Quantcast
Utah

10th Circuit gives Utah seven more days to file appeal on same-sex marriage ruling

Comments

Return To Article
  • Here Sandy, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 4:03 p.m.

    I still fail to agree with the LGBT community's claims of "equality" as the driving argument for same-sex marriage. I believe that the "equality" and "equal rights" were - and are - good arguments for skin color, race, creed, religion, etc. But to base an equal rights argument on a behavior that is morally wrong is way too much of a stretch. I'm all for "equal rights", but I don't see the justification of using it as an argument in this case.

    I'm really glad the 10th circuit court is giving this more time for judicial review instead of rushing in as judge Shelby did.

  • speed66 Heber City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 4:11 p.m.

    Utah should continue to drag their feet...it's the only thing that will slow the state being thrown into the future.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 21, 2014 4:11 p.m.

    Everyone knows that the only reasons presented in any court case against marriage equality are moral disapproval or religious disapproval --- nothing with a legal basis.

    I think Utah is stalling, hoping that some other State's case will be ruled on first by the Supreme Court, so that Utahns will be saved the embarrassment of having brought the case that led to a 50 State decision that equal marriage rights apply.

    We all can see where this is going.

    Now, I would like to see the lds church get out of the way on the issue, and I would love to see mormon-born Gay people able to fully participate in their religion and communities.

  • Bill McGee Alpine, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 4:39 p.m.

    The State of Utah has had years to create a legal case for why gay marriage should not be allowed, beginning with their faulty legal rationale behind the amendment. Why does anyone think they will be able to pull together a legal argument in a week that will address this issue when they haven't been able to come up with one yet that could withstand legal scrutiny? Especially since no one, anywhere, and been able to do so.

  • get her done Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 4:45 p.m.

    All Utah could do is play hurry up, and now they want delays. Make up your minds.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 4:49 p.m.

    Dear Bob K:

    "Mormon-born gay people" (or those who struggle with SSA) can CURRENTLY fully participate in all LDS Church activities including temple worship. All they have to do is live the law of chastity the same as any other member. No blessing is withheld from any child of God, no matter who they are, as long as they live a righteous life.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 21, 2014 4:56 p.m.

    It is significant that my state, Virginia, is now joining the fight for equality.

    The new Governor, Attorney General and Lieutenant General the three of them just run and won on a platform supporting Same Sex marriage and the Affordable Care Act.

    The state that gave us Virginia vs. Loving seem headed to the Supreme Court to battle for equality under the law.

    In 2004 Virginia put a ban on the VA Constitution 57% voted on favor of bigotry. Now the number has been reduced to 43% with 50% of Virginians in favor of SSM.

    Utah, Oklahoma and now Virginia are pressing for the SCOTUS to rule on the issue.

    I am surprised that Utah needed an extension when they have been advising all states in what to do about SSM. Well, I hope they have a very good NEW argument, the old rationale obviously didn't work.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 21, 2014 4:55 p.m.

    Here
    Sandy, UT
    "But to base an equal rights argument on a behavior that is morally wrong is way too much of a stretch. I'm all for "equal rights", but I don't see the justification of using it as an argument in this case."

    --- Millions of people swear to you that their love identification is with the same sex.

    --- You want to reduce their love and what God put into their hearts to "behavior"

    --- And even if it were just behavior, your moral disqualification has nothing to do with legal rights, or, in my opinion, with how Jesus told us to deal with people.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 4:57 p.m.

    Here said:
    "I still fail to agree with the LGBT community's claims of "equality" as the driving argument for same-sex marriage. I believe that the "equality" and "equal rights" were - and are - good arguments for skin color, race, creed, religion, etc. "

    Got news for you, creed and/or religion are choices based on feeling, and are on equal footing with gay marriage, if you still believe that being gay is a choice (I personally don't believe such nonsense, since I never decided which sex I'm attracted to.)

  • Walt Nicholes Orem, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 5:09 p.m.

    So many of the comments so far are emotional, not taking into account the nature of the legal system.

    First, the court expects a brief that is factual, cogent and well organized. If the state has to "throw together" something at the last minute it actually wastes the court's time (Some contend that the whole appeal process is a waste of the court's time.)

    Second, although the position of the State of Utah is both supported and decried on the basis of its "moral" underpinning, the legal case to be presented isn't about morals at all. It is about a couple of things: Does a state have a right to maintain laws in the legal arena of marriage without federal intrusion or intervention, and Do the people of a state have a right as a majority to pass a state constitutional amendment defining marriage that can stand in exception to the laws of other states and the federal government?

    This decision, after ruled upon by the Supreme Court will be used in many other areas than just marriage. I expect it to have ramifications on taxing rules, gun control, voter registration, and a bunch of other things.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 5:15 p.m.

    It is perfectly normal for the court to grant an extension. If the other side wanted an extension they would get it, too.

  • Jefferson, Thomas Bluffdale, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 5:23 p.m.

    Okay try this one on for a legal argument. Marriage law is and always has been locally administered. The Feds have thankfully stayed out of this area for hundreds of years. It is the states and local govt place and right to define what marriage is and isn't. It has worked and should be allowed to continue. The founders who understood marriage quite well purposely did not suggest in any form that marriage was a federally constituted right. It was not then and is not now. It isn't there folks. It is absolutely clear where marriage administration is founded. WITH THE STATES. Best legal argument there has ever been

  • Here Sandy, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 5:26 p.m.

    I don't think The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints will "get out of the way". This is an issue of great importance to The Church. True, it might make things more difficult for The Church. But the Church cannot, and I would be sure, will not, change the Lord's commandments. If the Church acquiesced and "(got) out of the way" on such moral issues, it would cease to be Jesus' church.

    The Church is not “judging” people. It is standing up for one of the most important moral issues of the day and trying to keep it’s religious freedoms guaranteed in the constitution. Yes, many of us can see where this could be headed. But that is no reason to give up.
    Judges are not infallible. I suppose they do the best they can. But judges have ruled many things legal that the Lord still prohibits if one wants to participate fully as a church member.

  • Tyler McArthur South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 5:41 p.m.

    I think the Swallow scandal is a more than adequate reason for granting an extension.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 5:49 p.m.

    The problem here is that the State of Utah, at first, wanted the appeal to be fast-tracked and the 10th Circuit went along with their request. Now they're dragging their heels. If they really wanted it fast-tracked, as they claimed, they should be prepared to meet the expedited briefing schedule set by the court. It's pretty clear that the State knows it ha a loser case, and is trying to delay the inevitable as long as possible.

    If the State wants to be fair and equitable in getting its requested extension, it should not penalize the people whose lives it is putting in upheaval. It should agree (1) that all the marriages contracted in the 17 days in which SSM was operative are legally contracted marriages not subject to challenge or nullification and, (2) if the State delays much longer, the stay of Judge Shelby's decision should be lifted during the time the State is dragging its heels. Fair is fair.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 5:53 p.m.

    @jefferison

    As the courts have already indicated In their ruling In virginia vs loving the states do not have a complete free rein when it comes to marriage, any laws regardless of the issue cannot violate federal laws or the feredal constitution at this point the lower courts have said amendment 3 does we will have to wait and see what happens.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 5:54 p.m.

    It's only 7 days. Why didn't Shelby stay his own opinion and then the clock for the appeal would have started that much sooner?

  • Gibster San Antonio, TX
    Jan. 21, 2014 6:00 p.m.

    @Here
    What religious freedoms do you or I lose if they are allowed to marry?

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Jan. 21, 2014 6:00 p.m.

    The Supreme Court ruled in Windsor that marriage is a state's right, they don't call it a civil right. That is the legal basis for the 10th Circuit appeal.
    The state must also show that they have a compelling interest in establishing that law. That is the higher burden. That takes time to get all the data.
    The 10th Circuit should give Utah all the time it needs to form the best argument.

  • Listening Ears Provo, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 6:04 p.m.

    Great comment Bob K! Yes, Utah will be remembered for having brought the case before the Supreme Court that may lead to a 50-State decision that equal marriage rights apply. Quite ironic indeed!

  • Gibster San Antonio, TX
    Jan. 21, 2014 6:06 p.m.

    @here 2
    Allow me to clarify. What freedoms does the church lose if they are allowed to marry? The church can still say it's morally wrong, they can still deny them access to the temple if they do not live the law of chastity. I do not understand what rights are being taken from the church or it's membership.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 21, 2014 6:05 p.m.

    There are many arguments for man/woman marriage that focus solely on the need for marriage to be in a form that can create children to focus all child rearing within marriage as much as possible and to connect marriage to child rearing. The state has a vested interest in seeking to have as many children as possible be raised by their own biological parents.

    It would help discussion on this matter a lot if people accepted that this is a reasonable set of goals. They may not be goals others hold, but to try and act like these goals do not exist at all, just leads to needless animosity and hate being shown by those who oppose man/woman marriage.

  • Janet Ontario, OR
    Jan. 21, 2014 6:21 p.m.

    The fear is that churches, synagogues, and mosques will have to perform same-sex marriages if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land. Already, bakers, florists, photographers, etc. cannot deny a same-sex couple the professional services requested for a wedding. Already, teachers must be very careful not to discriminate by saying "Ask your mommies and daddies," or the like. Already, business executives and celebrities risk their careers by stating that they do not think same-sex marriage is morally right. If it were a matter of a legal union that provided equal benefits and privileges with married couples, few would object. People who believe strongly in religions that stress chastity can't just abandon their God's commandments. I can totally understand how gay couples feel. I wish there were a way to make everyone feel loved, respected, and happy. LDS who are gay can be chaste -- though it might require almost superhuman effort -- and remain active, but most gay people are not LDS. We need a new Solomon, and the Supreme Court is as close as we can come before the Millennium.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 6:24 p.m.

    @Jefferson, Thomas
    "The Feds have thankfully stayed out of this area for hundreds of years. "

    They (via the courts) got involved in interracial marriage bans.

    @Here
    "I don't think The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints will "get out of the way". This is an issue of great importance to The Church. True, it might make things more difficult for The Church. But the Church cannot, and I would be sure, will not, change the Lord's commandments."

    I assume 'get out of the way' only meant that the church wouldn't get involved in things like Prop 8, not that the church would change their rules for who they marry.

    @John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    "There are many arguments for man/woman marriage that focus solely on the need for marriage to be in a form that can create children to focus all child rearing within marriage as much as possible"

    Utah lets single people adopt, let's parents divorce, and has no child requirement for marriages. If they use that argument, they will lose.

    "who oppose man/woman marriage."

    Nobody opposes man/woman marriage, they merely support additional type(s).

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 6:25 p.m.

    Before everyone gets over excited, it is common for courts to give reasonable extensions to parties on showing of good cause. It really doesn't mean that much. The merit of the arguments are what's important. This is going to be really interesting....

  • Conner Johnson
    Jan. 21, 2014 6:37 p.m.

    Lets hope this 'extension' gives the AG and Governor Gary a chance to realize their are fighting a battle that they simply cannot win. Why don't we spend that money to find out how deep this John Swallow case really goes... or something meaningful like public education.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    Jan. 21, 2014 6:41 p.m.

    @Gibster,

    There are already individuals suggesting here in the comments that once gay marriage is the law of the land then 'Gay Mormons' will be able to exist completely in the LDS church suggesting that the church will be forced to accept and allow their marriages in spite of its doctrine. It is this direction (something already ocuring in Europe - primarily Holland) that the church wishes to avoid.

    Some may argue that it isn't likely, but there is a chance that the next item on the agenda will be to punish any and all religions which refuse to alter their doctrine to allow the GLBT community any and all of their demands. Already private businesses are being sued over the issue. I suspect their might be less objections if a 100% guarantee could be issued that their will not be further encroachment on religious freedom.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 6:57 p.m.

    @here;

    A behavior that is morally wrong is discrimination. "Morally wrong" is subjective. You do not get to define what is moral and what is not in our society based on your personal religious beliefs, which are quite likely in opposition to someone elses beliefs about morality.

    Cats says:

    "All they have to do is live the law of chastity the same as any other member."

    Guess what, Cat? If we are married to our partners then we ARE living the 'law of chastity'. You're trying to prevent that.

    @Walt Nicholes;

    The 10th amendment BANS states from violating federal laws. Amendment 3 violates the 5th and the 14th amendments of the US Constitution (i.e., federal laws).

    @Jefferson, Thomas;

    The feds intervened in Loving vs. Va. 1967 wasn't 100's of years ago. You are correct about "marriage administration" being a state issue; however marriage definition is not when it violates the rights of Americans.

    @Here;

    The LDS church IS judging people.

    @JPL;

    None of us "oppose man-woman marriage"; we're inclusive, not exclusive.

    @Janet;

    Bakers and florists and photographers are not churches. Your god never said "refuse service to sinners", he said "love your fellow man".

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 7:01 p.m.

    @john pack lambert

    So it would help the discussion if we just accept an argument for which the state was unable to defend in a court of law. When asked how banning SSM increase the likelyhood of a child being raised by their bio mother and father the state was unable to provide evidance or even a "readoable" rational for such an argument. Iit further was unable to present" reasonable" evidance as to a harm caused to children or society by SSM. So to accept the argument as "reasonable" for the sake of moving the conversation along seems well unreasonable.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 7:13 p.m.

    It is interesting that those who support SSM, many of whom are from out of State, would have Utah just give up accept what one activist judge has ruled. The State does have an interest in defending it's position. Proposition 8 in CA was ruled against because the Governor and Att. Gen. would not see due dilligence to the laws of their state.

    Judge Shelby should have imposed a stay immediately after his ruling, Justice Sotomayor essentiaally said that when she ruled the way she did. Now it is completely understandable that Utah would ask for an extension to have sufficient time to prepare.

    It was the US Supreme court thaty helped shape Utah's marriage laws well over 100 years ago, it is now going to take the US Supreme Court to decide this case.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 21, 2014 7:20 p.m.

    @JohnPackLambert: You keep insisting that society's interest in marriage is solely for the raising of children by their biological parents. This is not true, and is contradicted by all related governmental policies. Here's the proof:

    Sperm banks are legal.
    Egg banks are legal.
    Surrogates are legal.
    Having a baby out-of-wedlock is legal.
    Abortions by single mothers are discouraged.
    Adoption is a big business, and subsidized by the state.
    Divorce is legal and readily available.

    Further, if the government did have such an interest, certainly they would have reacted to the extraordinarily high out-of-wedlock birth percentage (41%) and divorce rate (50%). Yet, if there are any programs in place to address these, they've been thoroughly ineffective.

    We can therefore safely conclude that the state has either no interest in marriage regarding bearing or raising of the couple's own biological children, or has already thoroughly abrogated that responsibility in a half-dozen different ways.

    The simple fact of the matter is that the state wishes to suppress homosexuality and seeks to do so by denying rights to the 5% of its own citizens who grow up gay.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 7:36 p.m.

    Gibster, just a note as to how religious liberties have been and will be affected.

    "... religious liberty concerns in particular. After Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, DC, either passed a civil union law or redefined marriage, Christian adoption agencies were forced to stop serving some of the neediest children in America: orphans. These agencies said they had no problem with same-sex couples adopting from other agencies, but that they wanted to place the children in their care with a married mom and dad. They had a religious liberty interest, and they had social science evidence that suggests that children do best with a married mom and dad. And yet in all three jurisdictions, they were told they could not do that."

    testimony from Ryan T. Anderson, from this appearance Monday, January 13, 2014 to the Indiana House Judiciary Committee. Ryan Anderson is co-author of the book "What is Marriage"

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 21, 2014 8:22 p.m.

    @RocketScience: While it is admirable for a church to establish and support the operation of a social service agency as inspired by their religious leadings, that agency is not a church. It is a social service agency, and in these cases received funding by the state for its services. As such, it needed to operate under the state's rules. If it is not willing to operate under those rules, then it can't get the funding.

    Further, those agencies in question were, I believe, already placing children with single parents, some of whom may have been known to be gay. Only after SSM was legalized did they take their fainting-couch, melodramatic position. And the state, like any good parent said, "Fine, hold your breath until you turn blue." Now that same state funding just goes to other adoption agencies. Catholic adoption agencies were still free to operate without state money, but it turns out they weren't actually that altruistic.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 8:23 p.m.

    Each State has an interest in seeing successful families. Unfortunately since the sexual revolution of the 1960's too large a percentage of families have deteriorated through increasing divorce rates and irresponsible, out of wedlock sexual relationships resulting in illigitimacy.

    Rutgers sociologist Professor David Popenoe writes, "The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human development and the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable." He then concludes: "We should disavow the notion that mommies can make good daddies, just as we should the popular notion that daddies can make good mommies. The two sexes are different to the core and each is necessary;culturally and biologically;for the optimal development of a human being."

    While some truly amazing one parent families do a fantastic job, it is a tremendous struggle and disadvantage to be without a mother and a father. This is why 34 states continue with the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, many doing so by amending their constitutions. This is why Utah is defending Ammendment 3.

  • oaklandaforlife SLC, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 8:40 p.m.

    Utah will pay the almighty nickel for all of this - Why?

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Jan. 21, 2014 9:17 p.m.

    Classic battle between right and wrong! Very clear: follow the prophet, he knows the way. He knows the end from the beginning...he sees where this is all headed.

  • Stephen Daedalus Arvada, CO
    Jan. 21, 2014 9:38 p.m.

    @Quaker is correct.

    Boston Globe Oct 22 2005: Catholic Charities of Boston knowingly placed children with gay parents starting in 1987 and continued for nearly two decades. These were "among the most difficult to place, either because they had physical or emotional problems or they were older." Peter Meade, then-chairman of Catholic Charities of Boston board: "I see no evidence that any child is being harmed" through the adoption by same-sex couples. The VP of Programs: "the 13 children placed with same-sex couples fared as well as those adopted by heterosexual couples." The President of CC Boston said it never sought a religious exemption from the MA anti-discrimination statutes (which tied state funding to non-discrimination and long pre-dated SSM in MA)

    Despite a unanimous vote by the Board of Catholic Charities to continue gay adoptions, four Mass. Catholic Bishops decided to pull the plug on the 100+ year adoption services, after their ham-fisted failure in getting a carve-out from the MA statute and the crass financial decision to ditch the orphans rather than spend a single dollar on standing up for "religious liberties".

    The IL and DC agencies -chose- similar fates, none 'forced' to stop.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 21, 2014 9:54 p.m.

    Cats
    Somewhere in Time, UT
    "Dear Bob K:
    "Mormon-born gay people" (or those who struggle with SSA) can CURRENTLY fully participate in all LDS Church activities including temple worship. All they have to do is live the law of chastity the same as any other member. No blessing is withheld from any child of God, no matter who they are, as long as they live a righteous life."

    --- I see nothing different between this and statements by Southerners 50 years ago.

    --- That "struggling with SSA" chestnut is from the 1970s. It is hard to see how folks can be so blind in the face of millions of people testifying that being Gay is innate to them. The only reason there is a struggle is old thinking and prejudice.

    --- I do not think that God really curses all these people-- your friends, neighbors, relatives and others -- with this struggle.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 10:22 p.m.

    Gibster denies that SSM will be inflicted on churches and temples by explaining the argument for requiring churches and temples to perform same sex marriages. He/she shows us that going after churches is absolutely a next step for the pro-homosexual lobby. They need to be stopped at this step.

    Those who don't believe in God sanctions SSM should not have to provide any services for a SSM. They are not discriminating against the people. Birthday cakes for homosexual people are not a problem. We are all sinners. But to provide services for a ceremony that mocks their religious beliefs is unthinkable. They should never be forced to choose to close their business so they can live their religion.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 10:54 p.m.

    [In light of other comments given, and that you listed 12 vague reasons why it was denied none of which seem to apply, I have no idea what could possible be wrong with my OPINION in regards to the article other than you simply want to deny certain views.]

    Not even science knows if "being" gay is a choice.

    Comparing it to race is an unsupportable comparison.

    But actively living the lifestyle, participating in homosexual sex, and behaving gay is a choice.

    Forcing anyone to support your choice by forcing their labor or service is wrong and fascistic and bullying.

    And no state should be required to give you rights, privileges, or official approval or endorsement because of your choices.

    The appeal and time for it is a good thing.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 10:55 p.m.

    They just hired the counsel for this case 4 days ago. When there is new counsel brought in, there is time given for them to get up to date on everything. It is not a special favor by the judge.

    Those who think a week delay for the sake of justice is too much to ask need to get over themselves. This is the United States of America, I am happy to say. Due process is guaranteed, and that includes reasonable time for preparing your defense.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 22, 2014 6:20 a.m.

    @ the truth

    When did you choose to be heterosexual?

    Homosexuality has consistently occurred in the human population at a rate of about 5%. So you're saying that, every generation, 5% of the people - millions and millions of people - choose to be gay despite knowing that they stand a good chance of being rejected, shunned, reviled, assaulted, imprisoned, and/or murdered. That's just absurd.

    BTW, something that consistently occurs over time, regardless of the rate, is by definition a normally occurring variation. Like left-handedness - something we humans also recently believed was a sign of immorality.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 7:02 a.m.

    @toosmartforyou 5:54 p.m. Jan. 21, 2014

    Why didn't Shelby stay his own opinion and then the clock for the appeal would have started that much sooner?

    --------------------

    He didn't stay the decision because the State didn't ask for a stay in its pre-decision pleadings. When the decision was handed down, the State went to the 10th Circuit to ask for a stay, rather than requesting one from Judge Shelby. The 10th Circuit rightly refused the request.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 22, 2014 7:18 a.m.

    @ Badgerbadger

    You wrote:"Birthday cakes for homosexual people are not a problem. We are all sinners."

    Your statement clearly delineates your way of thinking. You equate homosexuality as a spiritual flaw.

    You have the right to believe that way and sincerely offended we are not. But do you really expect that any court of law will accept that argument to deny privileges to a sector of the citizenry?

    Those against SSM will have to do a lot of window dressing to mask the real reason for your opposition.

    Imagine Orthodox Jews claiming that Jehovah is their God and they are the chosen people. Therefore, no others, should be allow to marry. Gentiles are not among the selected children of God unless they convert.We know that conversion to Jewish Orthodoxy is extremely hard.

    Do this sounds absurd to you? Well, is very close to what you and many others are proposing.

    The Orthodox Jewish of my example have no chance to prevail in court and neither those against SSM who base their arguments in their religious beliefs.

    By the way, many of us LGBT and our families feel very much in harmony with our Heavenly Father.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 22, 2014 7:46 a.m.

    This could prove to be very, very bad for the State of Utah.

    The response from the plaintiffs is due well into the 2014 Legislative session - and they will have access to lots of new, fresh statements on newly proposed legislation that may show quite the bias against homosexual individuals.

    This delay could make it a lot easier for the plaintiffs to prove animus.

  • Jeffsfla Glendale, CA
    Jan. 22, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    I am glad the court provided the additional 7 days. This will take away the argument that the State did not have enough time to prepare a credible defense. Sure they had years to prepare and if they think 7 days are going help them it just confirms they are delusional. No matter what they say in their brief they are going to come across as being religious zealots on a crusade.

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 22, 2014 8:15 a.m.

    @Cats:"Mormon-born gay people" (or those who struggle with SSA) can CURRENTLY fully participate in all LDS Church activities including temple worship. All they have to do is live the law of chastity the same as any other member. No blessing is withheld from any child of God, no matter who they are, as long as they live a righteous life."

    Is promoting discrimination and actively fighting against equal rights as defined by the constitution of the U.S. considered to be righteous? if yes w,hat does the definition of leading a righteous life mean to you?

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 8:56 a.m.

    Last night, the local news stations were highlighting a 'gay' couple with a innocent child on the lap of his father.

    As a viewer, I could not help but be concerned for the child's welfare, any concern for the father's right to 'marry' another man became secondary.

    Where is the child's mother?

    Children have a RIGHT to be raised in a home with their own father and their own mother honoring marriage vows and providing, protecting and nurturing their own off-spring

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 22, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    No country with half its people supporting gay behavior, has ever prospered. Period!

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    @Rocket Science
    "And yet in all three jurisdictions, they were told they could not do that."

    Actually they could, they just couldn't get gov't subsidies for it. Catholic Charities chose to shut down its adoption services in Massachusetts but LDSFS continues there without adopting to same-sex couples because they use their own funding.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 22, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    @LovelyDeseret: You have severely misinterpreted the Winsor ruling.

    The Winsor ruling indicated that states do indeed have the authority to regulate marriage within its borders, HOWEVER, all state laws *must* comport with the US Constitution.

    Amendment 3 clearly failed to comport with the US Constitution. That's why it was correctly struck down.

    Do you contend that there is demonstrable harm caused by allowing same sex couples to marry? That there is a compelling state interest in denying marriage that overwhelms the constitutional mandate to equal protection of the law?

    NO such argument has yet been produced that is not rooted in animus.

    This is why marriage equality is winning in case after case, and will continue to prevail.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    @ Quaker from brooklyn NY,
    Thanks for emoting the intolerance you have for those who are concerned about children.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    @ iron&clay: "Children have a RIGHT to be raised in a home with their own father and their own mother honoring marriage vows and providing, protecting and nurturing their own off-spring."

    What happens if one parent dies? What happens if there is a divorce? What happens when the parents don't honor their marriage vows? What happens if the parents can't support or nurture their off-spring? What happens when an unmarried woman gets pregnant?

    Are you willing to apply this "right" universally, or does it only apply to children being raised in situations you oppose?

    As A Quaker asks, what are we supposed to do with children whose "right" to "their own father and their own mother" gets violated?

    As Kalindra points out, this delay may prove very harmful to the State of Utah. With comments like yours and the comments on the story about the non-discrimination bill, it is going to be extremely easy for the plaintiffs to prove animus - especially once the members of the Utah Legislature start making their comments.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 12:18 p.m.

    @ Quaker in Brooklyn

    Here in Utah we have a prevalent notion to care about one another and especially the innocent.

    The Book of Mormon is not a Broadway play. It was translated by a young boy from New York state who said that when taught correct principles, people can govern themselves.

    The Book of Mormon teaches us to have our hearts knit together in unity and love one towards another.

    When a society cannot control themselves by obeying the above principle, then you would need to suspend liberty and set up a new world order collectivist government where Cuomo would dictate intervention and put offenders in detention.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 3:08 p.m.

    @Karen R.

    Whether being heterosexual or homosexual is choice or not (and again science has no conclusive evidence that it is natural and therefor you cannot argue it is a civil right) is irrelevant.

    All you do IS a choice.

    How you act and behave is a choice. Having sex and how you have sex is a choice.

    Forcing anothers labor and service for you is a choice.

    Civil unions, Marriage is a choice.

    Whether you believe you are born that way, everything after is a choice.

    Forcing others to support your choices is wrong.

    There is nothing in the federal constitution about marriage. It is left up to the states and the people according to the tenth amendment.

    The crux of the matter is gays argue they need marriage to have certain rights, I do not believe that is so.

    Getting government out of marriage period would better for all and solve all problems.

    Let the churches do what they want and let the people do what they want. That is true freedom.
    And if some one chooses not support your choices then so be it, live and let live.

  • Jeff in NC CASTLE HAYNE, NC
    Jan. 22, 2014 4:00 p.m.

    @ Here
    "I believe that the "equality" and "equal rights" were - and are - good arguments for skin color, race, creed, religion, etc. But to base an equal rights argument on a behavior that is morally wrong is way too much of a stretch."
    The equality has to do with marrying someone with a compatible sexual orientation, which straights get to do but not gays...ergo: not equal. If you disagree, I take it you have no problem offering your daughter to marry a gay man and having a loveless life (ever after). Or is it that you think gay people should just be expected to remain celibate and lonely? PS, sexual orientation is not itself a behavior. Whereas acting ignorant and spiteful, well those are behaviors thare morally wrong.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 6:13 p.m.

    @the truth

    So how exactly are you "forced to support" their choice? All you are going to have to do is get out of the way so they can be free to make thier own choices. Beyond that you are not being "forced to support" their choices anymore then anyone else is being "forced to support" any of the many choices you make on a daily bases.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 22, 2014 8:53 p.m.

    @ the truth

    Religion is a choice. Some have chosen gay-friendly versions. Others have chosen versions with less than gay-friendly views. In Utah and several other states, the less than friendly groups made a choice to deny some of their fellow citizens the choice to marry whomever they please - a choice they freely enjoy themselves. Why should gay-friendly religions and gay people be forced to abide by the choices of the less than friendly's? Live and let live, right?

  • MoreMan San Diego, CA
    Jan. 23, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    They are doomed. Wait til the other side brings up #12 of the Articles of Faith.

  • Inis Magrath Fort Kent Mills, ME
    Jan. 24, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    The State of Utah as no valid legal basis upon which to argue that the SSM ban passes Federal Constitutional muster. Waiting one week isn't going to help them at all. It will, however, give a few high-priced lawyers more time to rack up billable hours on the backs of the taxpayers.