may
lead governments [to] dictate to religions what they can and cannot include
within their own rules and doctrine. How long will it take for the government to
say that the LDS church must include same-sex marriage in its temples? Do we
allow one set of beliefs or standards to abolish the freedom of religion,
freedom to practice religion the way it has been established?"Your argument holds that your religious beliefs is the standard by which civil
authority should operate. We have separation of church and state. Your religion
should have no bearing on whether LGBTs can have the same rights as you. Your
religion is your business, but it is not a standard upon which my rights to
marry whom I love should be dictated.And no...there will not come a
time when the government dictates that religions have to sanctify same sex
marriage. You've got it exactly reversed.
Spending money to defend a law voted for by the majority is not a waste. For
the billions spent by the state each year 2 million for a one time project is
not that significant. When a federal judge overturns a highly politically
charged state law I expect the state to push back. I also expect my state
government to make the best case possible. Spend the money governor and know
that regardless of the outcome you gave it your best to represent the people of
The current staff at the AG's can do this without outside counsel. The $2
million could be spent better elsewhere, like beefing up the state's air
monitoring system, a critical need.
I am all for the Sutherland Institute paying for the defense of amendment 3. If
they are willing to throw their money away let them do so. It will be a win-win
because the lawsuit would most likely go all the way to the supreme court and
then all same sex marriage bans in the entire country would be struck down and
the Sutherland Institute will have 2 million or so less dollars to persecute
their dissenters at home. If Utah follows through with the appeal we will be
known as the state that made same sex marriage possible for the whole country.
Maybe if some hadn't contributed so much time and money to denying
Californians and Hawaiian's their marriage rights then equal marriage
wouldn't have come to Utah so quickly. As you sow, so shall you reap.
Dear Quaker: Regarding if I would be happy if all marriages would be allowed,
personally it does not bother me nor make me sad or angry that those with
same-sex attraction want to marry. What I am worried about is where this will
lead. It seems to me that just being able to marry might not satisfy those who
advocate the practice. There might be another far-reaching agenda and that is to
vilify those of us who feel it is an immoral act and would seek to make it
illegal to prohibit such a ceremony in our places of worship. If that situation
does not occur, then yes, I would be happy.
@ bc5: Judge Shelby did examine the requirements for strict scrutiny, but his
decision was based on rational basis review. Not meeting the requirements of
strict scrutiny will not change the decision. In order for Utah to
win, Utahneeds to prove that prohibiting same-sex marriage furthers the goal of
heterosexual marriage and heterosexual couples bearing biological children or,
conversely, that allowing same-sex marriage would negatively affect those goals.
They admitted to Judge Shelby that they have no proof of either of
those. Nor were they able to explain why some couples who will lot or cannot
have children are allowed to marry while others aren't.
@boatersteve;Your argument applies equally to infertile heterosexal
couples who cannot produce children without outside help. Whats more, it
applies to elderly couples who can't procreate at all.That
argument is a fail from start to finish.@vidottsen;Another "churches will be forced to marry gays" argument. What about
the freedom of the religions that WANT to perform same-sex marriages?
Don't they count? Is their religious freedom inconsequential to you?@ulvegaard;The LDS church sees a moral conflict here,
they'll lose out on the money.@bc5; 1,) History of
discrimination. Check.2.) Ability to contribute to society. Check. (we
pay taxes and perform all kinds of service).3.) Immutability. Check. Have
you tried changing your sexuality?4.) Relative Political Powerlessness.
Again Check (did Utah and 30+ other states NOT vote away our rights?)@Neanderthal;Simply "walking away from the relationship"
can be pretty devastating too, you know.\
Constitutionally, this is not about child bearing. At least, it seems clear
that argument will not sway the high court.This needs to be appealed
as unnecessary because homosexuals can already avail themselves of a traditional
marriage any time they chose to go out and find someone of the opposite sex to
marry them.Homosexuality has not been proven to be an immutable
trait like race. It deserves no equal protection under the 14th Amendment.While some homosexuals believe that they were born with same sex
attraction, others have loudly bragged for a generation that their lifestyle is
a choice. We believed them then; we should believe them now."God made me this way" is an age-old false argument asserted (by
perpetrators and their family and friends) to excuse a wide variety of social
behaviors - many of which are still illegal - none of which we should elevate to
the status of a "right". The Governor of Utah should not be
like the corrupt officials of California who refused to appeal Measure 8 - the
majority view of voters - to the Supreme Court. He should okay the money.
One of the most important issues here, in my opinion, is that ONE activist judge
overturned a vote in an election, and that vote was for traditional marriage
between a man and a woman which passed by 66% of Utah voters. He also with the
swipe of his pen defied the same provision in the Utah Constitution. If this is
not challenged, the judicial activist court can change ANYTHING without regard
to what the majority of the public wants and votes by common consent. Our basic
freedom and liberty are thus at peril. What price is freedom?
@Area 52I AM dealing with it. And I am loving it!I am
watching the fair and just people enjoy every second of the turning of the tide
here.We are grateful to the judge for doing the right thing ( he
chose the right) We are enjoying seeing investigation into
wrongdoings by the last 2 attorneys general.We are enjoying seeing
'rebel' senators Like Mike Leeand their cockamamie ideas fall on their
faces.We are enjoying the squirming by all of the puritans as
reality pops the bubble of intolerance that has surrounded this slow-to-evolve
populace.Yup...dealin' with it just fine.
When people stand for "equality" and say "it doesn't hurt
anyone" never bother to do any real research on the topic. Research/Science
shows that there are so many more social ills and risks to our children that
come from societies who live life outside of traditional marriage, not just
homosexuals and polygamists, but teen/single parents, co-habitating parents,
abortion seekers, etc. All these are more likely to engage in substance abuse,
domestic violence, break-ups, STD's, suicide, promiscuity, child neglect
and exploitation, etc. All of which are a drain to our government resources and
health care dollars. Standing firm for traditional marriage is standing firm to
protect future generations. If you don't see the global decline in
morality over the last short 50 years, then you are kidding yourself. This is
as much a societal issue as it is a religious issue. I believe that if Utah
becomes an "island" where it is safe to raise kids and promote healthy
family life, then people will not avoid, but will come to Utah for that reason,
then our economy will only get stronger. Stand firm, Utah.
@Wilf 55The Mormon Church will continue be seen as an entity that
donates millions globally to disaster relief, education and support.Whats your point?
"So how many people in Utah have had to call an end to their marriage in the
last two weeks because gays can now get married?"I think
same-sex marriage is a good idea... when they decide to split up (and many will)
they will have to suffer the agonies that heteros go through in nasty divorces
rather than just walk away from the relationship.
Conservatives like Chris B love spending taxpayer dollars for their frivolous
lawsuits until they run out of other people's money. If Chris wants to
finance this lawsuit, let him. But keep your darn hands off my taxpayer dollars.
My taxpayer dollars will go for roads, public services, and education, NOT
frivolous lawsuits that the government has no business being in.Let
Chris and whatever religious organization pay for this lawsuit. Leave the rest
of us out of it!
I believe strongly that marriage is sacred and between a man and a women but I
cannot get comfortable with spending large sums of money on a battle that will
not be won. The courts are becoming very liberal and the issue of gay marriage
is a popular band wagon right now. It is a shame that one man has the ability to
disregard the vote of the people but that is the direction our country is
going.Let's spend our time and efforts on more worthy and
worthwhile causes. Causes that have a chance of being successful and doing good.
Kalindra, where or how does this violate the Federal Constitution?
If we need to hire outside legal help to argue this case, one wonders why we
have an Attorney General's office. Are they not employed to argue for the
This is a Constitutional question and it is pretty much ingrained in substantive
due process within the courts. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Here is some substantive case law about 14th amendment. It is very clearly
shown,the Process Due to the Plaintiff is Liberty."While this
Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty . . . guaranteed
[by the Fourteenth Amendment], the term has received much consideration and some
of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes
not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to
contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful
knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God
according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those
privileges long recognized . . . as essential to the orderly pursuit of
happiness by free men." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 . In a
Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of
"liberty" must be broad indeed.
I'm kinda glad they're appealing. I mean think about it:1. The
higher this goes the more broader reaching it could be, perhaps nationally if it
gets to the Supreme Court.2. Amendment 3 and others have been so ineptly
defended I feel pretty confident about the final result and...3. My 2
dollar Utah taxpayer contribution could help get same-sex marriage nationwide
while making the state leadership suffer humiliations galore. As far as 2 dollar
investments go, that's a noble cause.
vidottsen: I don't see any danger in this. The State neither supports nor
prohibits our religious practices. My church, the Meetings of Friends General
Conference of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) supports Equality, and
many of our Meetings have conducted religious marriages of same-sex couples even
when our states refused to recognize them. If all states simply agreed to
civilly register all religious marriages of any recognized house of worship,
could you accept that? Or must your own church doctrine control everyone in the
country for you to be happy?Area 52: I'm pretty sure
homosexuality is not "a trend." Most people have a pretty good idea
what their sexuality is, and what kind of partner they're attracted to, and
not only are in no hurry to change that, but aren't even capable of it. I
could never be gay. Neither could the other 95% of the population that
isn't gay already. Anyone who thinks it's even possible must lack the
certainty of their own sexuality.
Most of the supporters of gay marriage love to compare gay rights with sex and
race civil rights cases. They are wrong based on Supreme Court case law. For a
group to reach heightened scrutiny the court looked at four areas: 1,) History
of discrimination. 2.) Ability to contribute to society. 3.) Immutability. 4.)
Relative Political PowerlessnessJudge Shelby analyzed all four in
his opinion and concluded that gay marriage met all four. Item three is where he
deviated from established law. Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic.
The Supreme Courts teachings tell us that an immutable characteristic is
determined solely by accident of birth, It does not mean broadly done that
cannot be undone. Judge Shelby expanded this definition to include a group that
might be able to change but should not have to because it is their identity. Utah can win this by providing solid scientific studies that show that
being gay is not an immutable characteristic. A good place to start is Dr, Paul
McHugh's amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Windsor case (DOMA). Dr,
McHugh MD is a professor at John Hopkins and is an expert in studies concerning
@ Chris B re:PolygamyFair question. I have to think that,
eventually, we will have to have both civil and religious marriages, and you CAN
have one without the other. But it's unlikely that anything more than the
first marriage will allow for "marriage benefits, as well as "marriage
Utah state procurement rules require that any state agency seeking goods and
services first look to see if those services are available through Utah
Correctional Industries before going to outside vendors. With a little luck,
UCI may soon be able to offer the legal services of John Swallow. That would
obviate the continuity concern that new legal counsel would be entering the case
midstream. It would also save the state scads of money by taking advantage of
UCI's greatly discounted labor rates compared to the private sector.
Win-win all around.
@ Teka: Youare forgetting the "similarly situated" part of the equality
argument. @ Area52: The citizens of a state cannot vote to violate
the Federal Constitution - that is what makes us the United States instead of
just a bunch of independent states. @ boatersteve: The State argued
a point very similar to yours - that marriage is about the "gold
standard" of two married heterosexual people and their biological offspring.
But then the State was unable to explain why they allow couples who are
obviously past childbearing years to marry. Why allow some couples unable to
naturally reproduce to marry while denying that same opportunity to other
couples who may also be unable to naturally reproduce?Many, many
people have brought up your point, but not one has been able to articulate a
sound answer to the Judge's question - nor have anyone, including the
State, been willing to agree that only couples willing and able to have children
should be allowed to marry. Your question also ignores the realities
at divorce, reproductive technologies, and adoption. Heterosexual couples are
raising children due to these situations and so are gay couples. Why deny
children of gay couples the protection of married parents?
Is it possible...conceivable?...that Gov Herbert may NOT sign off on this? That
he may understand how much money will go down the rabbit hole? Medicaid
Expansion looms, as do so many other necessities for Utahns. Will he actually
put Utahns before the Legislature's and Ms. Ruzicka's vendettas
against the LQBTQ community? If he can avoid this losing lawsuit and say,
""No", as he did with sex ed in schools, I will be both shocked and
thrilled. He may not win in another election, but he will prove that, at least,
twice in his career he did the right thing!
Mike in Sandy, what will you do it Utah does end up winning this battle? Will
you move? And actually it is Mormonland so you deal with it!
"There's nothing constitutional or fair about forcing the vast majority
to accept something they do not want and can harm our social structure."
Sounds exactly like the segregationists who defended Jim Crow.
A Quaker; your right painting a house does not make more houses but painting a
house red, white, or any color can make more houses of that particular color.
It’s called a TREND and all Trends start out small before eventually
everyone is doing it. So your argument does not stand.
Hey JoemammaYour marriage, if you ARE married must be on shaky
ground if you think gay marriage will affect it.Why would you deny ANYONE
equal rights?This is not Mormonland...it's one of the 50 United
States of America.So deal with it.If you don't like it, why
don't you just move?
The wrong side of history? The LDS Church is not about being progressive, it is
about maintaining moral and ethical standards as interpretted from Scripture --
that's just something that religions do. The moment the LDS church decides
that it should just give in to the wave they would find themselves drowning in
political chaos like everyone else. If the LDS church sees a moral conflict
here, and they do, they have every right to stand for their values. The
political arena in Utah may be a separate matter, but people have a right to
voice their opinions regardless of how futile the fight might appear. Its what
makes the difference between true heroes and mere pawns.
If the people of Utah had seen fit to elect a qualified person as Attorney
General perhaps this move would not be necessary.
The larger issue is not to deny consenting adults their desire to be legally
united, but rather what this may lead to down the road when governments dictate
to religions what they can and cannot include within their own rules and
doctrine. How long will it take for the government to say that the LDS church,
in order to be recognized as a church, must include same-sex marriage in its
temples? Do we allow one set of beliefs or standards to abolish the freedom of
religion, freedom to practice religion the way it has been established? You
speak of hate. Read the statement from the leaders of the LDS church. God loves
all mankind, yet sets a standard of morality within the bounds he sets. I would
conjecture there is more hatred felt against the LDS church than from its
members toward the rest of humanity. I do not hate people with same-set
attraction. I do, however, believe all churches have the right to set a standard
and to be allowed the right to do so.
boatersteve is concerned that the population of the state will dry up if gays
can marry. Considering that gays comprise a grand total of 5% of the population
and in any event aren't going to reproduce any more outside of marriage
than within it, I'm having trouble understanding his argument.Does he think that gay marriage somehow makes more gay people? I'm
pretty sure it doesn't work that way, any more than painting a house makes
Two million dollars is like the estimate one gets from a building contractor.
The homeowner latches onto to that amount and commits herself to it. Then once
the house is halfway up and it's too late to back out, the price suddenly
doubles, and then triples. Does anyone really think the lawyers that go into
this case are going to watch their spending? The price of keeping part of the
Utah population oppressed will cost Utah far more than this estimate, which
appears to have sprung from a seat-of-the-pants estimate.
"He thinks he knows whats best for the citizens of Utah instead of upholding
the will of the people. This state was founded by Mormons and it's
constution was written by Mormons.. Now we have a few gays from CA"Here's a newsflash for you: Most of the gay and lesbians here in Utah are
descended from those same Mormon families that you are. These are native
Utahns; brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters of families with strong Utah
Mormon roots. The idea that they are outsiders is blind to reality.
It is a waiste of time and money. Put it towards something that will benifit the
state and not just outside state lawyers.
The moral side of homosexuality aside, one of the most important duties of
government is to assure the continuation of the country, both internally and
externally, which means government has a very fundamental interest in marriage.
Since without help homosexual marriages produce no children and therefore do not
contribute to the perpetuation of the state, government by defifintion, has an
interest in determining whether those marriages should exist. Governor Herbert
should spend the money to defend Utah's definition of marriage.
Chris B.: I feel somewhat qualified to speak to the liberal view on polygamy.
Think about what can of worms you're seeking to open. If
polygamy was legal, you'd also have to legalize polyandry, as well as just
plain "poly" (which are any number of multi-partner webs of
relationships, including bisexual ones).Poly-whatever is a whole
different category of thing than a two-person life-partnership arrangement.
It's unthinkable until the details of family and relationship law can
support it. Here are some of the questions that need answers first:Division of property, custody, child support, alimony. What happens when one
of the parties divorces the rest? Will that destroy the entire family
economically or emotionally?How is property distributed on
someone's death? Intestate estates?Employer-provided health
insurance? Family coverage?Social Services: A myriad of problems
here. Determining how much income a family can have and still qualify. College
tuition aid, food stamps, etc. Exploitation of support programs. Come back after you think through all the things that civil law would have to
accommodate, and the costs, then we'll talk.
I am for the many I've spoken with that are of the opinion "if a person
doesn't like gay marriage then they don't have to participate".
The governor and many other politicians here need to look at the history of
opposing other people's rights. This is similar to denying people the
right to interracial marriage and others. Millions of dollars will be
fruitlessly spent and the end result will be equal rights for this people. This
is evidenced by other states in our country.
Don't do it. Use those funds for education (yeah...right) or
better, to continue investigating Shurtleff and Swallow.This is only
a "battle" against giving all people equal rights....and eventually,
same sex marriage will be legal everywhere, so don't waste the 2 mil.Grow up.Be adults.Face reality.Quit being so painfully
But the prohibitions of the 14th amendment have exclusive reference to state
action; it is the state which is prohibited from denying to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; the federal statute was
intended to protect the colored race against state action, and against that
alone. Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313 ; Neal v. Delaware, 103 Id. 370; Bush v.
Kentucky, 107 Id. 110.
Here's some facts to consider in this case: The decisions upon the
legislation under the 14th amendment to the constitutions, are worthy of the
most careful consideration in this regard. It was determined at an early day
(1869), that this amendment did not execute itself, but required legislation on
the part of congress. Griffin's Case, Chase's Dec. 364. And this led
to the passage of the civil rights act of the 1st March 1875 (18 U. S. Stat.
395).Under the 4th section of this act, it has been determined, that
the amendment not only gave the privileges of citizenship to the colored race,
but denied to any state the power to withhold from them the equal protection of
the laws, and invested congress with power to enforce its provisions;
consequently, that a state law which denied to them the right of serving as
jurors, though qualified in other respects, was a violation of the constitution.
Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 . And that an indictment will lie
against a state officer, for excluding persons of color from the jury list. Ex
parte Virginia, Id. 339. A
The job of a wise leader is to lead, not to be stampeded into something by his
followers. If he refuses to sign off on this, it's a sign of leadership.There's an old lawyer joke that goes something like, "If the
facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the
facts. If they're both against you, pound the table."Hiring outside counsel in this case is little more than hiring someone to
pound the table.
Wasting 2 million dollars to be on the wrong side of history is just dumb. Laws
that promote discrimination should never be a priority or defended. Time to move
into the 21st century Utah.
Frankly, if Utah's AG office isn't capable of defending this on their
own, why are we paying them? If they can't do their job, get them out and
replace them with people who are capable.I don't expect them to
win this case. I don't think it's possible for them to win it, nor
can any "outside expert"; Judge Shelby produced an eminently capable
ruling on the merits of equality and the unconstitutionality of state sponsored
discrimination against LGBT couples.That said, if the AG's
office can't defend this case without "outside experts", how could
they possibly be capable of defending other important cases for the state?
This is about the law and what the people of Utah voted for. One rogue judge
should not change the law, let the people decide. That’s why the U.S. is
separated into 50 states and not just ONE state or whatever. That’s why we
are so unique than any other country. If people don’t like our (UTAH) laws
than LEAVE or try and change it through the proper channels (voting…,
electing politicians with your same beliefs or values). But having one judge
change the law is completely wrong even if it’s for a good cause.
Please don't waste the money. There are plenty of states in the south with
deeper pockets who will fight gay marriage when their turn comes. Utah
can't really win this battle, because "winning" will reflect
negatively on the state. Businesses will be less likely to move or expand here.
The LDS Church, which is so closely linked to the state, will be perceived as
the orchestrator of the whole matter, which I don't think it is at this
time. Let the happily married gays go back to their homes and live their lives
as most of them have been doing, quietly and unobtrusively, just like the rest
of us try to live. I hope Gov. Herbert will have the courage to ignore the
reactionary individuals and groups who try to control politics in Utah. Do the
right thing, governor.
So how many people in Utah have had to call an end to their marriage in the last
two weeks because gays can now get married?
I think Herbert is a progressive like Huntsman.He thinks he knows whats
best for the citizens of Utah instead of upholding the will of the people. This
state was founded by Mormons and it's constution was written by Mormons..
Now we have a few gays from CA in retribution for the church's involvement
in prop 8 and thanks to Obama helping by placing activist judges decide they
want to intrude on the majority of people in this state and force their societal
views on us..This will have consequences and some serious backlash I hope
they know. There's nothing constitutional or fair about forcing the vast
majority to accept something they do not want and can harm our social structure.
The GOP is made up of two conflicting groups -- social conservatives and
business. Sadly, the gay marriage issue will now dominate Utah and its GOP,
sidelining the more critical need for kickstarting Utah's economy, creating
jobs, and attracting business to our fair state. Instead, the ongoing negative
news stories out of Utah will center on the state's fight against a tiny
minority of people's right to love and marry one another -- which will
chase industry and economic opportunity away. The GOP needs to
split up so that its more moderate, pro-business wing can pursue its economic
prosperity agenda and not get mired into the bigoted, anti-business agenda of
Good for you Governor Herbert. To throw good taxpayer money after what is a
loss cause seems to me to a waste. On that grounds alone, we should avoid
hiring outside counsel. On moral grounds, I understand that many citizens see
this issue differently. I am one who feels that all should have the right to
marry despite gender, race, or even numbers. I get that others don't feel
that way. In the end, I think this is a decision that has already been made in
this country and, Utah should simply avoid the losing battle.
How stupid to fight a lost cause when there are so many needy people in de state
of Utah. I bet the authors of the big broadway hit "the book of Mormon"
are already writing an update! Lets hope your prophet has a revelation soon
just like years ago when AfricanAmericans became at last acceptable to your
Chris B - I'm curious. If you prevail in the fight to deny civil rights to
the LGBT community, to whom will you want to deny rights next? Whose rights
will you want to take away?This decision does not in fact take away
anything from you -- why do you want to do that to anyone else?
Chris says it's okay for tax dollars to go to this. If I were
a business owner looking to relocate to Utah, I would pause to consider other
states after this action. Why?1. Utah doesn't believe in
it's own people: Utah government is hiring OUTSIDE council from another
state to fight for the state of Utah. Thats 2 Million Dollars that could be
used for improving the community I want to relocate my business to, or improve
high school graduation scores or retention, and the list goes on.2.
Utah is looking to protect a bigoted law that could harm my business from hiring
the right people. If I look at a really qualified candidate and it comes down
to hiring the best, and he or she happens to be gay and married in another
state, I have to go to the next person who isn't as qualified. So I am
downgrading my quality to protect a bigoted law? Consider the
business culture in Utah. Consider supporting your people instead of throwing
money out of the state.
As an outsider from England, a country where gay marriage has already passed in
law, this is how I predict it will develop. Steadily, homosexual couples will
become a rich and powerful elite. As they cannot have children except by
artificial means, few will have children and, as children are expensive and
time-consumimg to raise, homosexual couples will be better off and have more
time to lobby for their interests. How will a homosexual-influenced society
develop? It will promote the idea that the difference between the sexes is minor
(and will ignore the fact that we differ by one whole chromosome). Normal
couples struggling to raise children will look to those organizations that
support the traditional family for support. The Mormon Church and other
religious groups that have firm beliefs will prosper. In time, a deep resentment
will develop against privileged homosexuals who have insisted on the
redefinition of marriage. Conflict will develop and, to everyone's
surprise, the Mormon Church will defend homosexuals from persecution because
they see every human being as a Child of God. That is my prediction.
I am not a resident of UT, but if I was, I would be all for this fight and
urging the governor to sign off on it. I totally disagree with some of you who
are members of the church who say to roll over, play dead, don't fight it,
and even agreeing with those who are for SSM, saying that it "doesn't
hurt anybody." It does, and you and others are blind to the truth, but such
are the latter days. And as a side note, the Church is not concerned with how it
is perceived in defending traditional marriage, nor should it be.
Appalling that many Utahans thought they could create an amendment that ignores
the 14th Amendment and "the Full Faith and Credit" Clause. We cannot
get around them. I hope someone in the attorney general's office informs
the governor that the state can spend a lot of its money defending this
amendment in courts -- and they will lose. Those who consider a
traditional marriage amendment so important should have worked to amend the
federal constitution -- not the state constitution. Long live A
Please don't waste taxpayer money on this (and yes, though I live out of
state I am a Utah taxpayer too). Let the Sutherland Institute foot the bill for
what will surely be a losing fight. There may be some back and forth on appeal
based on the standard used to make the decision at the district court level, but
ultimately Windsor is the writing on the wall and I don't see Utah winning
this fight. Agree that the AG's handling of it so far has been pretty bad,
but it's also a very hard law to justify or defend from a
legal/constitutional standpoint given the precedent).
Joseph Smith, Jr. said "the truth will cut its own way" and so it will.
Utah once again will be on the wrong side of history. Idaho & Nevada are
two states which will soon be seeing marriage equality. Oregon is another state
in the works. Marriage Equality will be the law of the land & the rising
generations will wonder what in the world all the fuss was about and look back
at the mean, bigoted, hurtful, holier than thou statements that have been thrown
at the LGBT community with shock and dismay. They will ask why in the world
previous generations could be filled with such hate toward a portion of
God's children who are different. This too shall pass and "we will be
citizens" (a quote from Prior Walter the star of Angels in America) and we
are taking our place as full and responsible citizens of our nation. We belong
to your wards, your stakes, we teach your children, we cook your food, fly your
planes, police your streets. There are hundreds of thousands of us raising
incredible families too.
The LDS and Catholic churches and individual contributions that should foot the
bill because whatever secular guise the state of Utah tries to apply we all know
that it's really a matter of religion and trying to impose certain
religious standards on all of society.And we also know up front that
it's a total waste of money and effort.This state and this
country has huge problems. Gay marriage is not one of them. If gay marriage
offends God then I'm more than happy to leave the remedy up to Her.
"I guess that part of the Declaration of Independence that says 'all
men are created equalthat they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that are among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness' doesn't apply to Gay and Lesbian couples."Why just limit your 'pursuit of happiness' to gay and lesbian
couples? Why aren't you supporting all other marriage arrangements such as
polygamy and incest? Don't they have a right to be happy and fulfilled?
Shouldn't they have your support as well?
Most of the commentters have got it right.By forcing it to the
Supreme Court, the likely outcomes are:1- Utans will look petty,
unprogressive, and ruled by the church, even more than now.2- If the
Court decides to hear the case, there is NO evidence to make them overturn the
Amendment, and they might well go ahead and declare marriage equality for all 50
States.This would produce for Utah and the lds a tremendous amount of
criticism from the evangelicals and Bible Belters.As for the cost,
good attorneys are worth it, but good attorneys were paid to defend Prop 8 and
DOMA. Perhaps some of you think that there is magic to be worked by crafty
lawyers, but, in this case, only waste and creation of more division in the
country can ensue.I have been saying all week that the lds church
ought to suggest to the Governor to let this go. No one is going to sue to be
married in the temples, you know, and the showing of grace and acceptance by the
church in a civil matter will be good for all concerned.
It appears that as time passes and the gays that got married are not disrupting
anything in our society, and that pursuing this appeal to the highest court for
2-10 million dollars is a waste of time. It appears that vengeance and hate are
the motivations for those that want this appeal. Utah is going to become, in
the history books, the gay marriage capital of the world. How could anyone ever
again take the church serious. First BY and race, then polygamy, ERA, blacks,
prop 8, and now the gay marriage. How silly we look to the real world. We are
going to loose this appeal, and have additional egg on our face. Gay marriage is
equal protection and civil rights, and is coming to all the United States and
there is nothing we can do to stop it.
How will Utah and the Mormon Church continue to be portrayed in news around the
world? Shelby's decision was world news in a mixed sense: delight that Utah
made a big step forward in tolerance, but also the concern that the Mormon
Church and its political influence would fight it. It would do much good for the
image of Utah and the Church if the matter would not be pursued. In the long
run, same-sex marriage will become a non-issue, accepted by all. Spare us a long
and painful fight that will only negatively reflect on the state and the church.
As soon as liberals fight for polygamists right to marry then I will be a little
more open to their claims they are fighting discrimination and not just changing
the line of who it's ok to discriminate against.
Well who are the rockstar attorneys UT will hire to defend Amendment 3? One
would think they would've hired them to begin with. Have any states
successfully defended similar legislation?
I remember once seeing a booth for the ACLU at the neighborhood party at Liberty
Park on July 24th. They had a bumper sticker which expresses a view that the
Utah legislature, attorney general and Governor Herbert seem to be following:
"The price for liberty is eternal vigilance".If we can make
the argument that the states requirements for getting a married are preventing
people who don't meet those requirements from getting married then we can
apply that argument to anything.I am not a veteran, it is a
violation of my due process and 14th amendment rights to not be able to receive
veterans benefits.I am not a retiree, I am being discriminated
against because I cannot receive social security.We should ger rid
of a progressive income tax because it discriminates against people who make
more money. We need to have a flat tax.Equality under the law.
Let's see? $2 million can be spent fighting a losing battle to dictate to
adults how to live, who they can love and if they can marry or maybe it could be
spent on schools, clean air projects or public safety? I guess that
part of the Declaration of Independence that says "all men are created
equalthat they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that are among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
" doesn't apply to Gay and Lesbian couples. It used to apply to a black
person who wanted to marry a white so why not to a man who wants to marry a
man.Bigotry is bigotry no matter what religion you try to hide
behind. Marriage licenses are not issued by any church they're issued by
the government, just like drivers licenses and dog licenses. Creating a class
of people who somehow don't merit the same rights as the rest of the nation
is simply wrong. It's not up to the federal government to enforce your
This would be money well spent! I'm happy to contribute. If some people
don't want their taxes going towards it, tough. I don't
like my taxes going to many things they do