Can't handle the case itself, the AG's office has to bring in
"outside experts".The AG's office is not looking good.
Not looking good at all.
Congratulations to Attorney General Reyes on his recent appointment. A wise
move by our Governor. Mr. Reyes, please remember that the majority of Utahns
want a fair hearing of our concerns over the legal definition of marriage. As we
the majority of citizens pay the bulk of the taxes, please deploy as many
millions as needed to ensure that we have the best legal team possible to
represent the point of view of the majority of the people. We wish you success
as our Attorney General - you are off to a good start. God Bless!
@Meckofahess;Fortunately for those of us who also live in Utah, our
Constitutional rights are not subject to the "will of the majority"; but
derive from the US Constitution, which invalidates Utah's Amendment 3 due
to it's Constitutional violations.You are welcome to send
money, but the state is not welcome to use the tax money of LGBT citizens in
it's efforts to pursue further discrimination against us. I can see a
lawsuit in that too.
The only thing the "outside experts" are going to do is make millions
from Utah taxpayers only to lose this so-called 'battle' in the end.
It's time to deal with reality: There are no legal reasons two adults
cannot marry. This isn't a religious issue, this is a Civil Rights issue
and your side lost.Stop wasting taxpayer money and accept the inevitable.
Take a look at the photos of the people who are finally becoming families. This
is a great thing!
RanchHand,If your rights are derived from the U.S. Constitution, so
can they be taken away by the U.S. Constitution and those who govern it. With no
disrespect, I offer this idea... that where we place our trust is just as
important as why we are doing it.I vote on marriage for the same
reason we have laws regarding libel and why we have traffic lights. We do to
govern and regulate society in order to foster the freedom/potential for human
happiness. None of these have taken rights away that did not already exist.You remain free to interact with your fellow man, peruse your own
happiness, and so on. You may disagree about such freedom, but I again
caution... if you succeed in the government regulating this affair according to
your interpretations... then we the people, we the government, will have just as
much power to take away what you have given us permission to.God
gives us what we have and can just as rightfully take it again. We can try to
justify ourselves and our governments... but we cannot exceed His authority. We
inherit rights, we don't create them.
Congratulations Mr. Reyes. We applaud your efforts to defend the constitution of
this great state. It's unfortunate that one man with an agenda gets to make
a political decision from the bench and ignore to will of we the people of this
state. That is worth defending. So is traditional marriage. We've got your
back and we hope you have ours.
Get your tickets now to see the most useless appeal ever presented to the U.S.
supreme court. Make sure you get your life jackets for this ride on the
titanic. Oh, by the way bring 2 million dollars to throw in the ocean while
watching it buying nothing. Utah is making the most expensive three stooges
movies ever made. I am going to wear a bag on my head and change my license
plates. Where is common sense?
The question is, what is his goal with the marriage thing? If it's to make
himself appealing to certain segments of the population by being able to say
"I fought hard," filing every appeal possible is the right tactic. But
if the goal is to keep gay marriage unrecognized in as much of the world as
possible for as long as possible, it's exactly the wrong one. There is no
reason to believe either the appeals court or, if it accepts the case at all,
the Supreme Court will reverse the decision; appealing only means potentially
spreading the effect either circuit-wide or nationally.
Isn't Monte Stewart the guy who filed amicus briefs to support the losing
side in the Windsor and Prop h8 cases (2013) as well as California's In re
Marriage Cases (2008), Iowa's Varnum v. Brien (2009), and
Connecticut's Kerrigan v. Comm’r of Pub. Health (2008)?In
fact the only marriage equality case he's been on the winning side was back
in 2006 in Nebraska.
MeckofahessSalt Lake City, UT"... Mr. Reyes, please remember
that the majority of Utahns want a fair hearing of our concerns over the legal
definition of marriage. As we the majority of citizens pay the bulk of the
taxes, please deploy as many millions as needed to ensure that we have the best
legal team possible to represent the point of view of the majority of the
people... God Bless!"--A: I am not sure the part about most
citizens paying most of the taxes gives them the right to see the proven rights
of a minority rehashed over and over.--B: I certainly do not think
the "as many millions as needed" will float with the majority of Utahns,
but I could be wrong.--C: I really do not see how one can wish Mr
Reyes success as Attorney General while sending him off on an expensive
"fool's errand" that will only polarize people more, and cause
further damage to the reputation of Utah and its citizens.--D: From
outside Utah, any appeal is pretty much going to be seen as lds church
motivated, since there is no correct legal argument for appeal. Acceptance might
be better strategy.
Every day, we here another refrain of "today or tomorrow" as to when
this appeal will be filed.The new attorney general raised the
subject of TRANSPARENCY, but will not name the private attorneys or law firms
that will represent the State in this lawsuit.How many other states
open up their government's checkbooks to hire outside attorneys when
appealing a case through the Federal courts?HOW MANY UTAH RESIDENTS
think that the outside law firm's bill will be UNDER the $2 million
projection?Will the governor or attorney general issue guarantees
that the cost will not go above that estimate?How often does any
state government projection wind up UNDER BUDGET? Versus the percent of times
they go OVER BUDGET?Be careful of what you wish for, since it has a
price tag in real life & real money!
And what does the rest of the country think? David Socarides, writing for the
New Yorker blog, notes "It’s hard to know if Utah officials had any
warning signs, but if they did, they surely should have been better prepared.
They could, for example, have asked the judge in advance to delay implementation
of any possible ruling pending appeal. That they did not do so seems to have
handicapped them: since the weddings have already begun, the state can’t
really claim to be seeking to preserve the status quo by stopping them."
-- "Can't handle the case itself, the AG's office has to bring in
'outside experts'. The AG's office is not looking good. Not
looking good at all." --Not so. The Utah AG's office is
looking quite good: being resourceful in using outside assistance, but acting in
its official capacity as the People's counsel to avoid another fiasco over
legal standing.Contrast this to what happened in California, where
the AG and Governor refused to carry out their oath of office to uphold the law
of the state, a constitutional amendment passed by initiative. The National
Organization for Marriage volunteered to represent the People in court, because
legal representation is a basic constitutional right. This is what led to the US
Supreme Court decision that nullified the decision of the People while sticking
to the narrow issue of legal standing. By acting as counsel,
Utah's AG is making sure the People will not be deprived of every
American's right to representation the way people of California were. By
being willing to consult a private attorney, he is being extra diligent to
ensure that the People get the best possible representation.
Utah should have made who ever is getting that $2 million to be the next
Attorney general. Since that person is obviously the best money can buy and
capable of appealing gay marriage.
Hopefully money does not make them feel better.If they can't be
smarter this time, how then ?Issues like harm and that china-copy of
the term marriage, and new legal interpretations considered in a win/win
approach against those who are trying to change society for more
"Un-equality". If they can't divert the softening of language, then
lost already.It is not so much a legal battle, rather a war on the
mind.Mind me saying that, but coming from AG and having big money does not
give them intelligence.The results will count !
Thank you Deseret News for posting this part of the article:"It
apparently has been difficult for the state to find lawyers willing to take on
the appeal to the 10th Circuit, and potentially the Supreme Court."Ah, it's been difficult? Well a good reason might be because no lawyer
wants to lose, especially against the supreme court. If a good firm wants to
protect their dignity, going up against the supreme court in a losing battle is
often egg in the face. Maybe it's because most law offices
have open hiring policies and look at their legal attorneys and aides as equal
people under the law because they understand the constitution. For an attorney
to "defend" this would look like they are a bigoted law firm, again egg
in the face.Now there will be some firm that will represent Utah and
the new AG. Why? They are Money Hungry, they will think of it as their 15
seconds of fame win or lose and they ultimately may just be a bigoted firm to
begin with. Good luck Utah, thank you for wasting MY money and MY
It would be nice to see the Deseret News post more PRO-LGBTQ stories. I know
they like to cover "family stories" and thats one thing I respect them
for. You did such a great article yesterday thats now hidden deep
in the site about Gay families. How about more pro-gay stories. Now of course the ownership would probably prohibit any pro-gay stories, but
just saying it would be nice to incorporate the 5% for a change.
@RanchHand That is not correct. The taxes of LGBT citizens will be used
against their will just as my tax money will be used for Obamacare, which is
against my will.
@Ernest T. Bass;You're asking them to look at *sinners* for
crying out loud. What are you trying to do, turn them into pillars of salt?
That's funny. I thought the founders intent was provide three rights, not
four; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I must have missed the
homosexual marriage. Unfortunately we don't live off of the Constitution
but case law which is now making the Republic unrecognizable. Another note on
founders intent; surely we would have expected the founders to live under the
law which they formed. So why, oh why, wasn't gay marriage prevalent in
the 18th Century?
We no Have enough a good patriot honest Lawyer, Guy must trike down, one time
and forever, a solution is purge all judges State and federal, only judges who
Obey and enforce very clear all laws can be in power, all another fired and quit
his or her Law license. Very small minority of mental disturbing can have no
right. We need start clean of any mental American take out street.Voter
have more power who any judge.
Sorry, but you can't say where your tax money goes, on an individual basis.
If that were the case, many of the U.S. Citizens would demand that certain
things NOT be covered, out of personal beliefs: no abortions paid for by tax
dollars, no benefits to illegal aliens, no welfare for those ABLE to work but
just don't feel like it. Oh yes, and no tax dollars going to sex-change
operations to prisoners.Since the Constitution of the United States
was founded on CHRISTIAN beliefs and principles, it would, therefore, be
unconstitutional to support anything other than marriage between a man and a
women, since that is the law of God.
Jon Huntsman deserves some credit for this shift, having pushed for civil unions
four years ago as Governor when a majority of Utahns were opposed to the idea.
He, like few others, represents where the party needs to be to remain viable
into the future. Huntsman 2016.
@Ernest T Bass,I agree with you that this is a lost cause and it
will probably pass a SCOUS test. The question for me though is why
can two adults marry, hetero o homo, but not 4 or 5 or 20 in a polygamous or
polyandrous marriage? Why is this definition of marriage changed to include gay
men, for example, marrying but not Brady and his five wives. It
would appear that no one considers the banning of polygamy in all 50 states to
be discriminatory because only some fundamentalist mormons, some muslims hindu
or african families are affected but its OK to change the definition of marriage
for two men or two women to marry.If it's OK to allow two dudes
to marry legally with a licence because they love each other and smile during
their wedding photos then it should be OK for Brady (or others like him) to
marry his five loving wives since they too can smile for the cameras during
their polygamists marriage ceremony.
So, Utah, why is defeating gay marriage worth $2 million+ ?Here's is a survey dug up from 2005 (and, btw., to the "55%" in
that survey I say: You just outed yourselves!):"In a 2005 paper
in the Journal of GLBT Family Studies, University of Utah researchers Emma Gross
and Edward Cahoon Byrnes suggest a uniquely Mormon reason Utahans are so nervous
about gay people:"Utahans appear to worry that homosexual youth
will try to recruit heterosexual youth to homosexuality…For example, [of
521] respondents, 55.3 percent [believe] that “when gays and lesbians are
involved in any organization there is a risk that they will influence youths to
become gay or lesbian.” Significantly, Mormons grow their religion by
extensive, aggressive proselyting. Mormon youth serve two years as missionaries
whose primary function is to convert others to Mormonism. Interestingly, focus
group discussions indicate that there is a connection that exists between the
society’s religious preoccupation with conversion, to which Mormon youth
are socialized, and the widespread perception that homosexual youth are somehow
similarly committed to recruiting."
This is a real battle and they will need the best fighters! This vile attack
against democracy must be defeated to give a precedent and an example to every
one! Moreover, the definition of marriage must be defended to the very last
moment! Marriage is between a man and a woman!
awe you poor dears...all verklempt, do you need "fainting couches"???
Guess what - how has anyone whose MARRIED Affected YOU????? HINT: They
These tired old talking points "Utah's voter-approved constitutional
amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman",
Let's be truthful "Utah's voter-approved constitutional amendment
defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman as being
unconstitutional, unfair, discriminatory, hateful and bigoted." They seem
to think that "voter approved" makes it right. It doesn't, it just
makes the voters look bad. Stop making the voters look like twisted bigoted
hateful people, stop reminding us of this tragic mistake of 2004 and let's
So the new AG wants to spend who knows how much to fight what has to be a losing
battle, and he refuses to tell us who is representing the state? What is going
on? The veil of secrecy must come to an end in that office. Haven't we
A hispanic brother huh?Finally a hispanic conservative man who thinks for
himself and chooses how to think politicallly instead of being told what to
think politically based on his race.Before you call me a racist be advise
that I'm hispanic my self.
By appealing to the Supreme Court I firmly believe this will make it a
State's right to decide the future of homosexual marriage.
A SIN will ALWAYS be a SIN even if the laws of the land legalize gay marriage.
This is going to be a $2 million waste of tax payers money. And some of the
comments here show how little people understand the US Constitution and how it
currently protects them as US citizens in a state. It was not written with only
Christian values in mind but written to protect the minority and people from a
government tyranny that would make religion the reason for policy and thereby
harming a class of people. The allowing of Gay marriage has not hurt
anyone in the state. Show me someone that's been hurt from this. You
won't find any. The only people you're wanting to hurt are the gay
people who marry because they have great love for their spouse partner.
I applaud Mr. Reye's actions in bringing in "experts". There are so
many facets of law, an attorney is not expected to be at the top of every game.
Come on people, if you need brain surgery, you probably won't have your GP
perform it. And good luck to those fighting this battle to preserve the quality
of life in Utah as defined by the majority that believes God defined marriage as
a contract between one man and one woman. We are bound to fight this battle to
uphold His will.
I would recommend that we all stop worrying about other people's sins and
focus on how we can improve ourselves. Perhaps it's more love and charity
that we need. Maybe we need to be more forgiving of others. On this day when we
put our old faults behind and set goals for improvement, I suggest we all work
on ways how we can get along in this state in spite of our differences. I suggest we all pray for understanding, empathy, and charity. We need
to look out for and be kinder to everyone in this state.
I am disappointed the conservative legislators just dont stick to their values
and reduce government waste. But I am glad this very important question is
finally going to be brought to the SCOTUS. Then maybe Utah can take credit and
is doing a favor for the remaining 32 states which will finally be told they
cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians. I guess it has to happen
@I know it. I Live it. I Love it;You can vote on my marriage the day
I get to vote on yours. Otherwise, you should MYOB. God didn't give you
the right to discriminate against your fellow citizens; Jesus TOLD you to treat
others are you want to be treated. @PhotoSponge;Your
god doesn't get to say who marries in this country and who doesn't.@Hank Jr;Appealing to the SCOTUS could backfire on the LDS
church run Utah legislature and make same-sex marriage the law of the land.
That'll really suck for you, having to marry a gay guy.@John
3:16;Blah, blah, blah. Haven't we heard enough about *sin* to
turn our stomachs yet?
Gary,Here you are wrong. I am not for or against gay marriage, but the
LGBT community has hurt a number of people and continue to hurt and sue
individual business owners who would like to be able to run their business by
the way that they believe. Why is it not okay for a person of any faith or
religion or race or color to say that in their store they will not service a
particular person. This should be their right to refuse service to anyone for
any reason. Yet the LGBT community is not willing to be told no and go to
another person. I could understand if they had no other choices, but a cake
decorator or a flower shop please. Go to one of your LGBT friends who own a
shop and leave the Christians alone.
PhotoSponge: "Since the Constitution of the United States was founded on
CHRISTIAN beliefs and principles, it would, therefore, be unconstitutional to
support anything other than marriage between a man and a women, since that is
the law of God."Faulty premise, meet faulty conclusion.
Here in Arizona we have an elected Attorney General who has personally argued
cases before a federal Circuit Court of Appeals. But then, appellate practice
experience should not be a mandatory requirement for the job. The AG supervises
other lawyers who represent the state. And of course, he or she tries to
recruit the best lawyers who have chosen public service. Let's
consider how that recruiting will work. "We need you to work in local
courts for convictions in misdemeanor crimes, and civil cases involving tax
controversies," the AG might say. "You won't have to worry about
career advancement, because if anything difficult comes up, we'll trust it
to outside law firms whose partners make much more money than you ever
John 3:16There are lots of sins listed in the Bible, but we don't
make it illegal to work on Sunday or wear clothes made from different fabrics. I
don't care what you think a Sin is, you have no right to legislate your
religious beliefs into law in a secular society.
So much hatred and bigotry.What happened to live and let live?Who would deny equal rights to all?Oh yeah...Utahns
LOL Unique and specialized expertise? Really? Translation: NO one has yet come
up with a legally sustainable argument to deny law-abiding tax-paying gay U.S.
Citizens equal treatment under law. We've seen this in case after case. The
best lawyers and experts of the anti-gay forces have failed utterly to advance
such an argument, and further, have had to admit openly under oath that no harm
is caused by gay marriage only benefits to society.Whatever firm the
Governor and AG choose will love having millions of dollars thrown their way,
but they won't be able to produce a case that hasn't already failed
miserably. It will be interesting to watch all this taxpayer money thrown at
such a hopeless and mean-spirited cause. When Justice Scalia himself predicted
that decisions like this one inevitable after Lawrence and Windsor, it
doesn't take a genius to understand that this is an exercise in futility.
Far more likely that Utah's pursuit of this case will lead to 50 state
marriage equality rather than a reversal, if so, it will be sweet irony
it's paid for largely by Utah taxpayers. Can you say schadenfreude?
@Snack Pack"So why, oh why, wasn't gay marriage prevalent in the
18th Century?"Well, interracial marriage, women's rights,
and many other minority rights were not prevelant in the 18th century - should
we take away those rights? @PhotoSponge"Since the
Constitution of the United States was founded on CHRISTIAN beliefs and
principles, it would, therefore, be unconstitutional to support anything other
than marriage between a man and a women, since that is the law of God."A few quotes:"As the government of the United States of
America is NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION" - George
Washington."I consider the government of the United States as
interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions,
their doctrines, discipline, or exercises."--Thomas Jefferson in a letter to
Samuel Miller, 1808 "Religion I found to be without any tendency
to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and
make us unfriendly to one another."--Benjamin Franklin"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on a
man."--Thomas Jefferson Your God has no basis in law.
@TheRealUGood stuff!@ those who are for banning gay
marriage...I can't believe that you could ever be described as
Christlike.Christ wants nothing to do with bigots. He is mad that you use
his name in your "church".
To those who argue "You Can't Legislate Morality" may I suggest,
all law is based upon a moral standard, our nation's founders were
influenced more by the Bible than by any other book or philosophy (see Donald S.
Lutz of the University of Houston. The American Political Science Review, 1984).
The Constitution is based upon the Judeo-Christian biblical standard of right
and wrong (The 10 Commandments). The biblical standard is not eligible for
"redefinition." It does not change "with the times." It is not
"evergreen" it does not bend to popular opinion. The
Founders in their wisdom chose it because history and wisdom showed them that it
was the only formula that consistently preserved *individual liberty* in the
long run. Only as we have deviated from the *highest intents* of that original
blueprint have we run into trouble. Will anyone dispute that rock-solid fact?
(Yes, I'm sure someone will, it is a fact nonetheless.) Those of us
"cretins" who seek Judeo-Christian based legislation (i.e.
"God-given" not "state-given") on marriage are not seeking to
enforce our morality, just the reverse, we are seeking legislation that will
simply allow us (the religiously "moral") to LIVE!
If you want to have a total perspective on the New Year, read the Deseret News
and then the New York Daily News. The issue of the judge overruling the
Constitution pales in comparison to what is unfolding in New York City. The
Bible was used to swear in Mr. Reyes with a heartfelt "so help me God".
In New York City, Bill Clinton will swear in the new mayor Bill de Blasio with
the hordes from Les Miserable standing right behind him.
@CandideThere are lots of sins listed in the Bible, but we don't make
it illegal to work on Sunday or wear clothes made from different fabrics. I
don't care what you think a Sin is, you have no right to legislate your
religious beliefs into law in a secular society."Don't
forget:Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy
17:2-7)If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another
God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)Any person who curses his
mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)Anyone who curses
God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)Eating shellfish is an ABOMINATION! (Leviticus 11:9-12)If a man
cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die.
(Leviticus 20:10)Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is
against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death.
(Deuteronomy 13:5)I think we need to pass an amendement to the
Constitution, so that these things may come to pass. They are, afterall, the
word of God. Either live these words to their fullest, or stop
cherry-picking. Live and let live.
The failure that has haunted the Utah Attorney General's office is
continuing. The waste of taxpayer dollars on this hateful and bigoted appeal
will haunt the new Attorney General. Hiring outside legal help to chase nonsense
is so "Puppy" like. It takes "Bulldog" courage to face the
majority, when the majority is clearly wrong. Having a puppy, or puppet, for
Attorney General is not good for the State of Utah.
@Snack PackIf you are using the 18th century as a benchmark for behavior
("why gay marriage prevalent in the 18th century"), then I suppose you
think slavery is something we should re-establish? And women's suffrage
should be repealed? many traditions of the past no longer exist for a good
Interesting, he is going to fight against gay marriage instead of fight for
TheRealUA couple of thoughts:Since you seem to think that the
Constitution is so evil, what would you replace it with?Sharia Law? Its
happening in Europe (since they too have abandoned the Bible) they would stone a
GLBT. As for your "few quotes:" Allow me to expand if I
may."As the government of the United States of America is NOT IN
ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION" - George Washington. -->
True, the book of Deuteronomy was the most quoted (it is not a CHRISTIAN but
rather Jewish document).more to follow...
2 Million is just the beginning folks. If the state of Utah is defeated yet
again regarding this matter they won't stop. We will be a minimum of 10
million before we are through.I weep when I think of how much good
this money could do for our school systems. The good it could do for our
homeless. The good it could do for our roads. The good it could do for our
state employees. Maybe the best use for the money would be for the
AG to hire outside services to investigate the clear collaboration between a
certain Utah origination and the Governors office? Their is clear corruption in
our Governors office folks and your either to naïve to see it or your in
complete denial.I urge the Governor to resign before he and his
cronies cause un-repairable damage to this great state!
@Marine1;The LGBT community has hurt a number of people? Kettle,
call pot.No, businesses do not have the right to refuse to serve
customers for petty religious reasons. Now, if they were to refuse to service
ALL "sinners", then it would be okay to refuse to serve LGBT people for
their "sins"; but since they continue to service other "sinners"
and simply single out LGBT "sinners", their so-called "religious
consciences" are not sincere.If you'd been following some
of these cases, the Florist in Oregon WAS a friend to the gay couple.
She'd provided flowers to them many times and they *thought* she was a
"friend", at least until she refused to provide flowers for their
Reyes should first and foremost seek a criminal indictment against Swallow for
Evidence Tampering and Obstruction of Justice. His first obligation to the
citizens of Utah is to clear out the stink he inherited. Without a criminal
resolution of Swallow and Shurtleff, his term in office will always be subject
to the lingering stink of scandal.His chances of re-election will certainly be
enhanced if he brings resolution to the criminal activity that the whole Stste
now KNOWS about.I emphasize "KNOWS ABOUT" because with the recent
revelation that Swallow had refused sworn testimony before the House
Investigative Committee everyone is now clear as to Swallows real motives which
were to ride out the storm without cooperating and take the first exit that
would protect him from criminal prosecution. The citizens of Utah cannot allow
that to happen. Our judicial rights must be supported with criminal indictments
if they are warranted.If they are NOT, then say so!!
One important note missing in the whole discussion: Does a state have the right
to make bad public policy? Utah's Amendment 3 is bad public policy, but
that doesn't make it unconstitutional.That said, I've been
waiting for years for the anti-Gay side to explain why it is their business if a
same-sex couple wants to wed. The Prop 8 documented that there is no harm to
extending civil marriage.
@1994I believe the Consitution is evil? Well, that is news to me. I
believe in the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land, which is why I
support marriage equality. As the 14th ammendment clearly states that no laws
shall be passed which deny equal protection under the law. Thus, anyone who
believes in the constitution and for which it stands, should be happy to see our
LGBT friends allowed the right to marry (along with the 1,100 or so benefits
that come with it). As I am quite confused as to where you got the
idea that I "believe the Constitution is evil", I can only assume you
derived this from my comment that "Your God has no basis in law." Too
clarify, while I believe in your right to excercise your religion freely, you do
not have the right to use your God as a means to justify law. Law is justified
solely by the US Constitution.
Since the Constitution of the United States was founded on HUMANIST beliefs and
principles, it would, therefore, be unconstitutional to support anything other
than marriage between anyone and anyone, since that is the will and intent of
the very secular Thomas Jefferson.
People ask, "Why not polygamy?" Because Polygamy has historically, and
based on Warren Jeffs, currently been shown to be abusive to women, and creates
welfare fraud. Based on recent Fundy LDS news, it also kicks male children to
the street as soon as they turn 16, a serious harm to stable families.On a purely practical level, all evidence points to plural marriage as 1
powerful man, multiple less powerful women. There is nothing to suggest an
equivalent number of women want more than one husband.The simple
result of that fact is large number of disadvantage men with no hope of a wife
or even a date. That will be highly disruptive to civil society.
This is the Utah Oath of Office:"I do solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and
the Constitution of this State, and that I will discharge the duties of my
office with fidelity.["]---Mr. Reyes takes the Oath
of Office and IMMEDIATELY turns around and promises to violate that oath by
refusing to defend the US Constitution and the 14th Amendment's guarantee
@ Snack Pack - " I thought the founders intent was provide three rights, not
four; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I must have missed the
homosexual marriage." Gee - and I must of missed the straight marriage in
this same quote! I am enjoying this from afar. The new AG pledges
transparency, yet he cannot show one reason how gay marriage hurts anyone. Spend
baby Spend! With the income from gay marriages taking place in Utah you
certainly have the money to fight - gay marriages! oooops
@Earnest T. BassUtah will accomplish something important though.
This case will legalize Gay marriages nationwide in the next 18 months. No other
case out there is anywhere near reaching the Supreme Court. Consider the
following:The 10th Circuit Court is expediting Utah's appeal. A
ruling by late spring is within reach. Utah's new legal team specializes in
this area of the law. The Marriage Equality advocates are bringing in counsel
experienced in this debate. The two sides will make the arguments the Supreme
Court wants to hear. In June of 2015, The Supreme Court will vote
6-3 to uphold Judge Shelby's decision. If you are an advocate of marriage
equality, you don't want to oppose Utah's appeal.
Mike in sandy: I like liberty so much I want the federal government out of
everything that the Constitution didn't and doesn't allow, including
a federal definition of marriage! I am glad you want liberty so much that you
will agree with me. States Rights is where it is at, not if I agree or
disagree. if you vote for liberty, most of everything federal will disappear
and for good reason; it allows the people of each state to decide and it gives
every state a chance to define liberty. slavery would have died on the vine,
with 600,000 more men to pursue their dreams. It may have taken a little
longer, but that is the great thing about liberty, in the end people get to
decide, not a tyrannical and oppressive government. I am happy that you are for
It seems there is a lot of corruption in the State of Utah:"House GOP majority leadership gave Reyes the go-ahead last Friday to
spend the money.Monday, he justified the expenditure to reporters by
describing dealing with the Supreme Court as "a very unique and specialized
expertise" and said when his office doesn't have that expertise,
it'll pay to get it."1st: I understand that the GOP is the
majority in the Legislative Branch and everything else in Utah. But,do they rule
without even the appearance of a democracy i.e. vote on the floor?2.- "a very unique and specialized expertise" Wow! I thought that SSM
is a new legal field and that somebody can claim to be an "expert" in
this area sounds....fishy! I'm sure they refer to the SSM experience. I
would be surprise that a State doesn't know how to deal with the SCOTUS.3.- The AG office is anticipating the outcome and doesn't want to
be blamed for the defeat. On the contrary they want to be perceived as having
done everything to protect "traditional marriage". They are putting a
good show in legal window dressing.
Perhaps the State of Utah should only be issuing civil union certificates and
leave marriage and it's definition to the religion of the couples choice?
..........and the final word will be for all you mormons,equal rights for ALL
Since it is the IRS tax law that discriminates against singles, then all those
who feel that they are being discriminated against by these tax laws should
attack the IRS not the states that are charged by the US constitution 10th
amendment to maintain the public morals and health of it's citizens.
Civility is dead. Whatever happened to respecting one another? I agree with
Jon Huntsman. Gay's should have equal rights under the law. People who
believe in traditional marriage and religion should be respected as well.
Neither side tries to respect or show some degree of deference or understanding
for the other side. Please don't talk about tolerance unless
you practice it. We aren't going to agree on everything, but how about
practicing a little civility and respect in a civil society? Some people believe
in religion, God, the Bible, and traditional marriage. The LGBT community has
nothing but open contempt and mocks anything to do with these values.
Conversely, as a practicing Christian, I believe gay people should have equal
rights and freedoms under the law. @Ranch, before you castigate Mr.
Reyes, he is sworn to uphold two constitutions, including the state law. It is
his job to uphold state law and let the case play out in court. Don't blame
this situation and its handling on Mr. Reyes. He is doing the job he was sworn
to do, which is to inherit a constitutional crisis between state and federal
It seems to me that making this a States' rights issue makes no sense. How
does it make sense for a couple to be married in one State and not all the
others? And as we cannot avoid doing business with corporations from other
states (think Life Insurance Companies, Hospital Chains)or the Federal
Government (IRS, SS), wouldn't the interstate commerce clause necessitate a
Stop wasting our tax paying dollars on a frivolous chase to stop something that
is morally wrong. Denying anyone the right marry whom they choose is immoral and
unconstitutional. It will be defeated and we end up paying the freaking tab!
Stop this now! Write to your congressman/woman and other legislatures to include
the governor and tell them to cease this chase. IT'S EMBARRASSING!
@PhotoSponge who told you/taught you that America was founded on Christian
Beliefs? It may have had Christian Forfathers, but some of them were Masons too
(some people think masons are Christian, but they do "meet in secret"
and worship a great architect...whatever). Just because I am a LDS and my
friend is an LDS member and we want to start our own country doesn't make
our new country LDS beliefs, unless its stated that way from the beginning. No where in our constitution does it say to read your bible or anything.
If you have followed the repercussions of gay (counterfeit) marriage to those
here and internationally who refuse to issue marriage licenses or serve the gay
(very unhappy) community losing their jobs, forced out of business, suffering
lawsuits (targeted)it makes me wonder where the moral backbone is in Utah. I
hope all is well, all is well, hasn't become the state motto.
The best way to protect the religious aspect of marriage and religious liberty
is for the state of Utah to back out of recognizing or utilizing any religious
ceremony at all. Like Europeans do, there should be a civil component
(licensing the marriage/swearing an oath to fulfill the terms of the marriage
agreement) and a religious ceremony (if desired by the couple).
Candied: I am glad you believe in equality for everyone in a secular society.
now we can allow polygamy, bigamy, adultery, fornication, incest, and Social
justice. it is about time we reformed our justice system to confiscate wealth,
redistribute income to all, promote any form of marriage, anytime abortion,
adoption at any age, compulsion for those who think differently, and, of course,
confiscation of firearms, and promotion of pornography. freedom and equality
for everyone in a new, glorious secular society.
Nice to see all the out of state interest in our local politics...you're
all invited to come visit us here in Utah.
I can't find anything in any Holy Book that says God wants His followers to
make sure the Government is managed according to His commandments. It's
pretty arrogant of People of 'Faith' to pressure a completely separate
government to create laws based on their 'beliefs' How do we decide
which Religion does the deciding? Isn't it dangerous to tell the government
to make laws based on Religious beliefs? What happens when the Government starts
telling Religions what commandments they have to get rid of? If 2 men marry and
receive the same government status and credits as a married man and woman how
does that effect anyone? How does it denigrate God or His followers? It
doesn't. It just makes Molly Mormon uncomfortable answering her
child's questions. You'd think with the recent article on on
Black's and their membership in the LDS Church that people would stop
jumping to their own conclusions.
Ranch,You have had just as much power to influence government as I
have. The law equally protected our voting rights until now. While voting is
constitutionally recognized as our unalienable right, marriage in any form or
design is not recognized as such.Polygamy, race, gender-attraction,
and other historical and sensitive issues have risen around marriage. But in
each case, the courts cite designs not declared in our supreme and highest law.
For example: the men who wrote our constitution wrote laws against practicing
homosexuality. When Roe V Wade was ruled on, they cited a right which also was
not in the constitution.Right or wrong, those laws were valid by the
same constitution. Such a process isn't sustainable. I support a dynamic
constitution, not judicial tyranny.The usual response is that these
are simply cases of minorities trumping tyrannical majorities. But one must
eventually face the fact that all one must do is convince others they have a
"right" in order to repeal all votes, revoke democracy, and usurp
power.When you convince people you have rights, then use that
conviction to invalidate votes... it became my business.
@Snack PackGay Marriage wasn't prevalent in the 18th Century,
but in the 1800's the Mormon Extinction order sure was. People wanted the
Mormons gone and to do whatever it took. Why? What side would you
have landed on for Judge Shelby say he was around back then? To go against the
majority will of the state and provide freedom for Mormons or would you have
said "Missouri wants us all gone, so we should agree with the state?"