Judge orders Attorney General Sean Reyes to explain actions on same-sex adoption decree

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2014 12:52 p.m.

    @Danclrksvll...Go figure you reside in Tennessee. Texas was my second guess. Please engage in simple research prior to any more one dimensional posting. Many thanks!

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 20, 2014 2:56 p.m.

    @Danclrksvill wrote: "The decree from the judge can go hang. He has no right to force someone to violate their moral beliefs"

    He has every right to order public officials to obey the law.

  • Danclrksvll Erin, TN
    May 20, 2014 12:42 p.m.

    The decree from the judge can go hang. He has no right to force someone to violate their moral beliefs

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    May 18, 2014 4:48 p.m.

    @Liberty for All...Let me attempt once again. For the many of us that are in favor of equality for all our comments are constantly disapproved by D.N. Editors and clearly we are not allowed the same free exchange as those of you who are against equality. A simplistic read of the comments regarding this article I believe would prove my claim quite accurate. Apparently your handle does pertain to all. First. May I ask are you the sole voice of logic and reason regarding "the best interest of the child"? What exactly is your background in childhood development? Are you a practicing child psychologist? Also, in closing I hate to burst your Utah County bubble but the State of Utah does not have a "church". Even though the attempts continue for one on a regular basis.

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    May 18, 2014 4:02 p.m.

    @Liberty for All...Apparently your handle does pertain to all based on your previous outlandish posts. May I ask do you truly believe that you alone are the final voice in determining what is in the "best interest" of the child? In closing, what is your background with childhood development? Are you a practicing child psychologist? That's right I'm assuming you are not so your posts are just more unsupported opinion.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    May 17, 2014 3:59 p.m.

    Shame shame shame on the AG, the state of Utah, their governor, and other religious power brokers for dragging this couple through hell. It's ironic that all of this is being done in the name of religion; as it turns out the real martyr's in this case are the same sex couple.

  • Harrison Bergeron Holladay , UT
    May 16, 2014 4:51 p.m.


    It's obvious you have never read the actual Bill of Rights or you would know they are enumerated as Article the First, Article the Second, etc.

    I apologize for confusing you. I should have used the more common lay terminology of "amendments."

    As far as the 10th amendment. I understand it the way Madison did:

    "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

    – James Madison, Federalist 45, 1788

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    " It is not a personal attack on anyone " Please! Are we stupid? They have to clarify things! You know, ... I better not say it!

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    May 16, 2014 2:35 p.m.

    Harrison Bergeron,

    It looks to me like you're confusing our Constitution's Articles with its Amendments. If you are considering reading the actual text of Judge Shelby's decision, which I suspect you aren't, you might consider reading the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments first. There are 7 Articles and 27 Amendments. Article 6 is the most important for this case, and Amendments 5 and 14 should be understood.

    As for the 10th Amendment, it doesn't mean as much as you think it does. Here is the explanation from Wikipedia:

    "The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited to only the powers granted in the Constitution, has been declared to be truism by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court asserted that the amendment 'added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified.'"

    (Truism means just stating the obvious.)

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    May 16, 2014 2:11 p.m.

    Harrison Bergeron said: "This is not an Article I issue. These Federal Judges are abusing Article XIV the same way the Roe V. Wade court twisted Article IV to legalize infanticide. "

    1.the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
    2.a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

    You mean the way you twisted the word infanticide to mean something it doesn't? Infanticide is still illegal in the USA.
    (see the PG woman in the news)

    It would seem that those arguing in favor of SSM use facts and references, and those opposed use feelings and scriptures. One of these won't hold up in court.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 16, 2014 1:11 p.m.

    @SLC guy;

    The only disadvantage to these children is going to be having to deal with people like you. People like you will try to make their lives miserable; in every other respect, they'll be just like any other family.

  • SLC guy Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 12:59 p.m.

    Adoption is an imperfect solution to a tragedy where in general a child is considered better off without his/her biological parents. This inevitably causes the child some trauma in not knowing his/her biological parents and coming to terms with their place in the world. In this case the child may never know her father. In addition this child will be raised in a same sex environment that puts him/her at further disadvantage. How do we as a society justify the impacts to this child? Who as a parent plans, like these parents did, to bring a child into the world at such a disadvantage?

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    May 16, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    Think about this a little more...
    To try to prevent Utah conservatives from completely becoming unglued, this issue, and possibly others, may be brought to light to strengthen the final decision in favor of SSM.
    It is tragic to think that Reyes and his people find a need to hurt children and families even more now.
    The final decision in favor of SSM will be clear and concise. It should not be much longer til the announcement.
    However, one issue will remain a lasting memory.
    Unfortunately, the unkind words and behavior by many in this state, will continue to be spotlighted throughout Utah, the US, and the world.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 16, 2014 11:52 a.m.

    @U-tar: "It would be nice to see some Judges " explain their actions" once in a while. People dressed in black robes love to legislate and override the will of the people."

    Judges write their decisions. They explain the issues before the court, review the facts and evidence presented by both sides, examine various laws and the precedent of previous rulings, sometimes examine other legal opinion and explain their conclusions.

    Judge Shelby, for example, gave over 50 pages carefully explaining the case, his reasoning, his conclusions and the actions that should result.

    Is that not enough?

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    May 16, 2014 11:36 a.m.


    Judges issue written rulings in all cases. It's all there to read for any person interested.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 16, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    @Harrison Bergeron

    What Constitution are you looking at? The US Constitution comprises of on 6 articles, and you are referencing the 14th?

    Article Four deals with the relationship between the Constitution and National and State Governments.

  • dave_slc Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    To those who consider these judges activist and we are becoming an "oligarchy of judges" I fail to see this. Virtually every judge who looks at this issue has ruled on the side of equality and applying the U.S. Constitution to LGBT people just as it applies to heterosexual people. If it were only one or two judges that ruled as such, the term activist might apply. But the fact that so many legal minds look at it and come to the exact same conclusion, it hardly seems activist and is more in the line of rulings like Loving v Virginia - insuring the rights of the minority are not trampled by the views of the majority. We are a nation of laws and courts applying the highest law of the land is most appropriate.

  • Harrison Bergeron Holladay , UT
    May 16, 2014 11:09 a.m.


    This is not an Article I issue. These Federal Judges are abusing Article XIV the same way the Roe V. Wade court twisted Article IV to legalize infanticide.


    They are not upholding the constitution, they are overturning lawfully amended State Constitutions. In doing so, that are trampling both the spirit and letter of Article X of the very constitution they have sworn to uphold.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 16, 2014 10:38 a.m.


    You don't seem to understand that the "will of the people" doesn't trump the US Constitution. It doesn't matter if every person in this country but one were to vote for an unconstitutional law banning that one person from something, the law would STILL be unconstitutional.

    It really is very simple. The US Constitution is the supreme law of this land.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    "I don't know what explanation the AG will offer but here is one he should offer.

    Children should have a mother and a father."

    That would be a colossal failure for an argument. The child at issue here is the birth child of one of those women. You can't force her to marry a man and you can't forcibly take the child away.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    May 16, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    It appears to be legal common sense to refuse to enforce pending litigation. There is a law on the books banning same sex marriage which is being challenged in a higher court. It just does not make sense for a lower level judge to enforce a decision which is being appealed. If the State of Utah wants to ban same sex adoption, then they are allowed to do so pending the finality of legal action which will very well go to the Supreme Court. In California, Prop 8 was remanded back to a lower court. If Utah's Supreme Court rules otherwise, then it will definitely go to the Supreme Court. This is a strange chain where the "will of the people" is being overridden through the interpretation of one judge after another. Justice Anthony Kennedy as well as Charles Krauthammer have opined that eventually the people will rule in factor of same sex marriage. Until that happens, it is very dangerous for society to allow "rule by judges". That is what caused the Boston Tea Party. Now with a national "Common Core", we have an attempt to take over education on a national level as well.

  • One opinion west jordan, UT
    May 16, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    This is truly a sad state of affairs. There is no way on earth that two women can create a child whether married or not married. It always takes one man and one woman to conceive a child - one egg and sperm. Two women or two men are incapable of furnishing both sides of what created a child. God or nature made human beings to require a father and a mother. If two women or two men want to marry and ignore these evident facts of life, fine, but please don't subject innocent children to this choice.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    May 16, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    I don't think anybody is being mean-spirited here, but it does sound like somebody has dropped the ball.

    The article states that the Court gave the Attorney General's Office the opportunity to object to the adoption before ruling and they declined to do so. If that is accurate, the AG will have a tough time justifying his position.

  • netsrik Draper, UT
    May 16, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    In my opinion Reyes should be in jail. He's absolutely in contempt!

  • Kally Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    @ Liberty and cjb: It may be your opinion that children should have a mother and a father, but there is nothing in the law requiring that nor does legitimate research support that opinion.

    Even the State of Utah doesn't believe that.

    As for your religious doctrines, they are not and cannot be the basis for civil laws.

    There is no legally valid reason to deny these children the two loving parents they already have - and very many legally valid reasons to create a legal relationship between these children and their parents.

  • Kally Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 9:42 a.m.

    @ Flashback: As part of the Kitchen v Herbert process, attorneys for the State of Utah requested summary judgement. Attorneys for the plaintiffs followed suit.

    Summary judgement is requested when the side requesting it believes there are no material facts being disputed - in other words, they believe all the facts are in evidence, both theirs and the ones from the other side, and that they are indeed the truth.

    In other words, it was not Shelby that decided no hearing was necessary - it was the State of Utah. Shelby merely agreed with them that no hearing was necessary and then decided that the facts put forth by the plaintiffs were more compelling.

    @ K: Utah law does not allow cohabiting couples to adopt - only single people or married couples. Laws governing the names on birth certificates are very clear that the individuals listed on the birth certificate must have a legal connection to the child for whom the birth certificate is being issued. All of this together means the only way both mothers can be on the birth certificate for their daughter is if they are married and the child has been adopted by the non-birth mom.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    May 16, 2014 9:42 a.m.

    To all of you who keep pitching a father and a mother or the "traditional family." When I hear these phrases two couples come to mind. For both a biological father and mother, Josh and Susan. For the step-father biological mother combination, Nathan and Stephanie. 'Nuff said.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    May 16, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    Children raised by stable same sex couples do as well as children raised by heterosexual couples--they certainly do better than children who are raised by the system in foster care. The idea that "children have a right to be raised by their mother and father" is reductive, unrealistic and not even true. It's a homily that people say that is not borne out by data.

    Reyes' decision is based on animus pure and simple.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    May 16, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    @Flashback, who claims the Federal District Court "didn't even give the issue a fair hearing or a trial."

    What, pray tell, do you base your assertion on? Did you read any of the filings? Did you even bother to read the judge's decision, which is very well written and took into account all those amicus briefs filed on behalf of the State? It's 53 pages long and covers every single base and issue you've ever mentioned in the DN comments.

    You may be free to disagree with the judge's analysis and decision, but you should have at least read the darned thing first. I've read it, and frankly I have to tell you, I don't see a lot of wiggle room for the State. I looks pretty conclusive and airtight, on the facts and the law.

    Enter this into the search box to find it on Google: 2:13-cv-00217 #90

    We'll be having the 10th Circuit appeal decision in another couple of weeks. You'll see whether they agree with you, or the District Court. All I can say is, don't get your hopes up, Flashback.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    May 16, 2014 8:44 a.m.

    To Isrred: Concerning stock photos, I made a similar observation on the Idaho story earlier in the week. It is one of the numerous stories that have appeared since December accompanied by a photo of two hands. Two hands and only two hands. I realize that photos of couples kissing are thought to be not in good taste but most of the photos I have seen in other publications are of happy smiling couples. What I come up with in looking at these photos is the people for the most part look like normal everyday people. I think the mental image of the readers in many cases wouldn't reflect this reality.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 16, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    I don't know what explanation the AG will offer but here is one he should offer.

    Children should have a mother and a father.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    May 16, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    It would be nice to see some Judges " explain their actions" once in a while. People dressed in black robes love to legislate and override the will of the people.

  • TopDaddy Hooper, UT
    May 16, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    Astoundingly, biology always trumps the desire for equality.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    May 16, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    FT you basically wrote my comment for me. I am amazed at the animus and negativity expressed by so many of the posters either in the name of religion or the "traditional family." I've said it before and I say it again, I continue to be absolutely befuddled why there are those who still wish to deny to others the happiness and legal protections that the rest of us take for granted.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    May 16, 2014 8:19 a.m.


    Who stays home with kids in a same sex marriage. Those in same sex marriages probably negotiate based on the best interests of the family. Those in opposite sex families just default to the female.

    I think that same sex couples have put a lot more thought and effort into having children, so that their child rearing is deliberate, considered and in the best interests of their child. Opposite sex couples often just find themselves with a child or children by default of the biological effects of their pair bonding. Even if the female can earn more for the family in the workplace and assure a more stable foundation for the family, the male defaults to bread winner status.

    You may not like same sex families, but you must admire the ability of them to pursue what is difficult to do (have children), and to give that process due consideration.

  • Ohio-LDS NE, OH
    May 16, 2014 7:50 a.m.


    The DN frequently publishes articles from The Atlantic. Do a search for articles on The Atlantic entited "The Gay Guide to Wedded Bliss” and "What Gays can teach Straights about Marriage." You will find research answering your questions. In short, gay couples tend to be more egalitarian because they do not have firm gender roles to build off of. However, as with heterosexual couples, they tend to specialize as well. They don't split responsibilities 50/50. They split them according to each partners' strengths and interests.

    I'm not gay, but I find the gay marriage model to be a really good fit for heterosexuals who find traditional gender roles limiting, such as when one spouse wants to participate in the good functions traditionally allowed only to the other (e.g., fathers whose heart yearns to nurture; mothers who excel at presiding and providing).

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    May 16, 2014 7:49 a.m.

    I find it amusing that the Deseret News always uses generic stock photos for articles like this one instead of actual photos of the couples, children, and families involved. What are you afraid of Deseret News? Humanizing these loving families that you have been demonizing all this time?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 16, 2014 7:39 a.m.


    How did you and your wife determine who stayed at home and who was the breadwinner? Many times both people work. I have a friend who is a stay-at-home-dad and his wife is the breadwinner.

    We make our determinations in the same way you do. Does that help you understand us better?

    A quick rule of thumb in trying to understand LGBT people: Ask yourself "how would I do it" and you'll have your answer as to how we'd do it too.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    May 16, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    Wow. Reading about the actions of our AG then the comments from previous posters reveals the questinable values of numerous people in Utah. Seems our goverment and it's leaders are encouraged to protect and promote prejudice in our state. The founders of this country were very wise to give us the courts to protect us from the shortcomings that lie within many of us.

  • GingerAle North East, OH
    May 16, 2014 7:35 a.m.

    "With same Sex Couples and their families, how is it determined who "stays at home"?"

    I can only speak for us specifically, and generally about some couples we know.

    We adopted two kids with special needs - medical and other problems. My partner is in IT, makes good money, works for a company that extends partner benefits and adoption benefits and gives her some flex-time. She had siblings but only did minimal babysitting and childcare. She likes kids, does not have endless patience and is not great with icky-suff that kids do sometimes.

    I did a lot of babysitting, have medical training and experience, helped friends and family with childcare, and always wanted to be a mommy. In our case stay-at-home makes sense due to health issues, and I do it because it is a role I like.

    For friends? Reasons like ours. Or one partner can work from home. Or, like straight couples, have daycare and family help and both work.

    And I know several opposite-sex couples with a working mom and stay-at-home dad. It is a trend.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    May 16, 2014 7:35 a.m.

    Quaker, it is not fair judgement when a judge, like Shelby did, put his own bias forward in his decision. He wasn't fair at all. He didn't even give the issue a fair hearing or a trial.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    May 16, 2014 7:33 a.m.

    Libert, this is absolutely about the adults.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 16, 2014 7:20 a.m.

    Liberty for all writes:

    "... by the majority of the state and its church ".

    The State of Utah has a "church"?

    When did this get snuck through the Legislature?

    By the way, which church is the state's official church?

  • ElmoBaggins Escalante, UT
    May 16, 2014 7:16 a.m.

    Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry!Right on Judge Stone!

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 16, 2014 6:48 a.m.

    @Harrison Bergeron 10:26 p.m. May 15, 2014

    We have become an oligarchy of judges. Somehow I hope we can take back our country and restore our once great representative republic.


    You have a problem when judges step in to protect and defend the Constitution, and defend the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority? Sad.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 16, 2014 6:48 a.m.

    I have a suspicion that we will see an end to these "activist" judges when we finally stop creating laws that create different classes of citizens. It's sad that we often need to be reminded to treat people fairly.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    May 16, 2014 6:33 a.m.

    @HarrisonBergeron: The only oligarchy in this country is of those billionaires who buy elections and elected leaders to do their bidding.

    Judges have to fairly decide disputes between factions. We have a lot of freedoms in this country, and those freedoms create conflict. Freedom of religion and freedom of individual action are sometimes at odds. Not that long ago, for example, it was illegal to open your store for business on a Sunday in many localities.

    Our courts, long ago, have interpreted the Establishment Clause to mean that while you are free to practice your own religion, you're not free to impose it on anyone who isn't interested, or use the government to do so.

    This is not "YOUR" country. It's everyone's, and we do not all agree on social issues. I (and my religion) for example believe it's highly immoral to deny equality to people on the basis of sexual orientation. It's also an active violation of our religious freedom to prevent us from officiating marriages of same-sex couples. The opposite is not a violation of yours, since no one is telling you that you have to.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 16, 2014 6:21 a.m.

    Small government proponents and slippery-slope arguers should be all over this, but all I hear is crickets. So I don't think you truly believe what you say you do.

    I would have liked the article to address why the AG didn't file an objection when it had an opportunity. By not doing so, it seems to have created a Catch-22 for itself. And what is the hold up on the state Supreme Court ruling? Wasn't one requested some time ago?

    None of the State's behavior in this story is coming across as child-centric. It's coming across as intrusive and more concerned with supporting a religious-based belief than supporting a child and its parents. Nice. Big Brother rules in Utah.

  • toshi1066 OGDEN, UT
    May 16, 2014 6:14 a.m.

    Here's a wild idea: we don't we stop trying to force people to stop being "icky" and love only certain people. We've already decided that's possible for different skin colors so why not different genders? Also perhaps we could think about what's the best for the children instead of worrying about how "icky" their parents "lifestyle" is. If this baby's birth mother is injured or killed is it really right to take her away from the other parent in her life? Are we really that callous and hateful?

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    May 16, 2014 6:11 a.m.

    I find that most of the opposition to marriage equality is mean spirited and contemptuous.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    May 16, 2014 5:55 a.m.

    You don't have to be married to be on a birth certificate. The argument is bogus.

  • Coasting H Provo, UT
    May 16, 2014 5:45 a.m.

    AG Reyes is not attempting to ignore, defy, or be in contempt. The office reached out to the UT Supreme CT for clarification of the law, and is waitng for an answer. A lower court is demanding an answer now from AG Reyes. Why would not the lower court desire the same thing as the office - waiting for clarification to ensure the interpretation of the law is maintained? I do not see anyone here asking why are they not also fighting to have the father's name on the birth certificate? They desire the natural monther as the article states where is the natural father? It takes a man and woman to have a child, not two of the same sex.

  • Pianoman Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 2:16 a.m.

    I hope this question doesn't come off as offensive to anyone, but I have a question that I need clarification on:In Traditional family settings, it is usually the majority of the time the wife (the mother) that stays home and raises the children as the husband (the father) goes to work and provides for his family. With same Sex Couples and their families, how is it determined who "stays at home"? It is an honest, sincere question that has came to my mind as all of these legal battles have been happening and it would help me better understand the LGBT community. Thanks!

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    May 16, 2014 1:44 a.m.

    Thank you Sean Reyes in standing up for traditional values. Children are not pets or fashion accessories.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 15, 2014 11:08 p.m.

    The AG is an agenda lapdog. All he has to do is explain it. We'll see it for what it is.

  • Harrison Bergeron Holladay , UT
    May 15, 2014 10:26 p.m.

    We have become an oligarchy of judges. Somehow I hope we can take back our country and restore our once great representative republic.

  • Kally Salt Lake City, UT
    May 15, 2014 10:23 p.m.

    @ Blue: When a child is adopted, the birth certificate is changed to reflect the legal parents. When a couple divorces, the parents, although no longer married, are still the legal parents of the child. As long as they are both still recognized as legal parents, the birth certificate is not changed and step-parents are not allowed to adopt.

    Should one (or both) of the parents on the birth certificate surrender their parental rights or have them vacated by the courts, the child becomes eligible for adoption - and once that adoption is completed, the birth certificate is changed to reflect the legal parents.

    This has been done for generations. (There is usually a sealed original birth certificate listing the bio mom - hence the whole searching for your bio parents thing instead of just looking at the birth certificate.)

    Additionally, many children have only one parent listed on their birth certificate - if the parents are unmarried, they must both agree to have the father's name on the certificate. If the child was conceived with donor sperm, there is no "father" to be listed. (At least eight of Nadya Suleman's children have no father listed on their birth certificates.)

  • Northeast Kingdom Portland, OR
    May 15, 2014 10:17 p.m.

    "Rosky said the court gave the attorney general's office, which took the position that all same-sex marriages in Utah are on hold, the opportunity to object to the adoption, but it declined."

    They had the opportunity to object, but they didn't. Now they are running afoul of a court order. They should absolutely be held in contempt.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    May 15, 2014 9:20 p.m.

    “Preserving the 'traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples” - Lawrence, 539 U.S. AT 601 Justice Scalia

    Sounds exactly like what AG Reyes is trying to do here.

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    May 15, 2014 9:15 p.m.

    "To have amended the birth certificates as directed by the court would have put the office of vital statistics in a position of having to recognize the marriages and to accord them government benefits, which they believe violates Utah law." This case is simple gay marriage is illegal in Utah therefor the state office had no other choice under Utah law. The state department acted as they should and obeyed the law of the people on this one.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 15, 2014 9:09 p.m.

    The Attorney General is fighting a mean spirited battle against two loving parents and it is shameful. The judge hopefully will find them in contempt.

    Liberty For All, your name hardly denotes liberty for all, it denotes liberty for those who you think deserve it. That isn't liberty for all.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    May 15, 2014 9:09 p.m.

    This is not about the interests of adults its about the best interest of the child. Furthermore it demeans the institution of marriage to promote these kind of relationships to something other than being child centric. The state is supporting the common sense belief by the majority of the state and its church that a child does best with a mother and father. I think a better understanding of the Proclamation to the World is in order.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    May 15, 2014 9:02 p.m.

    "They had spent three years planning for their daughter, who was born to Amber Leary and is now 18 months old. Stone finalized the adoption on March 26, making them the legal parents of the child. But when the Learys asked the health department to amend the birth certificate with both their names, it refused on the advice of the attorney general's office."

    This is a cheap excuse for a lawsuit. It's a birth certificate, not a parenthood certificate. How does one logically amend a birth certificate to list two females? That's biologically impossible. Birth certificates aren't amended when people divorce and marry someone else, so why should it happen in this case? This isn't even a SS issue, this is a logical issue. It doesn't make any sense.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    May 15, 2014 9:02 p.m.

    The couple must have known the state might not recognize their adoption given they hurried and tried to tie it all together during the lapse created by an activist judge.....I mean the article does say they were planing for three years? It should have been clear that UTah may have not been the safest place to risk your adoption of your child given all the other states around who would have rubber stamped it like Washington or Oregon!

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    May 15, 2014 8:37 p.m.

    Liberty For All, regardless of what the State does, that's not going to change this child's living situation unless the State will be in the business of forcing parents to become heterosexually married.

    What the child does deserve is the protection of being legally connected to both the child's biological mother and her legally-wed wife.

    May 15, 2014 8:33 p.m.

    "Kimberly and Amber Leary, who have been together six years, married and petitioned for an adoption during the brief time same-sex marriage was legal in Utah. They had spent three years planning for their daughter, who was born to Amber Leary and is now 18 months old."

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    May 15, 2014 8:33 p.m.

    "Supporters of the Learys have called the state's action mean-spirited."

    It is mean-spirited to make the above statement.

    May 15, 2014 8:30 p.m.

    Liberty For All,

    So you believe this 18 month old child should be taken away from her natural mother and placed into a foster program?

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    May 15, 2014 8:21 p.m.

    AG Reyes is fighting for the family not against anyone. The state is looking out for the best interest of the child. Every child deserves to be raised by their mother and father.