Quantcast
Utah

Gov. Herbert has not signed off on $2 million price tag to defend Amendment 3

Comments

Return To Article
  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 10:00 p.m.

    This would be money well spent! I'm happy to contribute. If some people don't want their taxes going towards it, tough.

    I don't like my taxes going to many things they do

  • JoCo Ute Grants Pass, OR
    Dec. 29, 2013 10:30 p.m.

    Let's see? $2 million can be spent fighting a losing battle to dictate to adults how to live, who they can love and if they can marry or maybe it could be spent on schools, clean air projects or public safety?

    I guess that part of the Declaration of Independence that says "all men are created equal
    that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that are among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness " doesn't apply to Gay and Lesbian couples. It used to apply to a black person who wanted to marry a white so why not to a man who wants to marry a man.

    Bigotry is bigotry no matter what religion you try to hide behind. Marriage licenses are not issued by any church they're issued by the government, just like drivers licenses and dog licenses. Creating a class of people who somehow don't merit the same rights as the rest of the nation is simply wrong. It's not up to the federal government to enforce your religious beliefs.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Dec. 29, 2013 10:32 p.m.

    I remember once seeing a booth for the ACLU at the neighborhood party at Liberty Park on July 24th. They had a bumper sticker which expresses a view that the Utah legislature, attorney general and Governor Herbert seem to be following: "The price for liberty is eternal vigilance".

    If we can make the argument that the states requirements for getting a married are preventing people who don't meet those requirements from getting married then we can apply that argument to anything.

    I am not a veteran, it is a violation of my due process and 14th amendment rights to not be able to receive veterans benefits.

    I am not a retiree, I am being discriminated against because I cannot receive social security.

    We should ger rid of a progressive income tax because it discriminates against people who make more money. We need to have a flat tax.

    Equality under the law.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 29, 2013 11:36 p.m.

    Well who are the rockstar attorneys UT will hire to defend Amendment 3? One would think they would've hired them to begin with. Have any states successfully defended similar legislation?

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 11:45 p.m.

    As soon as liberals fight for polygamists right to marry then I will be a little more open to their claims they are fighting discrimination and not just changing the line of who it's ok to discriminate against.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 11:50 p.m.

    How will Utah and the Mormon Church continue to be portrayed in news around the world? Shelby's decision was world news in a mixed sense: delight that Utah made a big step forward in tolerance, but also the concern that the Mormon Church and its political influence would fight it. It would do much good for the image of Utah and the Church if the matter would not be pursued. In the long run, same-sex marriage will become a non-issue, accepted by all. Spare us a long and painful fight that will only negatively reflect on the state and the church.

  • get her done Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 11:50 p.m.

    It appears that as time passes and the gays that got married are not disrupting anything in our society, and that pursuing this appeal to the highest court for 2-10 million dollars is a waste of time. It appears that vengeance and hate are the motivations for those that want this appeal. Utah is going to become, in the history books, the gay marriage capital of the world. How could anyone ever again take the church serious. First BY and race, then polygamy, ERA, blacks, prop 8, and now the gay marriage. How silly we look to the real world. We are going to loose this appeal, and have additional egg on our face. Gay marriage is equal protection and civil rights, and is coming to all the United States and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:57 a.m.

    Most of the commentters have got it right.

    By forcing it to the Supreme Court, the likely outcomes are:

    1- Utans will look petty, unprogressive, and ruled by the church, even more than now.

    2- If the Court decides to hear the case, there is NO evidence to make them overturn the Amendment, and they might well go ahead and declare marriage equality for all 50 States.
    This would produce for Utah and the lds a tremendous amount of criticism from the evangelicals and Bible Belters.

    As for the cost, good attorneys are worth it, but good attorneys were paid to defend Prop 8 and DOMA. Perhaps some of you think that there is magic to be worked by crafty lawyers, but, in this case, only waste and creation of more division in the country can ensue.

    I have been saying all week that the lds church ought to suggest to the Governor to let this go. No one is going to sue to be married in the temples, you know, and the showing of grace and acceptance by the church in a civil matter will be good for all concerned.

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 30, 2013 1:00 a.m.

    "I guess that part of the Declaration of Independence that says 'all men are created equal
    that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that are among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness' doesn't apply to Gay and Lesbian couples."

    Why just limit your 'pursuit of happiness' to gay and lesbian couples? Why aren't you supporting all other marriage arrangements such as polygamy and incest? Don't they have a right to be happy and fulfilled? Shouldn't they have your support as well?

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 1:07 a.m.

    The LDS and Catholic churches and individual contributions that should foot the bill because whatever secular guise the state of Utah tries to apply we all know that it's really a matter of religion and trying to impose certain religious standards on all of society.

    And we also know up front that it's a total waste of money and effort.

    This state and this country has huge problems. Gay marriage is not one of them. If gay marriage offends God then I'm more than happy to leave the remedy up to Her.

  • Wyomingnative Wilson, WY
    Dec. 30, 2013 1:12 a.m.

    Joseph Smith, Jr. said "the truth will cut its own way" and so it will. Utah once again will be on the wrong side of history. Idaho & Nevada are two states which will soon be seeing marriage equality. Oregon is another state in the works. Marriage Equality will be the law of the land & the rising generations will wonder what in the world all the fuss was about and look back at the mean, bigoted, hurtful, holier than thou statements that have been thrown at the LGBT community with shock and dismay. They will ask why in the world previous generations could be filled with such hate toward a portion of God's children who are different. This too shall pass and "we will be citizens" (a quote from Prior Walter the star of Angels in America) and we are taking our place as full and responsible citizens of our nation. We belong to your wards, your stakes, we teach your children, we cook your food, fly your planes, police your streets. There are hundreds of thousands of us raising incredible families too.

  • UteExpat New York, NY
    Dec. 30, 2013 1:46 a.m.

    Please don't waste taxpayer money on this (and yes, though I live out of state I am a Utah taxpayer too). Let the Sutherland Institute foot the bill for what will surely be a losing fight. There may be some back and forth on appeal based on the standard used to make the decision at the district court level, but ultimately Windsor is the writing on the wall and I don't see Utah winning this fight. Agree that the AG's handling of it so far has been pretty bad, but it's also a very hard law to justify or defend from a legal/constitutional standpoint given the precedent).

  • rightascension Provo, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 2:11 a.m.

    Appalling that many Utahans thought they could create an amendment that ignores the 14th Amendment and "the Full Faith and Credit" Clause. We cannot get around them. I hope someone in the attorney general's office informs the governor that the state can spend a lot of its money defending this amendment in courts -- and they will lose.

    Those who consider a traditional marriage amendment so important should have worked to amend the federal constitution -- not the state constitution.

    Long live A 14.

  • gittalopctbi Glendale, AZ
    Dec. 30, 2013 2:44 a.m.

    I am not a resident of UT, but if I was, I would be all for this fight and urging the governor to sign off on it. I totally disagree with some of you who are members of the church who say to roll over, play dead, don't fight it, and even agreeing with those who are for SSM, saying that it "doesn't hurt anybody." It does, and you and others are blind to the truth, but such are the latter days. And as a side note, the Church is not concerned with how it is perceived in defending traditional marriage, nor should it be.

  • Lord Avenue Ilford, UK, 00
    Dec. 30, 2013 2:52 a.m.

    As an outsider from England, a country where gay marriage has already passed in law, this is how I predict it will develop. Steadily, homosexual couples will become a rich and powerful elite. As they cannot have children except by artificial means, few will have children and, as children are expensive and time-consumimg to raise, homosexual couples will be better off and have more time to lobby for their interests. How will a homosexual-influenced society develop? It will promote the idea that the difference between the sexes is minor (and will ignore the fact that we differ by one whole chromosome). Normal couples struggling to raise children will look to those organizations that support the traditional family for support. The Mormon Church and other religious groups that have firm beliefs will prosper. In time, a deep resentment will develop against privileged homosexuals who have insisted on the redefinition of marriage. Conflict will develop and, to everyone's surprise, the Mormon Church will defend homosexuals from persecution because they see every human being as a Child of God. That is my prediction.

  • radiohio Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 4:07 a.m.

    Chris says it's okay for tax dollars to go to this.

    If I were a business owner looking to relocate to Utah, I would pause to consider other states after this action. Why?

    1. Utah doesn't believe in it's own people: Utah government is hiring OUTSIDE council from another state to fight for the state of Utah. Thats 2 Million Dollars that could be used for improving the community I want to relocate my business to, or improve high school graduation scores or retention, and the list goes on.

    2. Utah is looking to protect a bigoted law that could harm my business from hiring the right people. If I look at a really qualified candidate and it comes down to hiring the best, and he or she happens to be gay and married in another state, I have to go to the next person who isn't as qualified. So I am downgrading my quality to protect a bigoted law?

    Consider the business culture in Utah. Consider supporting your people instead of throwing money out of the state.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 4:35 a.m.

    Chris B - I'm curious. If you prevail in the fight to deny civil rights to the LGBT community, to whom will you want to deny rights next? Whose rights will you want to take away?

    This decision does not in fact take away anything from you -- why do you want to do that to anyone else?

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Dec. 30, 2013 5:19 a.m.

    How stupid to fight a lost cause when there are so many needy people in de state of Utah. I bet the authors of the big broadway hit "the book of Mormon" are already writing an update! Lets hope your prophet has a revelation soon just like years ago when AfricanAmericans became at last acceptable to your church.

  • Ricardo Carvalho Provo, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 6:00 a.m.

    Good for you Governor Herbert. To throw good taxpayer money after what is a loss cause seems to me to a waste. On that grounds alone, we should avoid hiring outside counsel. On moral grounds, I understand that many citizens see this issue differently. I am one who feels that all should have the right to marry despite gender, race, or even numbers. I get that others don't feel that way. In the end, I think this is a decision that has already been made in this country and, Utah should simply avoid the losing battle.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 6:07 a.m.

    The GOP is made up of two conflicting groups -- social conservatives and business. Sadly, the gay marriage issue will now dominate Utah and its GOP, sidelining the more critical need for kickstarting Utah's economy, creating jobs, and attracting business to our fair state. Instead, the ongoing negative news stories out of Utah will center on the state's fight against a tiny minority of people's right to love and marry one another -- which will chase industry and economic opportunity away.

    The GOP needs to split up so that its more moderate, pro-business wing can pursue its economic prosperity agenda and not get mired into the bigoted, anti-business agenda of social conservatives.

  • Joemamma W Jordan, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 6:25 a.m.

    I think Herbert is a progressive like Huntsman.
    He thinks he knows whats best for the citizens of Utah instead of upholding the will of the people. This state was founded by Mormons and it's constution was written by Mormons.. Now we have a few gays from CA in retribution for the church's involvement in prop 8 and thanks to Obama helping by placing activist judges decide they want to intrude on the majority of people in this state and force their societal views on us..
    This will have consequences and some serious backlash I hope they know. There's nothing constitutional or fair about forcing the vast majority to accept something they do not want and can harm our social structure.

  • utahboni Ogden, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 6:26 a.m.

    So how many people in Utah have had to call an end to their marriage in the last two weeks because gays can now get married?

  • Old Scarecrow Brigham City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 6:40 a.m.

    Please don't waste the money. There are plenty of states in the south with deeper pockets who will fight gay marriage when their turn comes. Utah can't really win this battle, because "winning" will reflect negatively on the state. Businesses will be less likely to move or expand here. The LDS Church, which is so closely linked to the state, will be perceived as the orchestrator of the whole matter, which I don't think it is at this time. Let the happily married gays go back to their homes and live their lives as most of them have been doing, quietly and unobtrusively, just like the rest of us try to live. I hope Gov. Herbert will have the courage to ignore the reactionary individuals and groups who try to control politics in Utah. Do the right thing, governor.

  • Area 52 Tooele, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 6:46 a.m.

    This is about the law and what the people of Utah voted for. One rogue judge should not change the law, let the people decide. That’s why the U.S. is separated into 50 states and not just ONE state or whatever. That’s why we are so unique than any other country. If people don’t like our (UTAH) laws than LEAVE or try and change it through the proper channels (voting…, electing politicians with your same beliefs or values). But having one judge change the law is completely wrong even if it’s for a good cause.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 7:04 a.m.

    Frankly, if Utah's AG office isn't capable of defending this on their own, why are we paying them? If they can't do their job, get them out and replace them with people who are capable.

    I don't expect them to win this case. I don't think it's possible for them to win it, nor can any "outside expert"; Judge Shelby produced an eminently capable ruling on the merits of equality and the unconstitutionality of state sponsored discrimination against LGBT couples.

    That said, if the AG's office can't defend this case without "outside experts", how could they possibly be capable of defending other important cases for the state?

  • DaveRL OGDEN, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 7:05 a.m.

    Wasting 2 million dollars to be on the wrong side of history is just dumb. Laws that promote discrimination should never be a priority or defended. Time to move into the 21st century Utah.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Dec. 30, 2013 7:07 a.m.

    The job of a wise leader is to lead, not to be stampeded into something by his followers. If he refuses to sign off on this, it's a sign of leadership.

    There's an old lawyer joke that goes something like, "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If they're both against you, pound the table."

    Hiring outside counsel in this case is little more than hiring someone to pound the table.

  • Mugabe ACWORTH, GA
    Dec. 30, 2013 7:26 a.m.

    Here's some facts to consider in this case: The decisions upon the legislation under the 14th amendment to the constitutions, are worthy of the most careful consideration in this regard. It was determined at an early day (1869), that this amendment did not execute itself, but required legislation on the part of congress. Griffin's Case, Chase's Dec. 364. And this led to the passage of the civil rights act of the 1st March 1875 (18 U. S. Stat. 395).

    Under the 4th section of this act, it has been determined, that the amendment not only gave the privileges of citizenship to the colored race, but denied to any state the power to withhold from them the equal protection of the laws, and invested congress with power to enforce its provisions; consequently, that a state law which denied to them the right of serving as jurors, though qualified in other respects, was a violation of the constitution. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 . And that an indictment will lie against a state officer, for excluding persons of color from the jury list. Ex parte Virginia, Id. 339. A

  • Mugabe ACWORTH, GA
    Dec. 30, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    But the prohibitions of the 14th amendment have exclusive reference to state action; it is the state which is prohibited from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; the federal statute was intended to protect the colored race against state action, and against that alone. Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313 ; Neal v. Delaware, 103 Id. 370; Bush v. Kentucky, 107 Id. 110.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    Don't do it.

    Use those funds for education (yeah...right) or better, to continue investigating Shurtleff and Swallow.

    This is only a "battle" against giving all people equal rights....and eventually, same sex marriage will be legal everywhere, so don't waste the 2 mil.

    Grow up.
    Be adults.
    Face reality.
    Quit being so painfully puritanical.

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 7:41 a.m.

    I am for the many I've spoken with that are of the opinion "if a person doesn't like gay marriage then they don't have to participate". The governor and many other politicians here need to look at the history of opposing other people's rights. This is similar to denying people the right to interracial marriage and others. Millions of dollars will be fruitlessly spent and the end result will be equal rights for this people. This is evidenced by other states in our country.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Dec. 30, 2013 7:52 a.m.

    Chris B.: I feel somewhat qualified to speak to the liberal view on polygamy.

    Think about what can of worms you're seeking to open. If polygamy was legal, you'd also have to legalize polyandry, as well as just plain "poly" (which are any number of multi-partner webs of relationships, including bisexual ones).

    Poly-whatever is a whole different category of thing than a two-person life-partnership arrangement. It's unthinkable until the details of family and relationship law can support it. Here are some of the questions that need answers first:

    Division of property, custody, child support, alimony. What happens when one of the parties divorces the rest? Will that destroy the entire family economically or emotionally?

    How is property distributed on someone's death? Intestate estates?

    Employer-provided health insurance? Family coverage?

    Social Services: A myriad of problems here. Determining how much income a family can have and still qualify. College tuition aid, food stamps, etc. Exploitation of support programs.

    Come back after you think through all the things that civil law would have to accommodate, and the costs, then we'll talk.

  • boatersteve Fruit Heights, Utah
    Dec. 30, 2013 7:55 a.m.

    The moral side of homosexuality aside, one of the most important duties of government is to assure the continuation of the country, both internally and externally, which means government has a very fundamental interest in marriage. Since without help homosexual marriages produce no children and therefore do not contribute to the perpetuation of the state, government by defifintion, has an interest in determining whether those marriages should exist. Governor Herbert should spend the money to defend Utah's definition of marriage.

  • RSLfanalways West Valley, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    It is a waiste of time and money. Put it towards something that will benifit the state and not just outside state lawyers.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    "He thinks he knows whats best for the citizens of Utah instead of upholding the will of the people. This state was founded by Mormons and it's constution was written by Mormons.. Now we have a few gays from CA"

    Here's a newsflash for you: Most of the gay and lesbians here in Utah are descended from those same Mormon families that you are. These are native Utahns; brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters of families with strong Utah Mormon roots. The idea that they are outsiders is blind to reality.

  • rondonaghe Mesilla/USA, NM
    Dec. 30, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    Two million dollars is like the estimate one gets from a building contractor. The homeowner latches onto to that amount and commits herself to it. Then once the house is halfway up and it's too late to back out, the price suddenly doubles, and then triples. Does anyone really think the lawyers that go into this case are going to watch their spending? The price of keeping part of the Utah population oppressed will cost Utah far more than this estimate, which appears to have sprung from a seat-of-the-pants estimate.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Dec. 30, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    boatersteve is concerned that the population of the state will dry up if gays can marry. Considering that gays comprise a grand total of 5% of the population and in any event aren't going to reproduce any more outside of marriage than within it, I'm having trouble understanding his argument.

    Does he think that gay marriage somehow makes more gay people? I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way, any more than painting a house makes more houses.

  • vidottsen Payson, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    The larger issue is not to deny consenting adults their desire to be legally united, but rather what this may lead to down the road when governments dictate to religions what they can and cannot include within their own rules and doctrine. How long will it take for the government to say that the LDS church, in order to be recognized as a church, must include same-sex marriage in its temples? Do we allow one set of beliefs or standards to abolish the freedom of religion, freedom to practice religion the way it has been established? You speak of hate. Read the statement from the leaders of the LDS church. God loves all mankind, yet sets a standard of morality within the bounds he sets. I would conjecture there is more hatred felt against the LDS church than from its members toward the rest of humanity. I do not hate people with same-set attraction. I do, however, believe all churches have the right to set a standard and to be allowed the right to do so.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    If the people of Utah had seen fit to elect a qualified person as Attorney General perhaps this move would not be necessary.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    Dec. 30, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    The wrong side of history? The LDS Church is not about being progressive, it is about maintaining moral and ethical standards as interpretted from Scripture -- that's just something that religions do. The moment the LDS church decides that it should just give in to the wave they would find themselves drowning in political chaos like everyone else. If the LDS church sees a moral conflict here, and they do, they have every right to stand for their values. The political arena in Utah may be a separate matter, but people have a right to voice their opinions regardless of how futile the fight might appear. Its what makes the difference between true heroes and mere pawns.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    Hey Joemamma

    Your marriage, if you ARE married must be on shaky ground if you think gay marriage will affect it.
    Why would you deny ANYONE equal rights?

    This is not Mormonland...it's one of the 50 United States of America.
    So deal with it.
    If you don't like it, why don't you just move?

  • Area 52 Tooele, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    A Quaker; your right painting a house does not make more houses but painting a house red, white, or any color can make more houses of that particular color. It’s called a TREND and all Trends start out small before eventually everyone is doing it. So your argument does not stand.

  • Guam_Bomb BARRIGADA, GU
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    "There's nothing constitutional or fair about forcing the vast majority to accept something they do not want and can harm our social structure." Sounds exactly like the segregationists who defended Jim Crow.

  • Area 52 Tooele, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    Mike in Sandy, what will you do it Utah does end up winning this battle? Will you move? And actually it is Mormonland so you deal with it!

  • wear2manyhatz Holladay, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    Is it possible...conceivable?...that Gov Herbert may NOT sign off on this? That he may understand how much money will go down the rabbit hole? Medicaid Expansion looms, as do so many other necessities for Utahns. Will he actually put Utahns before the Legislature's and Ms. Ruzicka's vendettas against the LQBTQ community? If he can avoid this losing lawsuit and say, ""No", as he did with sex ed in schools, I will be both shocked and thrilled. He may not win in another election, but he will prove that, at least, twice in his career he did the right thing!

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    @ Teka: Youare forgetting the "similarly situated" part of the equality argument.

    @ Area52: The citizens of a state cannot vote to violate the Federal Constitution - that is what makes us the United States instead of just a bunch of independent states.

    @ boatersteve: The State argued a point very similar to yours - that marriage is about the "gold standard" of two married heterosexual people and their biological offspring. But then the State was unable to explain why they allow couples who are obviously past childbearing years to marry. Why allow some couples unable to naturally reproduce to marry while denying that same opportunity to other couples who may also be unable to naturally reproduce?

    Many, many people have brought up your point, but not one has been able to articulate a sound answer to the Judge's question - nor have anyone, including the State, been willing to agree that only couples willing and able to have children should be allowed to marry.

    Your question also ignores the realities at divorce, reproductive technologies, and adoption. Heterosexual couples are raising children due to these situations and so are gay couples. Why deny children of gay couples the protection of married parents?

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    Utah state procurement rules require that any state agency seeking goods and services first look to see if those services are available through Utah Correctional Industries before going to outside vendors. With a little luck, UCI may soon be able to offer the legal services of John Swallow. That would obviate the continuity concern that new legal counsel would be entering the case midstream. It would also save the state scads of money by taking advantage of UCI's greatly discounted labor rates compared to the private sector. Win-win all around.

  • wear2manyhatz Holladay, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    @ Chris B re:Polygamy

    Fair question. I have to think that, eventually, we will have to have both civil and religious marriages, and you CAN have one without the other. But it's unlikely that anything more than the first marriage will allow for "marriage benefits, as well as "marriage disadvantages"!

  • bc5 Missoula, MT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    Most of the supporters of gay marriage love to compare gay rights with sex and race civil rights cases. They are wrong based on Supreme Court case law. For a group to reach heightened scrutiny the court looked at four areas: 1,) History of discrimination. 2.) Ability to contribute to society. 3.) Immutability. 4.) Relative Political Powerlessness

    Judge Shelby analyzed all four in his opinion and concluded that gay marriage met all four. Item three is where he deviated from established law. Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic. The Supreme Courts teachings tell us that an immutable characteristic is determined solely by accident of birth, It does not mean broadly done that cannot be undone. Judge Shelby expanded this definition to include a group that might be able to change but should not have to because it is their identity.

    Utah can win this by providing solid scientific studies that show that being gay is not an immutable characteristic. A good place to start is Dr, Paul McHugh's amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Windsor case (DOMA). Dr, McHugh MD is a professor at John Hopkins and is an expert in studies concerning sexual identity.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    vidottsen: I don't see any danger in this. The State neither supports nor prohibits our religious practices. My church, the Meetings of Friends General Conference of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) supports Equality, and many of our Meetings have conducted religious marriages of same-sex couples even when our states refused to recognize them. If all states simply agreed to civilly register all religious marriages of any recognized house of worship, could you accept that? Or must your own church doctrine control everyone in the country for you to be happy?

    Area 52: I'm pretty sure homosexuality is not "a trend." Most people have a pretty good idea what their sexuality is, and what kind of partner they're attracted to, and not only are in no hurry to change that, but aren't even capable of it. I could never be gay. Neither could the other 95% of the population that isn't gay already. Anyone who thinks it's even possible must lack the certainty of their own sexuality.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:16 a.m.

    I'm kinda glad they're appealing. I mean think about it:
    1. The higher this goes the more broader reaching it could be, perhaps nationally if it gets to the Supreme Court.
    2. Amendment 3 and others have been so ineptly defended I feel pretty confident about the final result and...
    3. My 2 dollar Utah taxpayer contribution could help get same-sex marriage nationwide while making the state leadership suffer humiliations galore. As far as 2 dollar investments go, that's a noble cause.

  • My house was stolen Roy , UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    This is a Constitutional question and it is pretty much ingrained in substantive due process within the courts. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Here is some substantive case law about 14th amendment. It is very clearly shown,the Process Due to the Plaintiff is Liberty.

    "While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty . . . guaranteed [by the Fourteenth Amendment], the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized . . . as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 . In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of "liberty" must be broad indeed.

  • Steve Cottrell Centerville, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    If we need to hire outside legal help to argue this case, one wonders why we have an Attorney General's office. Are they not employed to argue for the state's laws?

  • Area 52 Tooele, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    Kalindra, where or how does this violate the Federal Constitution?

  • DH48 West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    I believe strongly that marriage is sacred and between a man and a women but I cannot get comfortable with spending large sums of money on a battle that will not be won. The courts are becoming very liberal and the issue of gay marriage is a popular band wagon right now. It is a shame that one man has the ability to disregard the vote of the people but that is the direction our country is going.

    Let's spend our time and efforts on more worthy and worthwhile causes. Causes that have a chance of being successful and doing good.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    Conservatives like Chris B love spending taxpayer dollars for their frivolous lawsuits until they run out of other people's money. If Chris wants to finance this lawsuit, let him. But keep your darn hands off my taxpayer dollars. My taxpayer dollars will go for roads, public services, and education, NOT frivolous lawsuits that the government has no business being in.

    Let Chris and whatever religious organization pay for this lawsuit. Leave the rest of us out of it!

  • Neanderthal Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    "So how many people in Utah have had to call an end to their marriage in the last two weeks because gays can now get married?"

    I think same-sex marriage is a good idea... when they decide to split up (and many will) they will have to suffer the agonies that heteros go through in nasty divorces rather than just walk away from the relationship.

  • Uncle Rico Sandy, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    @Wilf 55

    The Mormon Church will continue be seen as an entity that donates millions globally to disaster relief, education and support.

    Whats your point?

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    When people stand for "equality" and say "it doesn't hurt anyone" never bother to do any real research on the topic. Research/Science shows that there are so many more social ills and risks to our children that come from societies who live life outside of traditional marriage, not just homosexuals and polygamists, but teen/single parents, co-habitating parents, abortion seekers, etc. All these are more likely to engage in substance abuse, domestic violence, break-ups, STD's, suicide, promiscuity, child neglect and exploitation, etc. All of which are a drain to our government resources and health care dollars. Standing firm for traditional marriage is standing firm to protect future generations. If you don't see the global decline in morality over the last short 50 years, then you are kidding yourself. This is as much a societal issue as it is a religious issue. I believe that if Utah becomes an "island" where it is safe to raise kids and promote healthy family life, then people will not avoid, but will come to Utah for that reason, then our economy will only get stronger. Stand firm, Utah.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    @Area 52

    I AM dealing with it. And I am loving it!

    I am watching the fair and just people enjoy every second of the turning of the tide here.

    We are grateful to the judge for doing the right thing ( he chose the right)

    We are enjoying seeing investigation into wrongdoings by the last 2 attorneys general.

    We are enjoying seeing 'rebel' senators Like Mike Leeand their cockamamie ideas fall on their faces.

    We are enjoying the squirming by all of the puritans as reality pops the bubble of intolerance that has surrounded this slow-to-evolve populace.

    Yup...dealin' with it just fine.

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    One of the most important issues here, in my opinion, is that ONE activist judge overturned a vote in an election, and that vote was for traditional marriage between a man and a woman which passed by 66% of Utah voters. He also with the swipe of his pen defied the same provision in the Utah Constitution. If this is not challenged, the judicial activist court can change ANYTHING without regard to what the majority of the public wants and votes by common consent. Our basic freedom and liberty are thus at peril. What price is freedom?

  • jimhale Eugene, OR
    Dec. 30, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    Constitutionally, this is not about child bearing. At least, it seems clear that argument will not sway the high court.

    This needs to be appealed as unnecessary because homosexuals can already avail themselves of a traditional marriage any time they chose to go out and find someone of the opposite sex to marry them.

    Homosexuality has not been proven to be an immutable trait like race. It deserves no equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

    While some homosexuals believe that they were born with same sex attraction, others have loudly bragged for a generation that their lifestyle is a choice. We believed them then; we should believe them now.

    "God made me this way" is an age-old false argument asserted (by perpetrators and their family and friends) to excuse a wide variety of social behaviors - many of which are still illegal - none of which we should elevate to the status of a "right".

    The Governor of Utah should not be like the corrupt officials of California who refused to appeal Measure 8 - the majority view of voters - to the Supreme Court. He should okay the money.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    @boatersteve;

    Your argument applies equally to infertile heterosexal couples who cannot produce children without outside help. Whats more, it applies to elderly couples who can't procreate at all.

    That argument is a fail from start to finish.

    @vidottsen;

    Another "churches will be forced to marry gays" argument. What about the freedom of the religions that WANT to perform same-sex marriages? Don't they count? Is their religious freedom inconsequential to you?

    @ulvegaard;

    The LDS church sees a moral conflict here, they'll lose out on the money.

    @bc5;

    1,) History of discrimination. Check.
    2.) Ability to contribute to society. Check. (we pay taxes and perform all kinds of service).
    3.) Immutability. Check. Have you tried changing your sexuality?
    4.) Relative Political Powerlessness. Again Check (did Utah and 30+ other states NOT vote away our rights?)

    @Neanderthal;

    Simply "walking away from the relationship" can be pretty devastating too, you know.\

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 30, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    @ bc5: Judge Shelby did examine the requirements for strict scrutiny, but his decision was based on rational basis review. Not meeting the requirements of strict scrutiny will not change the decision.

    In order for Utah to win, Utahneeds to prove that prohibiting same-sex marriage furthers the goal of heterosexual marriage and heterosexual couples bearing biological children or, conversely, that allowing same-sex marriage would negatively affect those goals.

    They admitted to Judge Shelby that they have no proof of either of those. Nor were they able to explain why some couples who will lot or cannot have children are allowed to marry while others aren't.

  • vidottsen Payson, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    Dear Quaker: Regarding if I would be happy if all marriages would be allowed, personally it does not bother me nor make me sad or angry that those with same-sex attraction want to marry. What I am worried about is where this will lead. It seems to me that just being able to marry might not satisfy those who advocate the practice. There might be another far-reaching agenda and that is to vilify those of us who feel it is an immoral act and would seek to make it illegal to prohibit such a ceremony in our places of worship. If that situation does not occur, then yes, I would be happy.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    I am all for the Sutherland Institute paying for the defense of amendment 3. If they are willing to throw their money away let them do so. It will be a win-win because the lawsuit would most likely go all the way to the supreme court and then all same sex marriage bans in the entire country would be struck down and the Sutherland Institute will have 2 million or so less dollars to persecute their dissenters at home. If Utah follows through with the appeal we will be known as the state that made same sex marriage possible for the whole country. Maybe if some hadn't contributed so much time and money to denying Californians and Hawaiian's their marriage rights then equal marriage wouldn't have come to Utah so quickly. As you sow, so shall you reap.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    The current staff at the AG's can do this without outside counsel. The $2 million could be spent better elsewhere, like beefing up the state's air monitoring system, a critical need.

  • Go Big Blue!!! Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    Spending money to defend a law voted for by the majority is not a waste. For the billions spent by the state each year 2 million for a one time project is not that significant. When a federal judge overturns a highly politically charged state law I expect the state to push back. I also expect my state government to make the best case possible. Spend the money governor and know that regardless of the outcome you gave it your best to represent the people of the state.

  • rondonaghe Mesilla/USA, NM
    Dec. 30, 2013 11:01 a.m.

    Directed to: vidottsen
    Payson, UT
    "The larger issue is not to deny consenting adults their desire to be legally united, but rather what this may lead governments [to] dictate to religions what they can and cannot include within their own rules and doctrine. How long will it take for the government to say that the LDS church must include same-sex marriage in its temples? Do we allow one set of beliefs or standards to abolish the freedom of religion, freedom to practice religion the way it has been established?"

    Your argument holds that your religious beliefs is the standard by which civil authority should operate. We have separation of church and state. Your religion should have no bearing on whether LGBTs can have the same rights as you. Your religion is your business, but it is not a standard upon which my rights to marry whom I love should be dictated.

    And no...there will not come a time when the government dictates that religions have to sanctify same sex marriage. You've got it exactly reversed.

  • docport1 ,
    Dec. 30, 2013 11:01 a.m.

    Spend the money on schools. Utah doesn't have to prove they are the Vatican of Mormonism.

  • Cowboy Dude SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 11:07 a.m.

    Of the 18 states with legal same-sex marriage only THREE were approved by the people; Maine, Maryland, and Washington.

    10 states had laws voted by the people banning same-sex marriages that were overturned by the Federal Court or their own legislature. (Yet, are no longer counted as opposed to the new marriage laws.)

    3 out of 51 states and districts is hardly a changing of popular opinion.

    Federalism rules.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    I'd like to see the $2million used to require same-sex couples to undergo reparative therapies before obtaining a civl marriage license. One people saw how many people have changed or had their same-sex attractions diminish, the civil marriage idea would become pretty much a non-issue for them.

  • jonjon Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 11:36 a.m.

    Money well spent indeed. Immorality doesn't improve society (that goes for heteros too). Families do. It may be a losing battle, but I want to show what side I'm on. Let's not kid ourselves and think that this money would go elsewhere to help clean the air or something.

  • bradleyc Layton, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    I keep reading comment about how we will be seen in the eyes of others around the world if we fight this ruling. I think it is more important how we will be seen if we don't fight the ruling.
    There are really thick black lines when it comes to homosexual behavior and allowance for the justification for such behavior through the bonds of marriage. If we don't stand up, say no on fight this we will pay dearly as time goes on. We read in scripture to love the sinner but hate the sin. We should continue to have this in mind as we move forward. I know many great people who have chosen to lead homosexual lives. I know many great people who have chosen poorly in other areas. We all have our temptations and vices. We as a society much choose to have laws, statutes, rights and privileges that promote good behaviors rather than behaviors that are condemned by the almighty.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 30, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    IMHO the judge acted poorly. The 10th ammendment clearly states that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is up to the states to decide. The state decided what the legal definition of marriage was to be, and put it into the Utah Constitution.

    Now, the judge used the 14th ammendment to justify his decision.

    So, the question is what is the supreme law? We have the the Utah constitution vs. federal law? We won't even go into what "equal protections under the law" means with regard to marriage.

    So what is the right thing here. Do we go with the US Constitutinally backed Utah ammendment that defines marriage, or do we go with the idea that federal law trumps all state laws including constitutional ammendments? If we go with the idea that Federal Law trumps all, then why is the DEA ignoring all of the states passing laws that violate federal law?

    To "The Real Maverick" you are ignoring the amount of money that the gays cost the government for their "frivolous" lawsuit.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    "So what is the right thing here. Do we go with the US Constitutinally backed Utah ammendment that defines marriage, or do we go with the idea that federal law trumps all state laws including constitutional ammendments?"

    ----------

    Please read the whole constitution.

    Here is the Supremacy clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary nothwithstanding."

  • Mexican Ute mexico, 00
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:14 p.m.

    Not a good idea to use tax money to support or oppose a divisive measure. A better idea would be to donate to the causes which you value most. This would be like legalized plunder to the minority who view gay marriage as okay.

    Now lets say we are in Washington or another liberal state and the roles were reversed. Would many of the conservatives on this board be in favor of having your tax dollars collected to defend gay marriage?

    Leave this to the organizations and to the courts.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    @Chris B
    Salt Lake City, UT

    As soon as liberals fight for polygamists right to marry then I will be a little more open to their claims [that] they are fighting discrimination..."

    This liberal, while not "fighting" for anyone's right to marry, has no problem with polygamy as long as it is done within the same strictures as any other marriage. I.e., consenting partners of legal age and not committing welfare fraud to get by. If it was good enough for the biblical patriarchs, it should be good enough for our standards of morality.

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    Try asking a law professor from anywhere but Utah how badly this case was mishandled. Apparently the Utah AG's office has no one with a clue about federal appellate procedure. If you want to ask the District Court judge for a stay, you do that first. He still has the case. If you want to bypass him and go directly to the Circuit Court of Appeals, you first have to appeal, to get the case moved to its jurisdiction. They're likely to wonder why you didn't ask the District Court judge first. Then, when you finally have your paperwork in order and the Circuit Court of Appeals turns you down, it's not a good idea to dally for a week, while all the same-sex couples get married, before going to the Supreme Court to claim that irreparable harm is being done if they don't act right away.

    Where are all the people who helped finance Prop 8 in California? They should have chipped in for competent lawyers, back when it might have made a difference.

  • Veritas Aequitas Fruit Heights, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    I see no need to spend $2 million on outside attorneys when it is obvious that we have so many well qualified Constitutional attorneys here posting on the Des News board. Hey, we even have a few Declaration of Independence attorneys. Also those giving their personal interpretation of The Constitution... Let's get them together and go present the case to the Supreme Court. Sprinkle in a few moral observations and scriptures, a few statistics on the ability of same-sex couples ability to reproduce and this looks like an easy slam dunk.

    If Chris B is OK with spending the money, I see it as a done deal. We all know that he speaks many times on behalf of the PAC, The University of Utah, and the University of Utah fan base. Yep, this is a battle that the State of Utah will win! Mark it down!!!

    Utah's continued effort to "define" marriage our way is money well spent.

    After this battle, can we spend a ton of money to have phone spelled fone? That has always bugged me.

    Props to those who have tried to help educate the masses citing case law.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    So what it really boils down to is:
    Religious people... believe we should live in a theocracy, however they can't decide on which religion should rule, perhaps just a state sanctioned "American Christians" church.

    Americans...believe that All men are created equal and deserve equal rights under the constitution.

    The lines seem to be drawn at this intersection, so what national religion should we adopt?

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    To "Lane Myer" so you are saying that the judge made a bad decision. The 10th ammendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the State acted on its Constitutional right to determine what the legal definition of marriage is to be, the ammendment to the Utah constitution should stand and define marriage.

    What you fail to recognize is that we now have contradicting laws. We have one law that says if it isn't in the constitution the states can decide what to do, at the same time that it also says that federal law runs supreme. Since the US Constitution does not say anything about marriage, and according to the most recent DOMA ruling, it is a state issue.

    But how do you balance things when one law tells the state they can do whatever they want at the same time another law says they can't?

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    @Mike in Sandy:

    Your response wasn't very kind to what I thought was a logical statement that I made.

    I still feel the same way and will not lock myself away in a cellar as you suggested. I have a right to speak every much as you do! Let freedom ring!

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:52 p.m.

    "What you fail to recognize is that we now have contradicting laws. We have one law that says if it isn't in the constitution the states can decide what to do"

    --------

    But what you fail to recognize is the ending of your sentence..."We have one law that says if it isn't in the constitution, the states can decide what to do AS LONG AS IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. Pretty simple to understand with that added, isn't it?

  • ebur Charlotte, NC
    Dec. 30, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    People, the problem here is the lack of Faith.
    God will help us to win this fight, why are we so scare to fight against evil?
    Has ever God abandoned his faithful children?
    Even in the most terrible time of persecution, it was faith in God what kept us strong and protected us.
    Fight! do not be scare. GOD is in our side. Darkest hours have come and will come, but those who believe and have faith in GOD will be never be defeated.
    Prayers! that's the solution, and follow the scriptures' advices.
    We should love everybody, but defend from the power of Satan.

  • Sophie 62 spring city, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 1:04 p.m.

    This is going to be a colossal waste of money that could be better spent in so many ways. Whether or not you believe that gay people should be allowed to marry here in Utah (or anywhere)it is inevitable that sooner or later, gay people will be allowed to marry in every state.
    If private individuals want to take up this cause and spend their own money to do it, perhaps there's a way they can do it.
    But no way should Utah spend a penny toward it.
    What will they do when they get to the end of their 2 million? Just drop it? I don't think so. It could end up costing far more and for what?
    It will amount to a lot of money for lawyers and no return for those in Utah who want to fight this.
    And legal marriage for polygamists isn't far behind. Better get used to it, because it is coming.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 30, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    To "Lane Myer" tell me where in the Constitution it says anything about the definition of marriage.

    I have looked, and it isn't there.

    So, if it isn't in the Constitution then per the 10th ammendment, it is a state issue. The state decided that marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman.

  • Spellman789 Syracuse, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    The fight for traditional marriage IS money well spent. Marriage is ordained of God, He created it, and only He can say what it should be.
    It is time for the silent majority to break their silence and speak out for what is right. It is not hate or bigotry to say that I believe in traditional marriage. I know many gay people are wonderful, caring people who truly love their partner. Defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is not about hating gays or trying to deny them due process. Defining marriage traditionally is about following God and trusting that He loves all of us and truly knows what is best. Sometimes we don't see why now. But we will eventually.

  • John 3:16 West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    A Sin will always be a Sin even if the laws of the land say they are legal.

  • Marsha N. SANDY, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    Many people are attracted to Utah for the wholesome atmosphere and good values the state has always maintained. As we slip toward trying to please the voices that call for a liberal society, we will lose the voice of conservative values. That is a shame because someone must stand up for the traditional values that made this country the envy of the world.

  • josegomez Spain, 00
    Dec. 30, 2013 1:32 p.m.

    In Spain, gay marriage, was a battle won, I think it was for wanting resemble traditional marriage, but the reality now is that after these past years, now not many gay weddings are as before, and that took place have ended with divorces and breakups, this actually did it to annoy, time to time, there will be many gay weddings for my studies observed that there are more breaks in these couples.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 1:39 p.m.

    “The attorney general's office would need a supplemental appropriation to cover the cost of the outside counsel from the 2014 Legislature, which begins meeting on Jan. 27.”

    “A request for a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court has been delayed pending the hiring of outside counsel. A spokesman for the attorney general's office, Ryan Bruckman, said the stay should be filed Monday.”

    How are they going to use outside counsel (apparently our attorney general is not up for it or needs to line friends pockets) that will not be approved until after the legislature begins meeting Jan 27 to file an appeal today? Sounds like the same old funny business different day in the corrupt world of Utah politics.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 1:50 p.m.

    "So, if it isn't in the Constitution then per the 10th ammendment, it is a state issue. The state decided that marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman."

    Yes, the state has the power to regulate marriage - as long as they are not harming a section of the population (see Loving v. Virginia)for no apparent reason. If they are discriminating against a minority, there had better be a reasonable argument that they can use to defend that law against those who might feel oppressed by the states laws. Can you give me the reason that Utah feels it must oppress gays from marrying? One that can be used in court?

    No state may pass laws (even if the majority of the people vote for it) that "shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Either gays are citizens with equal rights or they are not equal citizens. Are all men created equal or only those we approve of?

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 2:11 p.m.

    To ebur and Spellman789
    You do realize we live in a Republic and not a theocracy, don't you? Your version of what God wants and my version of what God wants is different. My God thinks that gay marriage is wonderful. So which version of what God wants is the correct one? This is the very reason why we have separation of church and state.
    “Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson

  • Starry starry night Palm Springs , CA
    Dec. 30, 2013 2:35 p.m.

    Just because he has not yet signed off doesn't mean he won't. They are in strategy mode.
    They will bring a case, they will spend the money...and 2 million is just the beginning my friends...
    and it will be the case that forces the SCOTUS to declare all same sex marriages legal throughout the land.
    The irony is rich. The country will move on and in no time at all...it'll be a non issue.
    I say...let it go...this cake is baked.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 2:38 p.m.

    Yes the proponents of SSM will argue vehemently that the state should drop this. If they do then we will have the same situation that occurred in CA where the supreme court dismisses the case due to lack of standing by the supporters.

    No...The state, in order to give this the fairest hearing MUST take this on all the way to the supreme court. It is sad that Utah has to lead the way where CA failed to argue for it's own duly elected and enacted law. Let us not make the same mistake.

    I feel personally that Utah will lose this battle but the nation cannot come to a full agreement one way or the other unless it is fought. I would think the proponents of SSM would support the taxpayer funded defense of our amendment. If they win, they win big!

  • Disgusted American deptford, NJ
    Dec. 30, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    ahh UTAH - Maybe NOW - I'd consider spending My Tourism money in your state.....before this ruling, to me...it was JUST A FLY OVER state.....I spend my tourism money in Equality states.....so, who knows.....tourism could pick up?

  • SC Native San Diego, CA
    Dec. 30, 2013 3:15 p.m.

    Soddam and Gomorrah

  • Sharkkat in Deer Valley Deer Valley, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 3:23 p.m.

    BYUAlum
    "I still feel the same way and will not lock myself away in a cellar as you suggested. I have a right to speak every much as you do! Let freedom ring!"
    Of course you do...it's just that what you say is wrong.

  • radiohio Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 3:30 p.m.

    It's funny how much people want to protect a constitutional amendment that is bigoted and unequal. I wonder how many of these people remember the famous Missouri Executive Order 44 from 1838. Thats right, Missouri Executive Order 44 was also known as the Mormon Extermination Order.

    People in 1838 thought that it was the best thing to do and to protect the people of Missouri by "EXTERMINATING" the mormons!

    Would you be calling the judge a liberal and activist because he let the Mormons be equal? What if Judge Shelby said "hey, you can't do that...because all people are created equal."

    What would you be saying then? If it were your family that was being judged by the citizens of Missouri? Would you say, hey the majority said that we should leave the state so we are just going to do it. Or would you want the judge to rule in your favor because you realize that we aren't a Theocracy but instead a land of freedom.

  • LRB NY, NY
    Dec. 30, 2013 3:58 p.m.

    Sorry but I am confused as to exactly what offends conservatives. Judge Shelby based his opinion almost entirely upon the dissent of Antonin Scalia who decried striking down DOMA on 14th Amendment grounds, pointing out quite articulately how that led inevitably to legalizes SSM. So are Conservatives now also offended by the 14th Amendment and one of the Supremes' most ardent conservatives?

    Just take a deep breath, conservatives. Tomorrow when you wake up YOUR lives Will be exactly the same. The only difference will be a thousand or more couples who were once second class now enjoy all the benefits you and your spouse take for granted. Hardly the road to ruin

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 4:01 p.m.

    This is such a joke.

    Only in Utah would voters overwhelmingly strike down a $50.00 a year property tax increase to fully fund a school district yet they are all for spending 2 million to overturn a law that guaranties Constitutional rights to all men. Of course were the same state that Re-Elected a Governor who was caught in a 13 Million dollar scandal paying a construction company for work they never did.

    Have any of you fighting this so hard ever really sat down and thought about what God's take on this issue is? I know you guys have your heads buried in the scriptures and that is where your coming from but have you really taken your time to think about it from the perspective of God? the all loving all knowing God? I guess I just don't understand how anybody with a pure heart stand in front of the Lord and explain to him that you were for taking away the rights of one of his children. I just don't understand.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 30, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    IMHO The LDS Church is the organization that has the most to gain or lose in this issue.

    The LDS church has grown from a small sect to a worldwide church. The world outside Utah values diversity, social justice, equality, progressive religious thinking.

    The dollar amount of this seems irrelevant to me. I'm sure for Utah wouldn't be too much if it has to spend it.

    Thousands of us left the church because of this issue. Some of us feel nostalgic about our time as missionaries, members, holding positions, etc. However, we believe in being honest with God and ourselves.

    After 1978 The church grew exponentially when the priesthood issue was resolved. It took courage and humility for the brethren to reach the right decision.

    Today, the church again faces a decision that will shake it to its foundations. Will the church become the Zion for all people of the world or will decide on favor of bigotry. The impact will have worldwide reach.

    As an LDS and a LGBT man I pray of the First Presidency of the church to reach a decision that best resembles what Jesus would do.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 30, 2013 4:18 p.m.

    To "Lane Myer" if harm is the concern, then I guess you are for banning gay marriage. According to a study by the DOJ, when homosexuals mearly co-habitate with their intimate partner they are at a higher risk for violence and harm.

    I feel oppressed that I am only allowed to be married to 1 person at a time. Are you ready to defend my right to marry multiple people of any gender that I want?

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    Gov Herbert should quickly sign legislation to spend
    what is needed to defend the state against
    Judicial over reach.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 30, 2013 4:49 p.m.

    Joemamma
    ..." This state was founded by Mormons and it's constution was written by Mormons.. Now we have a few gays from CA in retribution for the church's involvement in prop 8 and thanks to Obama helping by placing activist judges decide they want to intrude on the majority of people in this state and force their societal views on us.."

    .... Really? Sounds like the arguments used in other States against mormons 150 years ago.
    I personally think that God is waiting for you to apologize for Prop 8.

    boatersteve
    Fruit Heights, Utah
    ..." Since without help homosexual marriages produce no children and therefore do not contribute to the perpetuation of the state, government by defifintion, has an interest in determining whether those marriages should exist."

    ...So Utah and he lds ought to keep the present system, which results in:
    A--Young mormons pressured by society and internal guilt to marry people to whom they are not attracted, in order to raise messed-up children.
    B--Young mormons forced into a 2nd class citizenship of celibacy
    C--Young mormons leaving.

    All of this is what Jesus would choose?

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 30, 2013 5:06 p.m.

    Liberty For All
    Cedar, UT
    "I'd like to see the $2million used to require same-sex couples to undergo reparative therapies before obtaining a civl marriage license. One people saw how many people have changed or had their same-sex attractions diminish, the civil marriage idea would become pretty much a non-issue for them."

    ....Uh, maybe change that handle to "Liberty For Those I Approve Of"

    BYUalum
    South Jordan, UT
    "One of the most important issues here, in my opinion, is that ONE activist judge overturned a vote in an election"

    I went to UC Berkeley, another fine school, where they taught me how courts work.

    In this case, people brought a Federal lawsuit, claiming discrimination by the State of Utah. They proved their case, the State having no legal argument to disprove it (just as in every other case)
    The judge was wise, but any impartial 10 year old would see that the plaintiffs were in the right, and the law was unfair, no matter the popular vote.

    All Utah is going to do by fighting this is to make the State look less and less modern, and affirm that it puts the church ahead of the Constitution

  • Go Big Blue!!! Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 5:52 p.m.

    It is funny how many people on here from outside Utah are worried about Utah spending money to defend Utah's law. It is also funny how everyone blames this on the LDS Church. The LDS Church didn't get a vote. It was the majority of Utah citizens that voted for this law.

  • durwood kirby South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 7:35 p.m.

    The state will lose the case and the $, and they know it. It's about pleasing the perceived wishes of the conservative voters, who expect the state to respond.

    So just tell it like it is, save a few sheckles, and move on.

  • Rosco SANDY, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:08 p.m.

    I appreciate the many well-articulated thoughts on this complex matter. It is disappointing, however, that so many writers seem to abhor those with differing points of view. They denigrate the predominant religion of the State as well as all who adhere to its doctrine. They mock others sincere concerns. I have family members who are gay—each is pleased with the possibility of marriage. I tend to believe most, if not all, people with same sex attraction were born with such propensity. I certainly believe individuals in such relationships should be treated with civility and respect. It is easy to also argue that they should be granted the rights afforded heterosexually married couples. I think the hang-up for many of us is a seeming redefinition of “marriage”. While I think it is clear that same sex relationships will eventually be given the right to “marry”, my preference would have been a legal arrangement recognized by the States that did not define itself as “marriage”. I suspect such would have little pushback for the religious right. I understand that some see that as discriminatory but I fail to see it that way.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:19 p.m.

    @Lane Myer:
    Yes, the state has the power to regulate marriage - as long as they are not harming a section of the population (see Loving v. Virginia)for no apparent reason."

    The state which bans same-sex marriage is not hurting anyone. Anyone can marry so long as they marry another person of the opposite sex. This is not rocket science.

    "Either gays are citizens with equal rights or they are not equal citizens."

    All citizens are equal... they can marry anyone they wish (that agrees to marry them) so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Sounds like equality to me. If someone wants to marry someone/something other than a person of the opposite sex, they're asking for special treatment contrary to state equality law.

  • Mr. Bean Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 30, 2013 11:36 p.m.

    @Rosco:
    "I tend to believe most, if not all, people with same sex attraction were born with such propensity."

    Almost everyone is born with propensities of one kind or another... Some propensities might include polygamy. Some might be propensity toward other sexual eccentricities (which the moderators will not allow to be listed).

    Everybody should love their fathers and mothers.

    All propensities, including homosexuality, must be dealt with on a personal basis.

    Why is it that all propensities except homosexuality has to be reined in?

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 1:10 a.m.

    @wrz
    Phoenix, AZ

    And now you are equally free marry someone of the same sex, too. At least as long as they want to marry you.

    @wrz,, if marriage and the right to marriage – by definition – does not include the right to a a unique and voluntary association with someone with whom you share not only physical and romantic attraction but also psycho-emotional depth connection, sharing, commitment & intimacy, then the definition and concept and its protections is incomplete if not meaningless. It's a sham and forcing people, as their only marriage option, into a marriage inherently devoid of those characteristics and incapable of them IS hurting them.

    @wrz, for people who want to marry, providing for them as the only route marriage to someone with whom they do NOT share all of those qualities of a marriage relationship IS hurting them.

    Beyond which, it's also not the equal protection of the law.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 1:16 a.m.

    @ wrz

    "All citizens are equal... they can marry anyone they wish (that agrees to marry them) so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex."

    So they can marry anyone they wish, except for the person they love and want to marry? That's not equal. Allowing SSM has no effect on you. It begs the question, why do you care so much about something that has nothing to do with you?

  • radiohio Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 4:00 a.m.

    1. Utah officials are saying "we don't believe in our own people, even our own economy." They instead are sending 2+ Million Dollars out of the state. That is money that could be spent on hiring a great LOCAL law firm, giving money to the state.

    2. Utah AG office is supported with 20+ Million dollars a year in salaries. Yet their new boss and the governor are both saying "we don't believe in our own AG office." If I were a lawyer for the AG office, I wouldn't want that egg on my face of being a untrusted lawyer, but maybe you do.

    3. Utah is building an anti-business climate by paying 2 Million dollars to protect a bigoted law. Harming companies from hiring the most qualified candidate because they might be LGBTQ and want equal rights as non LGBTQ could hurt companies from hiring the right people.

    4. If Utah loses and history says it probably will, this isn't the government trying to protect a law, it's Gov. Herbert and the AG protecting their political futures. They will say "we tried." Thats all, it's a political game, not for you but for them.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 7:44 a.m.

    To "Shelama" and "Two For Flinching" are you prepared to defend plural marriage, the same as you defend gay marriage?

    The same arguments that you use to defend gay marriage can be used to justify polygamy. Not just 1 man and 3 women, but 2 men and 3 women, 4 women, 4 men, or 1 man and 6 women.

    If marriage is the legal union of people who love each other and want to "share not only physical and romantic attraction but also psycho-emotional depth connection, sharing, commitment & intimacy", then there are no longer any boundaries to define what makes up a marriage. It can be any group of 2 or more people. If you restrict it to 2 people, then you are not being "fair" to those that have the same attractions and desires with multiple people.

    You do want to be fair to everybody don't you?

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    @ RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT

    Yes, absolutely, I believe – absent a rational basis to not allow it – that polygamy should be legalized.

    At least Canada seems to have found and defended and applied a rational basis argument against polygamy in a claimed inherent high risk and incidence of various types of abuse in polygamy. If that's true, that's a rational basis to NOT not allow polygamy. I'm not totally convinced.

    Yes... I want to be fair to everybody. Including opening the door for the saints to return to a more full and faithful living of The New And Everlasting Covenant.

    Legalize polygamy.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    @ Red Shirt

    As long as they are all consenting adults and legalization of polygamy didn't bring forth a significant risk of harm (such as incestuous relationships do), then yes I would support it.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    To "Shelama" if harm or abuse is all the justification you need to ban polygamy (I agree that there isn't a good study showing harm in polygamy), then you should be against gay marriage.

    The DOJ has a study that shows that when homosexual couples co-habitate they are much more likely to be abused by their intimate partner or be victims of violence. See "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence" by the DOJ. Other studies point out that homosexual intimate partner violence and abuse is severly under reported, and that it is likely to be a much larger problem than currently reported.

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 12:19 p.m.

    @Redshirt

    (I believe the DN limits comments on any one article by a single person to three so this probably won't even show up).

    The abuse claimed in polygamy is argued to be fundamentally different in that there is claimed to be a large element of coercion inherent in the culture and the practice. Including, or especially, that inflicted on minors unable to give meaningful consent.

    In any case, you've said nothing at all about the incidence of violence in same-sex MARRIAGE as opposed to co-habitation. In essence, what you're arguing against is not same-sex marriage but co-habitation. Is that, in reality then, an argument FOR same-sex marriage?

    Given the huge and even lethal problem of domestic violence in heterosexual relationships, both co-habitation and marriage, perhaps we should ban both? In any case, for yours to have merit you need to show the comparative incidence (including under reporting) of heterosexual vs. same-sex domestic violence, for both marriage and co-habitation.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 1:00 p.m.

    To "Shelama" read the study. It combines married and unmarried but co-habitating hetersexual couples.

    Yes there is a problem with hetersexual relationships, but when you have gays co-habitating as a married couple or not, the violence rate is significantly higher than it would be otherwise.

    Please go and read the study.

  • Learner Sacramento, CA
    Jan. 1, 2014 12:07 a.m.

    If same sex marriages are upheld by the Supreme Court, then polygamy will also need to become lawful as well. Polygamy is a tenet of LDS doctrine. The Church has declared that it would obey the law of the land and stopped plural marriage in order to become a State of The Union. We live in most interesting times and, indeed, God works in mysterious ways to achieve his ultimate righteous principles.

  • Fan Base Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 4:59 p.m.

    Each person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. You don't wan to marry someone of the opposite sex, then don't. There's nothing unequal about that.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:00 a.m.

    @ Fan Base

    It's unequal because heterosexual people get the wonderful experience of marrying the person they love. Until December 2013, homosexual couples were not able to so. However, now everybody can marry who they love regardless of gender; including you. Your rights have been expanded. Congratulations.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 3, 2014 7:51 a.m.

    To "Two For Flinching" you are wrong. I know of a group of women that all love the same man, and that man loves all of the women. They are not allowed to be married and get the same legal protections as homosexuals. We still have an inequality, since marriage is now the union of people that love eachother.

    Also explain how my rights have been expanded when if I disagree with gay marriage and run a wedding related business I can be forced by a judge to provide services for them? It seems to me that I have lost rights. How do you explain that?

  • InLifeHappiness Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 3:27 a.m.

    Is it possible that the $2 million dollar tag will be fruitless as Sewart’s 2 previous amicus curiae delivered positive outcomes for SSM in Iowa and California as well as his participation as one of the sponsors for Utah’s Amendment 3 now ruled unconstitutional; Schaerr’s recent law firm which is pro-LGBT, and Bursch whose litigated 6% of his cases. Could this be the winning million dollar team? Caution tax payers of Utah - the new A.G. Reyes appears to need assistance.

  • Listening Ears Provo, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 5:58 p.m.

    Interesting choices for Utah’s legal counsel to oppose SSM. Monte Stewart was one of 4 sponsors in the creation of Utah’s Amendment 3 now unconstitutional, delivered amicus curiae brief in a 2008 in California which outcome approved SSM, and delivered amicus curiae brief for United Families International in Iowa’s Varnum v Brien which outcome also approved SSM. Gene Schaerr was counsel at Winston, a legal firm that boasts of its pro-LGBT affinity and defense. John Bursch has litigated only 6% of his cases, has promised to cap his earnings, and played the clarinet. Not sure this is the 2 million-dollar winning team Utah requires for its appeal. In agreement with pervious comments regarding millions for a losing battle, I support aiding the homeless youth and education for the millions-dollar price tag of a losing court case.