Quantcast
Utah

Utah wants more time to file same-sex marriage appeal

Comments

Return To Article
  • Reasonable Person Layton, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    Look, Utah.
    YOU wanted the stay and YOU want this to go to the 10th.
    If you don't already know what your arguments are, one can only ask "Why?"

    Do your work. Instead of fiddling and hiring outside help, why didn't you just prepare your case?
    OR....is our AG's office still not qualified?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 17, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    So . . . they want more money and more time. Let's see, these are lawyers, right? Is anyone surprised?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 1:04 p.m.

    When, as in this caes, a party is trying to deny the Constitutional rights of a group of people for no rationally-based reason, they deserve to be on as short a track as possible. here's hoping Utah loses this request too.

  • Berkeley reader Berkeley , CA
    Jan. 17, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    More time needed to devise a plan to deny Utah citizens their civil rights.

    It's just outrageous what the government of Utah is doing.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    How long does it take them to say "its our club, and we don't want you in it." Which is what the anti gay marriage argument boils down to.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    Well they do need to come up with a new plan since the original one didn't go so well. As long as it's only 10 days and the rest of the process continues on a fast track I suppose it's fine (though that's totally my straight privilege talking since I'm not the ones who have to wait for this).

  • markmongie Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 3:09 p.m.

    This is the landmark social issue of our time. All rational reporting I have seen on this issue, whether Pro- or Anti-Gay has cautioned for civility, restraint, and comprehensive two-way dialog. Asking for a few more days to prepare a case for the most complex social issue of our day sounds fair to me. I know there are many LGBT couples anxious to 'get married', but we first need to define what this marriage they want really is. For example, why should Utah allow same-sex marriages and not polygamous marriages? Rushing to grant equal rights needs to be considered in light of all the other issues that are attached to this one action. And remember, this recent Federal ruling in Utah went against an overwhelming Utah majority vote, so in this case needs due diligence before overturning a popular vote. I am all for LGBT couples getting equal protections under the law, but we first need to define what constitutes a legal marriage. DOMA was just part of the picture; I hope these comprehensive court proceedings uncover ALL the issues that require legislative action.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 3:39 p.m.

    No more time. Justice delayed is justice denied.

  • Coyote Solo Denver, CO
    Jan. 17, 2014 3:50 p.m.

    I thought the 10th had already granted an expedited appeal at the state's request. What rational and constitutional argument against same sex marriage does the state think it will find in 10 extra days?

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Jan. 17, 2014 4:15 p.m.

    @markmongie
    "why should Utah allow same-sex marriages and not polygamous marriages?"

    Well, if a man has multiple wives, but each of those wives can only share her husband with other women. that is clearly against gender equality, Utah government certainly should not endorse that.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 17, 2014 4:34 p.m.

    Yes more time to drop this case and get real.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 4:58 p.m.

    Why did the state ask the court to expedite the process only to turn around and ask for an extension? It makes the AG's office look like they have no clue what they are doing.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 5:08 p.m.

    "... the state says it needs an extension to complete a 'fulsome, detailed and quality' brief ..."

    In light of a couple of senses of "fulsome," I find the choice of the word interesting and amusing:

    "2: aesthetically, morally, or generally offensive"

    "3: exceeding the bounds of good taste"

    - Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.

  • yarrlydarb Ogden, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 5:10 p.m.

    Remind me again, please. How many millions of tax dollars are we going to spend before our state loses this inane battle?

    Freedom to choose one's lifestyle or belief is not a matter majority vote.

    Just ask several thousand former religious citizens and inhabitants in the 1830s to 40s of the states of New York, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois!

  • AmkaProblemka South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    @ JS If the woman is a consenting and competent adult then why is that such a different case than SSM? The straw man argument - "It won't hurt YOUR traditional marriage so why are you making a fuss?" - could be used in exactly the same way. The polygamous marriage won't hurt YOUR LBGT or traditional marriage...

    Individual choices affect the whole society. Sure, someone else's marriage might not hurt mine, but the overall attitude of a society might hurt my children's and grandchildren's chances of having successful marriages. No Fault Divorce is a prime example of "they're adults, let them do what they want".

    When building a society we should put our children well before our romantic lives.

    People really hate this argument, but gay and premeditated childless marriages are an evolutionary dead end. Romanticizing gay relationships can change how individuals who might have proclivities will decide to live their lives. This does affect the social attitudes towards family structure.

    Getting married isn't a club or the "happily ever after" ending of a romance. It's a commitment to each other to be the foundation of a family that brings children into the world.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Jan. 17, 2014 5:48 p.m.

    @AmkaProblemka
    If the woman is a consenting and competent adult then why is that such a different case than SSM? The straw man argument - "It won't hurt YOUR traditional marriage so why are you making a fuss?"
    ---
    in both SSM and traditional marriage, spouse and spouse are equal, they have each other and only each other.

    in polygamy, one husband has multiple wives, the man and one of those women are not equal in this configuration. simple as that.

    What is the harm? have you ever heard "lost boys"? polygamy community kicks those poor boys out so the "chosen men" can have multiple wives. still no harm?
    gender inequality is not harm?

  • InLifeHappiness Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 9:09 p.m.

    This is rather funny since Utah was anxiety-filled to have an "emergency" stay for Shelby's allowance of SSM found in agreement with equal constitutional rights. Hopefully Utah will follow the laws of the land as Joseph Smith counseled in the Articles of Faith. If needed to leave their beatifications reminiscent of their exodus from their beautiful Nauvoo occurred for religious polygamist freedom to a new country of Mexico, now Utah. Of course, their long belief in alternative marriage of polygamy may have led to their openness to accept SSM. Utah's important role in the SSM equality plea will always be remembered - perhaps they are more open than thought.

  • jcobabe Provo, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 10:26 p.m.

    If this issue now rests in the arguments of lawyers, the deliberations of judges, and judicial review, rather than in the rhetoric of the public square, and the democratic process, then there is no good reason for a hasty verdict.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 17, 2014 10:30 p.m.

    That would just be another ten days they could use to delay justice to the plaintiffs and those similarly situated.

    Here's a suggestion. Why doesn't Utah just ask the Supreme Court to withdraw the stay, and then the State could have as long as they want to file as many truckloads of brief as they like? Meanwhile those couples who already have their marriage licenses can have their weddings, and anyone else who wants could apply.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 17, 2014 10:37 p.m.

    Were gay people hurt for the many millennia they could not legally marry someone of the same gender? Why are they now claiming for a so called civil right they have not had for millennia before?

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 11:20 p.m.

    More time needed to allow reality to set in especially here on Planet Utah. Like it or not equality for all is inevitable. If "family values" are a true cornerstone then how about allocating this money to public schools and the poor instead of a complete pipe dream in order to please the masses here in Utah.

  • NoBoxScot Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 18, 2014 1:01 a.m.

    A decidedly one sided group, but one with some eye-opening documented results of the lgbt agenda going full speed ahead is an organization in Massachusetts - look for massresistance.org ,For those who have adopted the philosophy of relative morality there is no reason why the definition of marriage (or anything else) could not be changed every 5 or 10 years. As for me I prefer to live in a more stable society although the prospects don't look very good.

  • InLifeHappiness Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 2:53 a.m.

    Odd choices for Utah’s legal counsel to oppose SSM. Monte Stewart was one of 4 sponsors for 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 approximately 6% of his cases, has promised to cap his earnings, and played the clarinet. Not sure this is the winning legal team that Utah’s appeal desired.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 3:25 a.m.

    @ higv

    So because this change took a long time to come around it shouldn't happen? Try explaining that to women next time they try to buy property or go to vote....

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 18, 2014 6:46 a.m.

    An extension may not be merited, but I personally want no room for excuses or cries of unfairness, so I hope it's granted.

    Also asking for an extension these days are SSM opponents. They are now calling for compromise, offering civil unions or domestic partnerships when they once voted for an Amendment 3 that explicitly prohibits these as well.

    So minds have changed. The question is whether compromise should be sought. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a compromise on the road to where we are now in the military. It was insulting and still treated a certain group as second-class citizens, but it was the best this nation was capable of at the time. Are we capable of better now with respect to SSM?

    Where does the greater harm lie? In whatever the fallout might be from a change that a significant minority of the population is not yet ready for (but that is clearly moving in the direction of change)? Or in continuing to deny a group of people their equal rights?

  • Million Bluffdale, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 7:39 a.m.

    @higv
    Were gay people hurt for the many millennia they could not legally marry someone of the same gender? Why are they now claiming for a so called civil right they have not had for millennia before?

    --------
    As for your comment, not only in the past but in the present gay people are being killed all around the world when they come out of the closet, even in some more modern countries even in our hemisphere. I would hope that the United States could send a message that we are Christians by accepting gay people and allowing them marriage. Some country has to take the bold step to try and stop the hate.

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Jan. 18, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    DEAR HIGV:

    You ask, "Were gay people hurt for the many millennia they could not legally marry someone of the same gender?"

    Suppose you, as a taxpayer, were forced to subsidize an institution that you were forbidden from participating in. Certainly you wouldn't consider it fair. Would you be "HURT" physically? Probably not. Was Rosa Parks hurt when she was forced to sit in the back of the bus? Were Blacks "HURT" when they had to use separate drinking fountains. Probably not. But that's not really the POINT, is it?

    Perhaps you should ask how you would suffer if the Gay couple down the street decided to legally tie the knot.

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    Jan. 18, 2014 7:54 a.m.

    More time to change the meaning of the words used to deny marriage.

    Are the state's hired hands hoping for a new edition of a dictionary in ten more days "...to complete a 'fulsome, detailed and quality' brief on the constitutional questions"?

    Court opinions are from arguments, not embarrassment.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    NoBoxScot said: "For those who have adopted the philosophy of relative morality there is no reason why the definition of marriage (or anything else) could not be changed every 5 or 10 years."

    You mean like the "relative morality" that changed the definition of marriage on November 2, 2004?

    or The Traditional Marriage from before statehood, which was most certainly "relative morality" to anyone looking in.

    10 days only delays justice that much longer.

    Like every other right, it seems the minority needs to tear these rights from the hands of those who believe in segregation, divine providence and the status quo. Funny thing is, sharing rights doesn't deplete your rights at all.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 18, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    @InLifeHappiness:
    "Hopefully Utah will follow the laws of the land as Joseph Smith counseled in the Articles of Faith."

    I think Smith also said something like 'we believe in God...' which many citizens in Utah also ascribe to the subject of marriage, including SSM.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 11:31 a.m.

    @ higv: yes.

    Your question could also apply to race, slavery, gender equality and just about any other issue where people were not treated fairly.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 18, 2014 12:44 p.m.

    Has there ever been a prosperous civilization where a large percentage of the people were gay?

    Are there other behaviors stemming from this?

    Let's do some homework.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 18, 2014 7:17 p.m.

    Reasons for delay:

    1-- Maybe another case will come up first, and Utah will not need to be seen fighting a losing cause, and one that makes the State look small minded.

    2-- Maybe, with the added time, the prophet will receive word from God on how the lds can promote their many thousands of Gay members and children out of 3rd class status.

    3-- Maybe someone will find the golden plates, containing the solution

    etc

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    Jan. 18, 2014 7:37 p.m.

    @jcobabe: "issue now rests in the arguments of lawyers, the deliberations of judges, and judicial review, rather than in the rhetoric of the public square, and the democratic process"

    Last time I checked, judicial review is part of the democratic process - just like voting, just like legislating. Three branches of government, remember?

    "no good reason for a hasty verdict"
    Try putting your life, your family, your marriage, on hold for ten years of more while someone else determines if you have it, what you have, or what you can do. Many couples who married in December have been together for decades - waiting.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 18, 2014 11:14 p.m.

    There is no rationalization for normalizing gay behavior.

    It's been tried in many civilizations, ending in disaster.

    African countries, and many past societies as well.

    Careful for what you wish for!

  • yarrlydarb Ogden, UT
    Jan. 20, 2014 1:42 p.m.

    Why is it so hard for so many to understand that civil rights (which would obviously apply to marriage choice) are not a result of majority vote?

    The majority vote in Missouri and Illinois (as well as in New York and Ohio) was that the Mormons had no rights to believe as they did, so they had to be expelled by force.

    Now, in today's world, no doubt the majority of the descendants of those 1830 to 1840 devout Mormons are all for denying civil (marriage) rights to those who believe differently from what they do.

    Now, these "modern" Mormons, are saying that since they are in the majority, they have the right to deny those who have differing beliefs regarding a civil rights issue.

    Excuse me, but is that not the exact opposite of what they believe about their ancestors and the situation those people had with their "enemies" in MO, IL, OH and NY?

    What, pray tell, am I missing?

    Civil rights are not a matter of majority vote; they're a matter of God-given freedom to choose.

    Sounds like unadulterated doublespeak to me.