Same-sex couples suing Utah for recognition of their marriages

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    Jan. 25, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    As long as government controls marriage through regulation, there will be strife and arguments. Get the government out of marriage and let it focus on civil rights. Let social groups define marriage any way they want, and let people join social groups that agree with their personal views.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 12:11 p.m.

    @ I know it: Nothing in the Supreme Court stay addresses mcdugall's comment, therefore it is impossible to claim they disagree with him.

    @ Rocket: When the initial plea for summary judgement was heard, Judge Shelby stated that he would try to have a decision quickly and he set himself a timeline of January 7, with the very clear understanding that his ruling may be issued before that date. When he was ready to issue his decision, the AG's office was notified that the decision was pending and were told when it would be issued. Yes, county clerks were available on Friday to issue licenses, because county clerks are always available on regular business Fridays to issue licenses.

    Interim AG or no, the AGs office dropped the ball. It is not the role of a judge to do the job of the state or the state's lawyers.

    @ Brent: A stay does not mean it is as if the ruling had never been issued - a stay means no further action can be taken on the ruling until the terms of the stay are met. A stay does not invalidate actions that were legal at the time they were performed.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Jan. 22, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    @rocket Science and those who blame Judge Shelby did not stay his ruling

    First, Utah state attorneys should have asked judge Shelby BEFORE the ruling, that if the ruling does not favor the state, it should be stayed. That is the right way of handling. Judge Shelby did not grant stay because it was not asked in the first place. That is the first mistake state attorneys made.

    Second, after gay marriage started, state attorneys should first go to Judge Shelby to request stay. But instead, they surpassed Shelby and directly asked 10th circuit, that is why 10th circuit court rejected the state for three times, because it was not properly handled on procedural grounds.

    Even many lawyers in conservative corner admitted that the state attorneys made several mistakes that only freshman law student would.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 7:55 a.m.


    The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you.

  • Brent Garner Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 22, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    These couples are suing in an effort to compel the state of Utah to recognize all same sex marriages performed between the initial ruling and the Supreme Court stay. What these couples, and the ACLU, seem to forget is that under operating legal theory if a ruling is stayed it is as if that ruling had never been issued. Given the Supreme Court's issuing a stay against the initial order, the state of Utah would have been perfectly within the law to refuse recognition of all those same sex marriages performed. That the state is compromising should be seen as an act of compassion, not vilification.

  • Crisco B Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 11:30 p.m.

    Thank you Linguist. I think my comment came across as a bit too critical, which was not my intent. I am not trying to persecute, a
    I am just asking what the LGBT community believes. In all this talk of marriage, I have not really heard WHY marriage is desirable for this community. I of course realize that gays have feelings and that they can have similar reasons for wanting to get married like anyone else. Seeking an answer straight from someone in the community was what I was doing. Thanks again to Linguist.

  • Cleanliness Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 11:23 p.m.

    I do not think that cris b is suggesting that gays are not people. He is referring to them as any reasonable English speaker would. He is not gay, so he refers to them as they. Not much to read into there. I also do not think he was necessarily suggesting that their reasons were different. There is at times an unfortunate anti religious aura from some people of the LGBT community, so I think he perceives a relative antagonism towards religion by the LGBT community. He is just seeking to know what reasons LGBT persons have for desiring marriage, and his question was answered. Again, not much to read into there. Understand that most of us are not gay, we do not always know your reasons for wanting to get married.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 10:22 p.m.

    I don't see this case being successful for the plaintiffs. While Amendment 3 is unconstitutional, it's still in force at the moment.

  • koseighty Logan, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 9:26 p.m.

    Crisco B wrote:

    "Why do gays want to be married? All of the reasons that I seek a legal marriage are reasons that gays mostly despise it seems (namely religious reasons)"

    Another telling phrase. The clergy were among the first people to the County building when marriage equality was the law in Utah. These were clergy from a different religions in the area that support gay marriage. Not all religions fit into your definition of what religion should be.

    Many religions embrace the gay community. And religion can be just as much a part of a gay person's life as it is a straight person's..

  • koseighty Logan, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 9:21 p.m.

    Crisco B wrote:

    "All told, why do these people want to be "married?" Maybe that is a stupid question, but is it really just the tax breaks? Is it a matter of principle? Why do gays want to be married? All of the reasons that I seek a legal marriage are reasons that gays mostly despise it seems (namely religious reasons). I am willing to grant gays the privilege to be married, but I still am not sure what drives them to actually want to be married. Please explain."

    Wow. Obviously, you have no idea how telling this statement is. The thing you seem to fail to understand is that "they" are people. People marry for a variety of reasons: love, companionship, security, sex, money. You can't give one reason why gay people marry anymore than there is one reason that anyone gets married.

    The fact that you believe that "they" must have some different reason to marry than anyone else, shows that you seem to believe "they" aren't quite human. "They" must have some motive beyond the mundane reasons we all have.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 8:54 p.m.

    mcdugal, perhaps you should remember the underhanded manner in which Judge Shelby imposed his judgement. His timing was well calculated to make the edict at the most difficult time to challenge. He had previously said he would probably rule sometime in January, there was an interim Att General at the time, it was late on a Friday afternoon, the weekend closest to Christmas, persons were on hand and ready to issue marriage licenses and perform marriages even going afterhours and some on Saturday, and people were lined up to be married in momnents. The word was out and there was a determination to take one mans law and force as much through before the voice of reason by Justice Sotomayor, a liberal judge herself would stay the judgement as should have been done originally.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 8:42 p.m.

    Bernie, you may be right the state may loose it's appeal. Remember however, it is not as much a done deal as some who suggest that Utah should just give up would suggest. SCOTUS had the opportunity to rule one way or the other last summer and contrary to what many SSM proponents write in comments, and SCOTUS Did Not rule that SSM is a Constitutional right protected by the 14th, 10th or 5th Ammendments. On Prop 8 they simply said those bringing the suit did not have standing as with that ruling kicked the can to another time another case. If Utah looses at least it will have been in defending what 66 persent of the people voted for. If it wins it will be a major states rights victory either way it will be a landmark case.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 8:36 p.m.

    @christoph - The Constitution is the law of the land, the Bible is not.
    @I know it. I Live it. I Love it. - The AG office was not prepared, it was not the Judge Shelby's fault, it is Mr. Reyas's team that made the procedural mistake.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 21, 2014 8:33 p.m.

    @ Crisco B.
    you wrote: " I am willing to grant gays the privilege to be married, but I still am not sure what drives them to actually want to be married. Please explain."

    Crisco, LGBT people want to get married for the same reasons that most heterosexuals want to get married.
    Love each other
    Wants to have spend the rest of their life with each other
    Wants "to build " a future i.e. buy a house, have children (or not), travel together
    Be secure that whatever wealth they create stays with the one is left behind in case of death
    Able to make decision, right visitations in case of sickness (hospital bound)

    Any reason that heterosexuals have to get married may be applicable to LGBT.

  • Linguist Silver Spring, MD
    Jan. 21, 2014 8:31 p.m.

    @Crisco B

    With respect, gay couples marry for the same reasons that heterosexuals marry. Some of those reasons contradict what you seem to believe about gay people and their motives.

    Some of it is social. Some of it is religious. Some of it is legal. Some of it is financial.

    Marriage is the way society connects two unrelated people who are thus committed to one another.

    We married religiously for the same reasons that other people of faith marry: to establish our commitment to one another before our families, our friends, our community and before God.

    Once we were permitted to marry civilly, we did that as well. We did that for the same reasons that other couples do it-- it provides legal protections and responsibilities to us as a couple rather than as two unrelated individuals.

    We married because we fell in love and because our lives are now completely interdependent-- it would be odd for the law or society to treat us as "single" individuals. We aren't. We don't live our lives that way. We share a house, a mortgage, all our possessions, our income, our bills, our decisions both small and large.


  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    Jan. 21, 2014 8:19 p.m.

    They would have a stronger case if the legislature had passed the change and then changed its mind. Given that the only reason why the same-sex marriages were performed in Utah was due to a temporary hiccup in the judicial process (one that was promptly remedied by the Supreme Court), they are facing a bit of an uphill battle.

  • Crisco B Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 7:38 p.m.

    I think that gays receiving the privilege to marry is an eventuality. They are not going to go home until it happens. Half of me wants to just throw the ball in the air and say "Fine. If you want to get married, here is a piece of paper that says you are married."

    All told, why do these people want to be "married?" Maybe that is a stupid question, but is it really just the tax breaks? Is it a matter of principle? Why do gays want to be married? All of the reasons that I seek a legal marriage are reasons that gays mostly despise it seems (namely religious reasons). I am willing to grant gays the privilege to be married, but I still am not sure what drives them to actually want to be married. Please explain.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 7:36 p.m.

    They should sue the judge for not granting the stay in the first place. He put them in the problem their are in right now, not Utah. All the state is doing is abiding the fact that a stay is in place.

    Saying "hold on, we'll wait for the judge" isn't wrong, illegal, or illogical. Suing the state for doing so is absurd (at best).

  • Vladhagen Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 7:27 p.m.

    This is unfortunately what happens when a judge tries to legislate from the bench. Lots of confusion and silly money is spent on both sides trying to come to a conclusion. There are several polls out there about the opinion of the people: put it up to a vote again and let that be the end of the matter.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 7:14 p.m.

    Totally predictable. That said, I would guess this will require a lot of tax dollars for our state to have to go to court over another questionable law suit? I think it would make more sense for the opponents of the existing law to lobby to put this money into our schools or some other cause rather than using it for a law suit that surely won't go anywhere until the 10th circuit court of appeals or the supreme court rules on the constitutionality of Amendment 3. Just a thought.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 7:11 p.m.

    The Bible is a higher law, it says to forgive and let it go; the Constitution won't solve all your problems.

  • Bernie04 Pickerington, OH
    Jan. 21, 2014 7:02 p.m.

    The state of Utah will lose their appeal, as they should.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 7:01 p.m.

    I'm such a big proponent of diversity I feel very sorry for children raised in an environment without both a mother and father, whether because of homosexual marriage or any other reason. Being exposed to both a female and male influence as a child, generally speaking, is a disadvantage that can be difficult to overcome.