Utah to appeal same-sex marriage ruling to U.S. Supreme Court

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    July 15, 2014 10:23 p.m.

    "It, in fact, is [a constitutional right]. Read Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)"

    That's good news to alotta folks... polygamists, those who would marry a sibling, or their son or daughter, aunt, uncle, or all of them together. Not to mention homosexuals. This Loving case has opened alotta doors that were heretofore closed to alotta deserving folks. One such is suffering emotionally and otherwise, as we speak.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    Really, I think your comments are the most balanced of any I've seen on tis subject. Kudos!

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    July 14, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    I see that the largest numbers of "Like" counts are for the comments made by proponents of marriage equality, and many of these comments are from Utah citizens. God Bless America!

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    July 14, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    It is amazing that an intelligent well educated person - Attorney General Sean Reyes is unable to separate church and state. Saying that he protects a 10 year old state law made when the citizens of Utah were less informed about the LGBT community is just as bad as protecting any old law that is discriminatory against U.S. Citizens. I suspect another vote on marriage equality would show a larger percentage of Utah citizens support it. I agree that wasting the tax payers money is not fair to the citizens of the great state of Utah.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2014 2:57 a.m.

    @ molecman

    The same-sex movement has won 20+ (and counting) court cases in a row now. That simple fact proves that everything you said is wrong. Also, voting on civil rights is a ridiculous idea. We have the Constitution to protect the rights of minorities, so a vote will not be necessary.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    July 12, 2014 9:35 p.m.

    Cardston, Alberta
    "Ignoring God's laws has always wrought ill upon a people or a nation."

    --- Uh, you are in Canada, which has marriage equality quite awhile and is doing way better than the USA. We ignored God's law "Thou shalt not kill" in Iraq, killed hundreds of thousands, and ruined our economy. You guys also made the right call on that one.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    July 12, 2014 8:51 a.m.

    Ignoring God's laws has always wrought ill upon a people or a nation.

  • Archangel98662 Vancouver, WA
    July 11, 2014 8:20 p.m.

    "Marriage isn't a right by the US Constitution. Some have used Section 1 of the 14th amendment to say that it is a right. It isn't."

    False. The definition of liberty: 'the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.' Therefore the 14th amendment does indeed apply.

    "Marriage isn't specifically called out (in the Constitution)..."

    In that case, the 9th Amendment applies. It reads,

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Even if a right is not specifically listed in the constitution, this does not mean that it is not retained by the people at large. Marriage, a legal contract between two consenting, non-consanguineous adults is in fact, a civil right.

    Voting to remove rights from a minority of citizens is tyrrany, and is plainly unconstitutional. The democratic process of voting has been abused nationwide, relegating LGBT citizens to "second class" status. Marriage equality is coming to all, and rightly so.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 11, 2014 4:30 p.m.


    Let's have another vote? Only if YOUR marriage is on the ballot with ours.

  • jazzer St. George, UT
    July 11, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    No matter what happens I am okay with the result. I have no problem with same sex marriage

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    July 11, 2014 8:52 a.m.

    "Utah voted and decided. If you want to change it, lets have another vote."

    As it has been mentioned in these forums a gazillion times, you can not "vote on" the civil rights of law-abiding citizens. You don't have to agree with the Supreme Court's 14 distinct, separate rulings that marriage **is** a fundamentally right of all Americans, but they are fact, they are on the public record, and they are law.

    The Constitution stands for the proposition that some rights cannot be left to the whims of a democratic majority. Equality before the law is one of those rights.

    You can not deny rights to those you have moral objection to, and you should be glad of this, lest you find yourself in the minority one day on a civil matter important to you.

  • molecman South Jordan, UT
    July 10, 2014 5:29 p.m.

    Marriage isn't a right by the US Constitution. Some have used Section 1 of the 14th amendment to say that it is a right. It isn't. The 14th amendment protects against laws that "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Marriage isn't specifically called out and does not fall under 'life, liberty, property or protection.' The 14th amendment never would have passed if it included same-sex marriage protections. Likewise, voters should decide, preferably STATE voters. Utah voted and decided. If you want to change it, lets have another vote.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 10, 2014 3:30 p.m.

    In 1838 Gov Lilburn Boggs signed into law the expressed will of both a majority of citizens of the state and the dominate religion of the state. The law was about states right to defend the purity of traditional citizenship - not passing the law would have devalued citizenship for the majority and caused children to be confused.

    The law was challenged a few times, and was defended by conservative legislators who were defending the expressed will of the people of the state, and protecting children who would obviously be harmed.

    The law stood the test of time - one might say it was based in God given tradition - until1976 when a (probably liberal) Gov. Kit Bond violated the right of the state to determine who can live in the state, and against the expressed will of the people who supported the law, decided it was unconstitutional and overturned it.

    It would be wrong for Gov. Herbert and AG Reyes to stop defending an unconstitutional law - only a liberal would do that. Conservatives know that defending constitutional rights means defending laws that are unconstitutional. They do it for the children.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 10, 2014 2:32 p.m.

    lost in DC says:

    "Marriage equality is a misnomer. Marriage equality exists WITH amendment 3."

    Now there's some real Orwellian thinking for you. No, lost, Amendment 3 does not promote equality, it promotes bigotry and discrmination.

    "Where do you get off saying LGBT people are being treated as second class or being denied rights? See the paragraph above."

    See the paragraph above.

    @As If!;

    You believe SSM is wrong, don't have one. Easy peasy.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    July 10, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    The Utah AG's office released a statement that reads in part "Utah’s Constitutional Amendment 3 is presumed to be constitutional unless the highest court deems otherwise."

    This sort of misstatement of the law is what has fascinated me about Utah's formal legal defense and how DN has covered it without scrutiny or correction.

    Contrary to what Utah AG is representing to the citizens of Utah, there no longer is a presumption of any sort.

    Today, as a matter of law, Amendment 3 is unconstitutional.

    The federal district court for Utah held that, and so did the 10th Circuit panel. If the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to do nothing by denying cert, the current stay expires and all SSM-bans throughout the 10th Circuit immediately become invalid, and marriage licenses must be issued to same-sex couples.

    The legal status quo -- not a mere presumption -- is that SSM must be permitted across the 10th Cir., and Utah faces a ticking clock to change that status quo.

    SCOTUS need not deem Amendment 3 unconstitutional. It already is. SCOTUS may -- but need not -- first agree to hear the case, and then decide the 10th Cir. erred.

    July 10, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    @ Tiago: Thanks for your comment. While the quotes from judges are very good, most posting on this board, and comments in general, show just as much hatred toward people of faith from the LGBT community as the other way around.

    TrueVoice: I have no hatred, fear or distrust toward gay people in general. I have mistrust in the activitsts who use lies and name-calling to advance their position. My mistrust of gay activists is based on their actions, not my prejudice. The outright bullying used against anyone in the public eye who supports traditional marriage is shameful, but apparently acceptable.

    Fractals: That is correct. I do not support the Ammendment 3 ban on civil unions. Govt is to preserve the rights of all, not erode one groups rights in favor of another, smaller group.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    July 10, 2014 1:15 p.m.

    To those claiming marriage is a "State issue"

    How does that jive with the Full Faith and Credit Clause?

    "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

    Marriage is a public act, record and judicial proceeding. So how can a marriage performed in one State not be recognized in another?

    Even if Utah were to somehow claim they would not marry same-sex couples, if that couple were to go to Colorado, get married there, Utah would still have to recognize and honor it.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2014 12:56 p.m.

    "In defining or recognizing marriage in a legal sense, the state is free to define it however it wants. "

    The Supreme Court did strike down interracial marriage bans so there are limits to what the state can do.

    "How do you know that I do you know that I do not support secular legal status for gay couples?"

    Well Amendment 3 bans that so that must mean you oppose Amendment 3 even if you don't support same-sex marriage itself.

    @lost in DC
    "Where do you get off saying LGBT people are being treated as second class or being denied rights?"

    When we had bans on interracial marriage that was a rule that applied to everyone as well. Would you say interracial couples were being treated as second class citizens or denied rights?

    "Intolerance and bigotry are MORE alive and well among LGBT supporters as they are among traditional marriage supporters."

    One side is based on affirmation of love, the other is based on opposition.

  • As If! Layton, UT
    July 10, 2014 12:44 p.m.

    Go UTAH! I pray daily that they win the case for traditional marriage. Whatever the outcome, I still believe that gay marriage is wrong, but I guess I'll just have to live with it if it is allowed. Just don't expect me to be happy with it. Don't expect me to condone it. If it stays out of my life, I'll be one happy camper. Once again: GO UTAH!

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    July 10, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    @Redwing: "I know that I am no bigot"

    Well.... your statements and positions clearly indicate that you are indeed engaging in bigoted behavior, by their very definition. While I realize it stings to hear it, it is this *behavior* that indeed makes one a bigot, by definition.

    Bigotry is the state of mind of someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics... like homosexuality.

    "I only ask that my rights be respected the same as LGBT rights."

    In this particular situation, you are not the one having your civil rights denied to you. And, no, you really DON'T want to have your rights "respected" the same way the LGBT community does in Utah currently. To do so would mean you can not marry the one you love. It would mean you could be denied an apartment or house rental just because of who you are. It would mean you could be fired from your job just for being who you are.

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 10, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    Some Utahns will be able to take pride in financing the successful effort to rightfully being same-sex marriage to all states through their tax dollars PLUS their tithing PLUS their direct contributions to the plaintiffs.

    Undoubtedly that will include some Mormons Building Bridges and other enlightened members.

  • xert Santa Monica, CA
    July 10, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    Bring it on! Let's make absolutely sure that when the history books read about Jim Crow laws, the states and people of Alabama and Mississippi led the charge of segregation now and forever. When denying basic human rights and marriage equality to our friends in the LGBT--Utah and it's elected leaders led the charge to the Supreme Court and had their collective noses rubbed in the decision. Folks, if you didn't learn it through your Prop 8 embarrassment, you are about to learn it---and learn it well. Hate don't pay!

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    July 10, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    @lost in DC
    re "Where do you get off saying LGBT people are being treated as second class or being denied rights?"

    I'd encourage to review the decisions from the judges who have considered the laws against gay marriage. They all confirm that the right to marry the person you love is a fundamental right. There is a long history of legal precedent in the US confirming this.

    The state of Utah accepts in its arguments that Amendment 3 infringes on the rights of gay and lesbian people.

    There must be a strong rational basis for the government to violate a fundamental right of a citizen.

    The state of Utah tries to argue that they have sound legal/public benefit reasons for infringing on these rights. The many problems and inconsistencies with Utah's reasoning are clearly addressed in the 10th circuit's decision and in the many similar court cases.

    The argument is not whether or not gay and lesbian's rights are being infringed upon. The argument is whether or not the government has rational basis for this infringement. If you believe they do, please explain your case and make sure the state of Utah gets the message.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 10, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    @lost in DC,

    "Marriage equality exists WITH amendment 3."

    Okay, I will play along with your argument for a minute. Let's compare this to the state passing a law stating the we all are now required to eat a peanut-based diet. Voters approved the law because most enjoy peanuts, and they value the health benefits of such a diet. The law does not offer any exemptions for people who are allergic--even though such a diet is dangerous for them. What options do those who have peanut allergies have? Well, they could go along with the law and get sick or maybe even die, they could defy the law and find a diet that fits their needs, or they can move to a state that acknowledges their needs. My question, however, is why should they have to do any of these?

    I hope you think my example is a silly comparison because that is how your argument comes across to us. Telling us that we have equal rights because we can choose to marry someone of the opposite gender or live alone is not completely honest and rather insulting.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 10, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    @lost in DC et al: Let's consider another scenario. The state of Oregon passes a law saying that no marriage in Oregon will be valid unless it takes place in a setting open to the public. City Halls are fine. Baptist Churches are fine. LDS meetinghouses are OK.

    Ceremonies in the Portland Temple are not.

    And they say with a straight face, "We're not discriminating against Mormons. We're only saying that all marriage ceremonies have to be open to the general public. No secret Lutheran ceremonies, and no ceremonies in any judge's closed chambers. No one will keep you from having your ceremony wherever you want; we just won't recognize it for legal purposes."

    This is treating everyone equally, is it not? Would you have a problem with that?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 10, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    "Attorney General Sean Reyes has a sworn duty to defend the laws of the state, according to his spokeswoman Missy Larsen.

    "Utah’s Constitutional Amendment 3 is presumed to be constitutional unless the highest court deems otherwise," the statement said."

    Now if Judge Shelby had ruled the other way, would Herbert have urged Kitchen et al to appeal the decision, because, after all, Shelby's decision should be ignored and the matter appealed all the way to SCOTUS?

  • birdbath SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 10, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    @ Azazael - the valid reason you state isn't backed by legitimate research. And the Proclamation is not legitimate research - it is a document making claims that one accepts through a process of faith - a process which, by definition is not rational. The court must decide, at the very least, whether there is a rational basis to deny SSM couples the right to marry. Your argument doesn't meet that standard and I think the majority of the US Supreme Court judges will agree.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 10, 2014 8:48 a.m.

    Schwa, there you go again, marxist
    Vandals spend money on spray paint to vandalize highway signs and the state needs to pay money to clean up the mess; plaintiffs spend money to fight amendment 3, and the state needs to spend money to fight the mess the plaintiffs create.

    Really? Florwood, KarenR
    Marriage equality is a misnomer. Marriage equality exists WITH amendment 3. Regardless of what twisted logic the SS crowd uses, when the same rules apply to all, all are being treated the same. Just because a gay does not want to marry a straight does not mean they do not have the right to marry; I don’t WANT to smoke, but I still have the right to do so.

    Tolstoy, marxist
    Where do you get off saying LGBT people are being treated as second class or being denied rights? See the paragraph above.

    Intolerance and bigotry are MORE alive and well among LGBT supporters as they are among traditional marriage supporters.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    July 10, 2014 8:48 a.m.


    RE: "Intolerance and bigotry are just as much alive and well among LGBT supporters as they are among traditional marriage supporters."

    The case for legalized same-sex marriage is about millions of gay and lesbian Americans petitioning the judiciary for remedy of a fundamental right they are currently denied.

    “Plaintiffs ask for nothing more than to exercise a right that is enjoyed by the vast majority of Virginia's adult citizens. They seek simply the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond.” -Judge Arenda Wright Allen, Virginia

    The organized opposition to same-sex marriage is based, fundamentally, on a belief that homosexuality is sinful and wrong. Laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are designed to stigmatize and marginalize gay people and their families.

    The courts have reviewed the arguments against marriage equality and found them lacking rational basis.

    "These arguments are not those of serious people." - Judge John G. Heyburn II, Kentucky

    "Entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration." - Judge Bernard A. Friedman, Michigan

    July 10, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    @ Tolstoy:

    Not sure where you got that from my post. Civil unions provide " all the same rights and protections (I) have". How do you know that I do you know that I do not support secular legal status for gay couples? I did not mention this in my post.

    Intolerance and bigotry are just as much alive and well among LGBT supporters as they are among traditional marriage supporters. To deny this is hypoctitical and dishonest....

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 10, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    "And regardless which side of the issue a person is on, nothing will be legally determined in any newspaper comment section. It's just a place for people to vent..."

    Yes, this forum has been a place to vent, but it has also been a place for people to present and debate their arguments. I believe this has been advantageous to marriage equality proponents. Most human beings value fairness and aren't inclined to deny it without good reason. What has been demonstrated on these pages is that the argument against SSM is neither good nor based in reason.

    One's loyalty to his/her religious teachings may suffice for some, but this may be challenged soon as well. I'm seeing more and more stories of believers taking the debate directly to their own churches and using their own holy books and theologies to make their arguments. So I don't know that one's church or temple is going to be a refuge for these ideas either - at least not for much longer. Forums such as this one have simply illuminated the subject to clearly and human nature is kicking in. We value fairness.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    July 10, 2014 6:31 a.m.

    In defining or recognizing marriage in a legal sense, the state is free to define it however it wants. No one has a right to make other people support, endorse, or reward their lifestyle.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2014 12:12 a.m.

    While the health care needs of many Utahns go unmet due to legislative inaction the State of Utah proceeds to deny the rights of its LGBT community. This is a fantastic waste of money (how much health care could these legal expenses pay for), and in the suffering it engenders is criminal. In the future Utah will be seen as the Mississippi of the SSM struggle.

  • Florwood American Fork, UT
    July 9, 2014 10:51 p.m.

    When the route to appeals was first laid out, it was estimated it would cost the state 3 mill. Looks now like the cost, even with the Supreme COurt appeal, will be more like 600k. I think it is well worth the money to put Utah's name on the case and established a national law.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    July 9, 2014 10:42 p.m.

    You don't hold bad feelings towards LGBT people you just support thier being treated as second class citizens that do not get all the same rights and protections you have, how could anyone see that as intolerant?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 9, 2014 10:09 p.m.

    @Mike Richards: "The 7th Circuit ruled that States HAVE the right to define marriage."

    When? The 7th stayed marriage in Indiana pending appeal but ruled the state must recognize the marriage of a lesbian couple where one partner is dying of cancer. If they did not expect marriage to be legalized, why set the precedent by allowing one?

    And, if it was pre-DOMA, I am not sure it counts.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 9, 2014 9:37 p.m.

    In other news, Alito refused today to halt same-sex marriages in Pennsylvania pending an appeal of the case which struck down the voter approved ban.

    The Governor decided not to appeal the May decision which declared the ban unconstitutional, so a county clerk decided to take it up. Two lower courts have ruled she does not have the legal right to be involved, and she asked to Supreme Court to stay the marriages while she works on the appeal.

    Alito said no without making comments.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 9, 2014 8:06 p.m.

    Will Utah be the linchpin again? Utah's legislature provided the 36th and final state vote that was needed for the repeal of Prohibition. Perhaps Utah's appeal of the same-sex marriage case will make same-sex marriage legal throughout the United States.

    I believe the Supreme Court will merely let the appeals court ruling stand.

  • John Locke Ivins, , UT
    July 9, 2014 8:06 p.m.

    I am a strong supporter of the Church of Jesus Christ's definition of the family, as set forth in "Family Proclamation," on September 23, 1995 by President Gordon B. Hinckley, and which has been supported by Church Authorities since. Until Heavenly Father reveals another definition, that is the one with which I am in agreement; so should every other member of the Church who believes that a Prophet speaks to us today. They raise their hands after a General Conference to support him and all Church leadership. I will do likewise until Christ's return to earth.

    I hold no animosity nor do I bear any guile towards my fellow man or woman for beliefs they hold, and will always love my neighbor as myself, as we are taught by Christ, but if their actions (not their beliefs) are contrary to that which has been revealed, and if they act on those beliefs, it is up to their Bishop, if they are members of his ward, to decide what is necessary, and, until then, it is not my place to pass judgment.

  • poyman Lincoln City, OR
    July 9, 2014 7:51 p.m.

    I love this state... Its willing to take on issues that are important to families and the future of this country... Too many people and too many Government entities worried about Political Correctness.

    The Constitution is clear... Sexual Preference does not qualify one to become a member of a "protected class"...

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 9, 2014 7:27 p.m.

    Two federal judges on the 10th circuit ruled that Utah's law was unconstitutional. The 7th Circuit ruled that States HAVE the right to define marriage. When two federal courts rule opposite, it is time for the Supreme Court to rule. No amount of seminar postings from the same-sex marriage crowd will change the outcome.

  • Rastafari S.L.C. UT Salt Lake City, UT
    July 9, 2014 6:48 p.m.

    I think the State of Utah is doing a good thing. A Supreme Court ruling will put the rest of the states opposing Same-Sex marriage to rest. It's a 95% chance that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Same-Sex marriage. Utah is doing the rest of the country a favor. It will be interesting to see what the people of Utah do to avoid following the rule of law for our country....

  • thinkblue DRAPER, UT
    July 9, 2014 6:04 p.m.

    This is a lost cause. II think we should just accept the marriages and get on to something else. Lots of things to legalize in Utah, and lost of things to make better. This fight will not be won in the highest courts.

  • Azazael Salt Lake City, UT
    July 9, 2014 5:15 p.m.

    The state of Utah has a valid reason for defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The AG should continue defending the laws of Utah.

    I believe that marriage between a man and a woman is the best scenario for raising children. I believe that this best case scenario ought to be promoted by our society. Our laws currently benefit marriage; thereby promoting marriage. This is right and proper.

    While I do believe that same-sex couples deserve rights and protections under the law; I don’t believe that same-sex unions should be promoted by the law on equal footing with marriage.

    I don’t believe that not promoting same-sex unions on equal footing with marriage constitutes violence or a denial of basic civil rights. I do not believe that changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions is required to grant civil rights.

  • yarrlydarb Ogden, UT
    July 9, 2014 5:01 p.m.

    Proof positive: Utah loves to beat a dead horse, especially when it costs the taxpayers money.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 9, 2014 4:41 p.m.


    Maybe my comments come across as judgment to you, but they are not intended to be. Perhaps you may want to look at it from my perspective:

    For most of my life I denied that aspect of my life. I had to always had to put on an act in front of everyone. You cannot imagine the countless derogatory comments I would hear my friends and family members would say about gay people. I secretly thought that if they felt that way about others, they surely felt the same way about me.

    After I came out, I would still hear occasional derogatory comments made. The friend would quickly add a side comment for me like "don't worry, you are not like those gays."

    Finally, imagine overhearing family members talking about a popular TV show that has some gay characters. Imagine hearing a sister you love with you entire heart say that such things make her sick. Imagine the heartache to think that something that I cannot change about myself makes her sick. I still love that sister and her family, but I feel a little awkward whenever I am around her now.

  • AerilusMaximus Berryville, VA
    July 9, 2014 4:33 p.m.

    "It's doing the most UN constitutional thing by trying to make law from religion, and that is completely unacceptable."

    Trying to make law from religion? Seriously? The law was ratified by the voters in the state of Utah. The Church itself doesn't engage in politics except to the fact that they tell members to be engaged in politics by exercising their right to vote.

    I never heard the bishop of any of my wards tell the members to vote for Mitt Romney or any declaration sent down from the 1st Presidency suggesting the same.

    The only political thing I ever heard from the pulpit was regarding prop 8. Besides that there really is nothing specifically political at church.

    To suggest the Church is somehow involved in telling politicians in Utah or anywhere else how to do their job is pretty far off.

    There are plenty of states that have marriage amendments that in a nut shell define a marriage is between a man and a woman.

  • AerilusMaximus Berryville, VA
    July 9, 2014 4:22 p.m.

    @ Really???

    I think I must have read your post too fast perhaps and accidentally drew wrong conclusions and so I re-read your post.

    I think the word bigot is what threw me off. I think this word is used far too much in LGBT discussions.

    While I am sure their are some actual bigots on both sides I don't think it is as common as people how people use the word.

    This may be different with LDS in Utah but in my experience with other LDS I don't see this.

    Regardless I don't think labeling people bigots helps to further the discussion on for either side.

    I know you said "bigoted thinking" but that isn't much better than just calling someone a big.

    In the scriptures it states "As a man thinketh so is he".

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    July 9, 2014 4:21 p.m.

    Re: "This issue isn't going to live or die by the actions of any individual state, since there are significant differences in the basis of their appeals."

    If the Supreme Court upholds the 10th Circuit's ruling, it will invalidate all state laws prohibiting marriage between people of the same gender. It will effectively legalize same-sex marriage in all states.

    Re: "Regardless which side of the issue a person is on, nothing will be legally determined in any newspaper comment section."

    Agreed, but I am a big fan of communication and dialogue. The Supreme Court's decision either way will disappoint millions of Americans. Engaging in dialogue helps us understand the other side and temper our expectations and reactions. The trend I've seen is that as we discuss this issue, people tend to become more understanding of the positive benefits of allowing gay and lesbian people to marry. Personally I have moved from opposition to strong support in the last five years as I have learned more about the issue.

    July 9, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    It is sad to see the animus SSM supporters have for those who disagree with them. I have no bad feelings toward same-sex couples. I have several co-workers and friends who are gay, and love them just as much as any of my friends.

    I have little respect for a movement that resorts to half-truths and name-calling to shame others to their side. Many have joined the SSM camp because they don't want to be called "bigots", or have believe the media lies and one-sided reporting. I will never be one of them. I know that I am no bigot, and no activist on the other side of the country with a bully pulpit can tell me otherwise.

    I only ask that my rights be respected the same as LGBT rights. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening....

  • Copacetic Logan, UT
    July 9, 2014 4:11 p.m.

    @ Ernest T. Bass:

    Why is that you and other like-minded people always think it's a waste of time and money to pursue anything you don't agree with? As it so happens, there are still well over a hundred million people in this country who still disagree with SSM. Therefore, it's still an important issue that deserves to be pursued until an ultimate decision can be made. Therefore Utah is doing the right thing in trying to get to that point. That way, nothing can be left on the table. Is that really so hard to understand?

    It shouldn't be. But then again, from reading the DN comment sections on this issue over the past year, it's become obvious that SSM advocates are often some of the most judgmental and intolerant people who often show no inclination toward even trying to understand any other viewpoints. In fact, they are sometimes extreme to the point of seeming militant... even trying to ruin the lives and careers of anyone who at anytime in the past supported anything opposing their viewpoints. Such attitudes can often be dangerous on multiple levels.

  • SharpHooks Sandy, UT
    July 9, 2014 3:59 p.m.

    You're not paying attention.
    NO...'violence'-- in and of itself-- is not condoned by the church towards the LGBT, but what is the difference between violence, and denying another human being--BY LAW-- basic rights?
    And since, for better or for worse, the Governor, AG, and much of our legislature IS LDS, this reflects on them more than the general population.
    Our state government is not sensitive to the rights of ALL people--which is it's premier responsibility.
    It's doing the most UN constitutional thing by trying to make law from religion, and that is completely unacceptable.
    And our tax money is being sent to the sewer in their ill-conceived, losing battle.

  • Copacetic Logan, UT
    July 9, 2014 3:58 p.m.

    @ Really:

    To say you are honestly trying to understand how others feel about the issue is a huge stretch. Your initial comment comes across as being very judgmental and even somewhat vindictive.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 9, 2014 3:41 p.m.


    Please explain a little bit more. I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that have animosity towards anyone. I mentioned the different types of fear that my friends have expressed, and then I threw in my thoughts. There is no anger nor animosity here; just a willingness to try and understand how others feel about the issues while standing firm in my convictions.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    July 9, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    This decision is as wise as the decision to invade Iraq: a horrible waste.

  • birdbath SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 9, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    @ Mike Johnson. I think Kennedy will uphold the 10th Circuit on fairly similar grounds. Considering the whole question turns on (at the very least) a rational basis test, I think this is kind of done deal. Faith is not rational - by definition. What are the AG's arguments going to be, that is my question? I can't think of any.

  • SharpHooks Sandy, UT
    July 9, 2014 3:37 p.m.

    A lost cause---a losing battle.
    The conservatives all screamed bloody murder when $4 mil was earmarked for pursuing the criminal activities of John Swallow. And there was all kinds of probable cause, glimpses of recorded evidence...that was no witch hunt.

    Legal same sex marriage IS going to be the law of the land...this is indisputable.
    (Just ask your man Hatch)
    So how many millions are being wasted battling g a battle that can't be won?
    I am as heterosexual as can be, but gay marriage affects me exactly ZERO.
    It only bothers those who allow it to.
    Get with the real world, Governor Herbert. I know it's hard, but please try.

  • AerilusMaximus Berryville, VA
    July 9, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    @ Really???

    It is interesting how you use that word when targeting a group of people yourself especially LDS people.

    I haven't heard the LDS Church condoning members to violence to LGBT people, threatening them, or encouraging others to do so either.

    Why all the animosity?

  • Mike Johnson Stafford, VA
    July 9, 2014 3:21 p.m.

    I am looking forward to reading what Justice Kennedy writes on this subject as he is the justice that generally decides these issues.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 9, 2014 3:18 p.m.

    Nothing to lose except money.

    After all, deficits don't matter.

    Great forum for lawyers to build PR, for their firms.

    Utah adds to its Republican resume.

    Let's do this thing.


    If taxpayers don't pay for all or part of this Republican pet project...

    why is there is always enough money for Republican pet projects?

  • Tators Logan, UT
    July 9, 2014 3:18 p.m.

    @ Red Corvette...

    Apparently you don't read national news much. This issue is an ongoing concern for a large number of states who are currently taking the same path as Utah and who still support traditional marriage in their individual state Constitutions.. This issue isn't going to live or die by the actions of any individual state, since there are significant differences in the basis of their appeals.

    Since significant percentages of people in our country are still supporting each side of the issue, each side should give respect and credence to the other. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen often enough. Just reading the comments to each SSM article that comes out will verify as much. And regardless which side of the issue a person is on, nothing will be legally determined in any newspaper comment section. It's just a place for people to vent and show their maturity or lack thereof.

    Instead of making a federal binding ruling, it's possible the Supreme Court will allow latitude for each state to make the determination for itself by considering it an individual state issue.
    But regardless, hopefully animosity can and will be kept to a minimum.

  • birdbath SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 9, 2014 3:16 p.m.

    Seriously, what is the AG suppose to do? He doesn't have much of a choice. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would want to write the appeal but I'm sure someone out their has a mortgage that needs to be paid.

  • Florwood American Fork, UT
    July 9, 2014 3:14 p.m.

    I hope the Supreme Court will take the case and give a nationwide ruling for marriage equality.

  • Starry starry night Palm Springs , CA
    July 9, 2014 3:13 p.m.

    Oh the irony! If it is Utah's plea to the Supreme Court that finally causes the inevitable ruling declaring null and void all state bans on same sex marriage, than I can die happy. Knowing that the very people who tried to influence an election in California's prop 8 through old lies about gays and children and through tithing and massive organized donations will ultimately be the undoing of this national disgrace against our gay fellow Americans is almost too much to bear.
    This will inevitably set off a religious campaign in which they claim that it's not "real marriage". But who cares? As long as our rights are no longer abridged by people who feel that they are superior and who want to thrust their religious beliefs onto others...Who cares what they think? As Mayor Newsom of San Francisco said a few years ago regarding gays marrying in California before prop 8 put and end to those marriages..."Whether you like it or not...."

  • AerilusMaximus Berryville, VA
    July 9, 2014 3:11 p.m.

    @ Schwa

    Yes, let's get the re-definition of marriage over and done with.

    When we are through with redefining marriage of two same sex people we can start with redefining marriage in all sorts of other ways as well.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 9, 2014 3:03 p.m.

    After discussing this topic with different friends, I have discovered that fear is the number one reason people are opposed to marriage equality. It seems to me that the biggest percentage of friends who are against marriage equality admitted that they will have to face the fact that they in fact have bigoted attitudes and will be required to actually make an effort to extend true love towards their gay and lesbian neighbors and family members.

    Another group are those of my friends who are still struggling with their own sexual identities. They fear that marriage equality will force them out of the closet and possibly lose the love and support of many friends and family members

    There is, of course, a small group that honestly fear that marriage equality bring upon God's judgment, and we will eventually be destroyed like ancient civilizations. Personally, I believe God's judgment will be that we are one step closer to treating more of his children with love and dignity.

    Change is difficult, but when we allow it to happen, beautiful things can happen.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    July 9, 2014 2:50 p.m.

    This is all such a waste of money. I wish they would just get this all over with and allow marriage equality everywhere. It's the right thing to do, and it is inevitable. Let's get on with it.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 9, 2014 2:29 p.m.

    Considering that article yesterday about the increase in webtraffic on this site from June 2014 vs June 2013, I wonder how much of that is just from stories this year about people repeatedly asking the same questions again and again after being told no. Between Kate Kelly and same-sex marriage, that's gotta be a lot of it.

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    July 9, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    If at first you don't succeed. Try try again.