Utah Supreme Court issues stay in same-sex adoption cases

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    May 24, 2014 3:34 a.m.

    @LovelyDesert eloquently stated..."I don't think children should be raised by that which is unnatural". As ridiculous I believe your statements, comments (including your most recent) and posts "naturally" of course happen to be on a regular basis, the difference is my realization that this is my OPINION.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 21, 2014 9:29 p.m.

    @Abinadis friend: "I hope there is a law that if the birth mother and father does not want a same sex couple to adopt their child that that request will be honored."

    There is no such law in an state that I am aware of.

    And why would there be? Same sex couples make as good of parents as opposite sex couples. There is not one legally recognized reason to have such a law or to let such a law stand.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    May 21, 2014 5:38 p.m.

    The State Supreme Court did the right thing. Give the children a chance, give them either their biological children or the closest thing to it, a Mother and a Father. I don't think children should be raised by that which is unnatural.

  • Kally Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    @ Confused: You are right - it is all online for anyone to check...

    ... and a quick check shows that Furry is correct and you are mistaken.

    The State did not immediately ask for a stay. And when they did, they did it wrong. Their first stay request was filed with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals who turned them down for not following proper procedures and asking Shelby for the stay first. By time the State got around to asking Shelby for a stay, several marriages had already been performed.

    Would Shelby have issued a stay if one had been immediately requested? Who knows - and the question is irrelevant since the State dropped the ball and didn't ask for one.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    May 21, 2014 8:45 a.m.


    They did ask for a stay and the Judge refused to issue it...

    It is all on-line, so you don't have to believe me.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 21, 2014 4:54 a.m.

    @Confused 2:21 p.m. May 19, 2014

    Please remember why the stay wasn't immediately granted upon entry of Judge Shelby's decision -- the State didn't ask for a stay. Unless they ask for one, they don't automatically get one. That was sheer malpractice on the part of the State's attorneys. They should have gone to the hearing handing down the decision with a motion for stay in-hand. They didn't. Put the blame where it belongs -- on the State's attorneys who badly screwed up.

  • ISeekTruth Morgan, UT
    May 20, 2014 4:35 p.m.

    All the mudslinging is unfortunate (and ridiculous). I for one am glad to see our Supreme Court throw down.

  • Abinadis friend Boise, Idaho
    May 20, 2014 3:23 p.m.

    I hope there is a law that if the birth mother and father does not want a same sex couple to adopt their child that that request will be honored.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    May 19, 2014 2:21 p.m.

    Man reading the posts on this article is amusing...

    Guilty until proven innocent...

    Why in the world would any Attorney General knowing how the "Current" law is written that is in direct violation of a lower judge ruling, not look for Clarification with the State Supreme Court?

    Isn't this how this whole situation started in the first place when Judge Shelby refused to issue a stay until the state could appeal his decision? I feel for the couple, because they got caught in the middle... where if a Judge had used common sense, it would never have happened.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 19, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    @Jimmytheliberal 12:12 a.m. May 19, 2014

    @Meckofahess...Sir. As one that possess a Law Degree I would give ANYTHING to see the look on your face along with many on this forum that continue to mention "God" concerning ANY legal argument when the Judge looks at you with absolute utter disbelief. Hate to bust your Utah County bubble but "God" (even yours) is completely irrelevant in a courtroom.


    You're absolutely right. I also have a law degree. When I read some of these comments, I chuckle a bit thinking what my ConLaw professor would do to the people making them, and how judges would react if rhose arguments ever were voiced in their courtrooms. "God's Law" is an argument to be made in connection with religion; it is not controlling in a court of law.

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    May 19, 2014 12:12 a.m.

    @Meckofahess...Sir. As one that possess a Law Degree I would give ANYTHING to see the look on your face along with many on this forum that continue to mention "God" concerning ANY legal argument when the Judge looks at you with absolute utter disbelief. Hate to bust your Utah County bubble but "God" (even yours) is completely irrelevant in a courtroom.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    May 18, 2014 11:08 p.m.

    Hold the phone folks (and all you divorce lawyers get ready.) Any day now the alleged stability of same sex marriages will prove its' proponents wrong as divorce courts become inundated with same sex marriages falling apart. No, your same sex marriage does not impact my life in any way whatsoever...the impact on future generations of children will be devastating.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 18, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    @Forgiveness is the Answer:

    The Supreme Court decides if laws are Constitutional, including state laws and amendments to state constitutions. George Mason, who helped craft the Constitution, said federal judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void."

    Originally the US Constitution said that blacks counted as 3/5 of a person for representation and taxation. SCOTUS declared that provision of the US Constitution null and over many decisions eliminated segregation.

    Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers and one of the most influential interpreters of the Constitution: "The mere necessity of uniformity in the interpretation of the national laws, decides the question. Thirteen independent courts of final jurisdiction over the same causes, arising upon the same laws, is a hydra in government, from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed."

    Put this in simple terms. If you are married in Utah you are still married if you go to California or Virginia. Gays want the exact same rights and protections for our families.

    The majority does not get to vote on the rights of a minority.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 18, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    @ForgivenessIsTheAnswer 10:29 p.m. May 17, 2014

    There are serious misstatements of law in your comment. Let me enlighten you.

    1. Article 1 Section 3 of the Utah Constitution specifically provides that "... the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land." In other words if there is a conflict between the Utah Constitution and the US Constitution, the US Constitution prevails and decides the issue.

    2. Amendment 9 to the US Constitution provides "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Marriage has long been determine to be a fundamental right. Therefore it is protected by this Amendment.

    3. Amendment 10 states in part that the states' rights do NOT include powers prohibited by the Constitution to the States. One of the powers prohibited to the states is to deny or disparage the rights protected by Amendment 9.

    4. Amendment 14 provides in part "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Denying the right of marriage to couples without rational basis violates this Amendment.

    The Judges' decisions were constitutional and sound.

  • Forgiveness is the Answer St George, UT
    May 17, 2014 10:29 p.m.

    Gimme a break!
    A judge cannot override the Constitution. The people voted. The legislature can pass illegal laws, and judges can issue unconstitutional rulings. It is one thing for a judge to declare a law unconstitutional, for many laws are illegal. But, a judge is not above the Constitution, and hopefully the federal Supreme Court knows its place also--that States have their own Constitutions the validity of which was guaranteed when the state joined the Union, including the process by which states are free to amend their Constitutions. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with it, unless the 14th trumps the 9th and 10th Amendments found within our Bill of Rights.
    What I don't get is, why is the Executive Branch sitting back and allowing a judge to dictate what happens when the chief Executives of a state swears an oath to protect and defend its Constitution? The state Constitutions are not second-class citizens--in fact, except for a very few clauses within the U.S. Constitution, state Constitutions trump federal law.
    People need to read and recognize our State Constitution and its place in the hierarchy of laws.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    May 17, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    To continue what MoNoMO stated in #12, the same ABC News/Washington Post poll had two other significant poll results.
    On the question: "Regardless of your own preference on the issue, do you think that the part of the U.S. Constitution providing Americans with equal protection under the law does or does not give gays and lesbians the legal right to marry?" The results found 50% of the respondents felt it does give the legal right to marry with 41% responding negatively.
    Directly related to this story, on the question: "Do you favor or oppose allowing gay or lesbian couples to adopt a child?" On this question 61% felt that gays or lesbians should be allowed to adopt with 34% responding negatively.
    MoNoMo's question was actually 59% for and 34% against. In all cases undecided participants made up the balance of the respondents. Actual survey dates were Feb. 27th through March 2nd, 2014.

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    May 17, 2014 10:29 a.m.


    "a small percentage will accept these social anomalies?"

    Seems that boat sailed right past: An ABC News/Washington Post survey conducted two months ago indicated that 59% of Americans favored allowing gay or lesbian couples to legally wed.

    Nobody expects you to change your beliefs.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    May 17, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    History will look back and wonder why anyone would punish another human being for the way they were born. And do it in the name of religion. Just like we look back on the inquisition and wonder how could leaders of a religion be so cruel and unjust.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 17, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    The state should also stop letting single people adopt. It's virtually the same thing. Utah is so anti family.

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    May 17, 2014 9:19 a.m.

    This is how you protect "family values?"

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    May 17, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    The birth certificate should show the birth father and mother, if that's the issue.

    And where the child has adoptive parents there should be a slot for those names as well. Called full disclosure.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    May 17, 2014 8:52 a.m.

    History will look back at this episode with gratitude that the authorities in Utah paused to carefully review all the implications of this highly controversial issue. Over time, a minority percentage of citizens will accept these social anomalies. The grandchildren of citizens who cherish traditional families and marriage will appreciate how their grandparents challenged and questioned the perversion of what our Creator deemed best for his children. Our grand children will learn to love all of God's children but they will also learn to recognize choices and lifestyles that are contrary to God's will and not in the best interest of society.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 17, 2014 8:44 a.m.

    I feel so sorry for this loving couple. This is a sad and mean spirited lack of judgment on the part of our Attorney General. Looks more like political posturing instead of valid concern for the welfare of this child.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 17, 2014 8:28 a.m.

    And this from a state which based its entire anti-marriage equality argument on the claim that it was "child centric"!

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 17, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    Dear Kitchen Team,

    Please forward to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals this stay order and the State's objection to the adoption with this message:

    "Honorable Justices,

    Enclosed please find additional evidence that Amendment 3 places children in jeopardy before the law."

    You might also add, "We would like to acknowledge the kind cooperation of the State in providing this evidence," but that's your call.

    Thanks and continued best wishes,
    Karen R.
    Houston, TX

  • BoringGuy Holladay, UT
    May 17, 2014 1:11 a.m.

    Disgusting ... They are married. Let them adopt!

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 17, 2014 12:09 a.m.

    History will look back at this episode with puzzlement. Give it time: equality, marriage, children and adoption for all couples who want to form a stable and loving family, whatever their race or gender, will just be standard. Same-gender parents will remain a small minority, like interracial couples, but just as well part of enriching diversity. And our grandchildren will wonder what all the fuss was about.