Quantcast
Utah

State wants Utah Supreme Court to intervene in gay marriage recognition case

Comments

Return To Article
  • E Sam Provo, UT
    April 26, 2014 8:03 p.m.

    So Utah's court-shopping, apparently. It doesn't matter. This is a loser case for Utah.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    April 26, 2014 8:18 p.m.

    It's a no brainer that the AG would want the Utah supreme court to make a decision on this matter of adoption. The court is very conservative and likely to rule in favor of the State. The case for marriage equality won't come fast enough for those impacted. And to reiterate, this is all about EQUALITY for gay people.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    April 26, 2014 11:01 p.m.

    Ok you showed us you tried.

    Good game!

  • Laura Ann Layton, UT
    April 26, 2014 11:11 p.m.

    To Red Corvette: You're completely right, but we're not winning, we're losing. It's definitely the Last Days.

  • rad3 SLC, UT
    April 27, 2014 1:36 a.m.

    Utah is just embarrassing itself and coming across as spiteful.

    At most it will just delay the inevitable while having very negative implications on Utah families of same sex couples. I'm embarrassed to live in this state.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 27, 2014 4:42 a.m.

    All this will do is subjugate the State of Utah to more expensive litigation. You can't have different classes of marriage without violating the Constitution. While I understand the opposition to SSM, Utah will have to live with the ones that were legally performed. This is a fools errand if there ever was one.

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    April 27, 2014 5:20 a.m.

    what a waste of taxpayers funds. just wait and let the courts rule at the federal level, but gays are too impatient for that.

  • Robert Johnson Sunland, CA
    April 27, 2014 6:08 a.m.

    It would be a waste of state money because ultimately the US Supreme Court is going to make the call and the writing is all over the wall. Marriage equality will be the law of the land very soon. Why waste State resources on something that is going to be decided nationally within a couple of years?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 27, 2014 7:13 a.m.

    Nope, no animus here.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 27, 2014 7:23 a.m.

    It's sad that the AG is so desperate to keep children from having a stable two-parent home that he'll go on a court-shopping binge in hopes of finding a judge who will agree with him. Even if he finds one and wins, it won't take children out of homes with same-sex couples. Rather, it just means that in the event of the death of the birth-parent, the child will end up being bounced around in foster care rather than remaining in the home where he or she was raised. We have too many kids in foster care now without trying to find ways to get more of them into "the system".

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    April 27, 2014 7:28 a.m.

    Children have the right to a mother and a father. Unfortunately, the pro gay marriage people think this should all be about their own emotional desires and not about the welfare and needs of children. Innocent children, who have no say in this matter, need to be protected from this kind of selfishness.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 27, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    If the appellate courts want to see evidence that disproves Utah's claim that it has no animus against same sex couples, they need to look no further than this. If the appellate courts want to see evidence that disproves Utah's claim that it is acting "for the good of the children", they need to look no further than this. Sad.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 27, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    This action is simply mean and spiteful, and about as anti family as you can get. The state is going to lose, but not gracefully.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    April 27, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    "Marriage equality" is a name liberals and supporters of same-sex marriage use in an effort to paint opponents of same-sex marriage as discriminating against gays. They refuse to believe that there is an underlying moral issue at stake, that frankly has nothing to do with a person's sexual orientation. It is that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

    As far as I know, if an adult man and adult woman wish to marry each other they are allowed to. Regardless of sexual orientation. However, a man and a man cannot marry because that is not marriage.

    People are trying to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples, but they don't realize that doing so diminishes the sanctity of marriage. It is a sign of moral decay and the consequences will follow.

  • Jeffsfla Glendale, CA
    April 27, 2014 9:20 a.m.

    I certainly respect the traditional definition of marriage but this nonsense has to stop. The AG and the State of Utah are just starting to come across as cruel. This is not just about the married couples. It is about their children. 50 years from now these children are going to be looking back at these elected officials as the "George Wallace" of their time. I urge the Governor and the AG to think really hard if this is the legacy they want to be remembered for.

  • GK Willington Salt Lake City, UT
    April 27, 2014 9:25 a.m.

    re: Cats

    Or, in the words of Helen Lovejoy, "Won't somebody think of the children."

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 27, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    @Cats

    Gay couples have children. To provide greater long term stability for those children, they want to be able to legally adopt as a couple.

    How is that selfish?

    Gay individuals have children from a previous relationship. They are now in a stable relationship with a same-sex partner and want that partner to be able to legally adopt the children to be provide greater stability and protection.

    How is that selfish?

    Gay couples are often willing to adopt and provide loving homes to children who will stay in foster care until they age out - unwanted by "father and mother" couples.

    How is that selfish?

    Gay couples simply want to protect and care for their families the same as you.

    How is that selfish?

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    April 27, 2014 9:53 a.m.

    @Cats

    Your "argument" makes no sense. The children will still be raised in same-sex household whether gay marriage exist or not. Allowing SSM WILL help to protect those children.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 27, 2014 10:12 a.m.

    @Eliyahu 7:23 a.m. April 27, 2014

    Exactly right. That's he reality of the situation in a nutshell. What I find selfish is the attempt by people to deny these children the legal recognition of the family structure in which they live and the security of legal attachments to both of their parents -- the parents with whom they live and who they love. These children need to be protected from the people who would deny them their families and legal ties to both of their parents.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    April 27, 2014 10:13 a.m.

    Those that complain about the money spent on the lawsuits, Which is actually a small drop in the rain forest. Any event if you think it is too much money why are they suing, it is gay couples suing to overturn voter approved initives, And they are the ones that are fighting for the right to marry someone of the same gender, or that would have been a nonissue. For several millennia no one even thought of same gender marriage, why are people just now finding that right in the constitution, A document that has been around many years longer than people have supposedly found that right.

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    April 27, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    Riverton Cougar,

    How does my legal "gay marriage" diminish yours in any way?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 27, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    @Riverton Cougar 9:14 a.m. April 27, 2014
    ....

    People are trying to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples, but they don't realize that doing so diminishes the sanctity of marriage. It is a sign of moral decay and the consequences will follow.

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

    I am a woman in her 60s. My husband I will be married 45 years in September (35 of them under the seal of the Temple). The sanctity of our marriage, or any marriage, will not be diminished in any way if same sex couples are allowed to marry. In fact, marriage will not be affected in any way. What affects marriage and its sanctity is the actions of the people who enter into it (Brittany Spears, any one?), and nothing else.

    In fact, encouraging people whose sexual and affectional affinity is for same-sex unions to enter into legal, exclusive unions would enhance morality, not be a detriment to it. And that would work to stabilize society.

    The definition of marriage is the legal union of two people who are not related. Allowing same sex marriages would not change that at all.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 27, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    RE: Cats " Unfortunately, the pro gay marriage people think this should all be about their own emotional desires and not about the welfare and needs of children. "

    Are you saying the "pro gay marriage people" have no regard for children in these actions? I very much disagree.

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    April 27, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    @Riverton Cougar
    The word marriage is also used to define other mergers such as, the marriage of two businesses, the marriage of two colleges, the marriage of two churches. This is a civil issue, not a moral issue or a religious issue. This is the 21st century and through communications and education equality will prevail and Utah will join the states that practice democracy.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    April 27, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    I agree that ideally children do best with a mother and a father in the home, but that is not reality. Some of us are gay, and it's not fair to children or potential spouses of the opposite gender to pretend to be anything other than who we are.

    According to many of you, I only have two options for my life:

    1. Marry a woman and do my best to make that look like a healthy, fulfilling partnership. Unfortunately, more often than not, these relationships fail, and brings heartache and anger to the spouses and children of those families.

    2. Life alone for the rest of my life. This is the sad advice that I have received from my church leaders over the years. Just imagine how unsatisfying a life like that could be. Sure, I take advantage of opportunities to serve in my community, and it makes a difference. But how many of you live to enjoy the company and successes within your own family?

  • El Chango Supremo Rexburg, ID
    April 27, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    Gay Partnerships do not produce children.

    Children deserve a Loving Mother AND Father.

    Allowing SSM will not protect children in any way, but instead will result in an increase of children being adopted to Same Sex couples which will result in that child being deprived of a Mother or a Father.

    All Children deserve equality.... to be raised in a home with a mother & father.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    April 27, 2014 11:27 a.m.

    Basically, Utah is "pro-family" and they don't care how many families have to be ripped apart to prove it.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    April 27, 2014 11:52 a.m.

    Red Corvette: "We all know what the final outcome will be."

    Here's some guesses... polygamy, marrying your brother, sister, aunt, uncle, cat, dog, and possibly all your neighbors... everybody/everything you love.

    Esquire: "You can't have different classes of marriage without violating the Constitution."

    Unfortunately, what you say is probably true. See above for examples that will soon come to fruition with the advent of SSM. Thanks, SSM proponents for ruining what used to be a civilized society.

    Robert Johnson: "Marriage equality will be the law of the land very soon."

    Marriage equality is already here... you can marry whom you will with several caveats such as: no more than one person ata time, no children, no siblings, no close relatives, no parent, no same gender, etc.

    However, if SSM is legalized and all other combinations are not, marriage discrimination will become the law of the land. Good heavens!

    Eliyahu: "It's sad that the AG is so desperate to keep children from having a stable two-parent home."

    You don't need marriage to have a stable two-parent home. You need love and commitment, not a piece of paper.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    April 27, 2014 1:05 p.m.

    @CATS

    As you wisely say, children have a right to a mother and a father. The Traditional home provide the best environment for rearing children. That is the family structure we should be promoting which furthers the best interest of children and of society in general. Your argument makes total sense - it has for hundreds of years!

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    April 27, 2014 2:54 p.m.

    Marriage is not couple centric, it's children centric. Allow gay people civil unions and all their protections. As for children, they have a right to a mother and a father.

    If that upsets you, settle it with Him.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    April 27, 2014 3:02 p.m.

    El Chango Supremo
    "Allowing SSM will not protect children in any way, but instead will result in an increase of children being adopted to Same Sex couples which will result in that child being deprived of a Mother or a Father."
    ----------------------

    My partner - my wife - and I adopted a girl who had been in the foster care system for several years. Her health problems were not getting consistent attention, her emotional needs were getting worse, she was in special ed classes and had bounced through several foster homes.

    She is now mainstreamed in school, her medical condition is mostly stable, she is active in our UU church, in Girl Scouts and other activities.

    Our son - we are in the process of adopting him - was badly abused by his biological parents. He has physical and emotional scars. He is not in school yet, but is doing better and should be mainstreamed from the start.

    In our local Gay/Lesbian parents social group there are at least a dozen special needs kids who were languishing in the system and now have two loving parents.

    How many children have you adopted?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 27, 2014 3:25 p.m.

    @USAlover 2:54 p.m. April 27, 2014

    Marriage is not couple centric, it's children centric. Allow gay people civil unions and all their protections. As for children, they have a right to a mother and a father.

    If that upsets you, settle it with Him.

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

    Children are born in some opposite-sex relationships, but not all of them. Children are born in some same-sex relationships, but not all of them. It is not necessary to have children to be married. It is not necessary to be married to have children.

    Marriage is intended to last through the lives (temporal and/or eternal) of the parties contracting the marriage. Children are an enhancement to the marriage, but their time living with their parents, and the time their parents are responsible for them, is not intended to last the entirety of the marriage. Parents have the responsibility to raise their children and protect them during childhood, but their responsibility ends when the children become adults. The married couple has responsibility for and to each other a lot longer than that. That makes marriage couple-centric.

  • yoram yasur canada, 00
    April 27, 2014 3:35 p.m.

    Umm. Yoram Yasur: Very interesting.

  • gwtchd Mountain Village, AK
    April 27, 2014 3:47 p.m.

    Go Utah!!! Stand up for morality!!!!

  • mpo South Jordan, UT
    April 27, 2014 3:51 p.m.

    Any single parent, unmarried heterosexual couple, or married/unmarried homosexual couple who genuinely wants to give a child its best shot at life would not try to adopt one.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    April 27, 2014 4:04 p.m.

    Riverton Coug: "Marriage equality" is a name liberals and supporters of same-sex marriage use in an effort to paint opponents of same-sex marriage as discriminating against gays."

    It's paint your are applying to yourselves, and it's a perfect color match.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    April 27, 2014 4:36 p.m.

    @USAlover
    "Marriage is not couple centric, it's children centric."

    Except that this has never been the case in Utah. Infertile people are allowed to marry. Postmenopausal women are allowed to marry. Couples with children are allowed to divorce. There is nothing in Utah law that hints that marriages are about children.

    "Allow gay people civil unions and all their protections."

    Except the kind people of Utah disallowed "civil unions" along with marriage in Amendment 3. If you want to allow civil unions, Amendment 3 must be repealed or overruled.

    "As for children, they have a right to a mother and a father."

    Such a legal right has never been established. We "allow" single parents, divorced parents, even foster parents where children have no parent at all.

    Studies have shown children do best with parent(s) of either gender, of any orientation, who love and care for them. If we truly want what's best for the children, establishing - in law - the families featured in the article (and all others like them), will serve the children best. Those are the simple facts.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 27, 2014 6:31 p.m.

    In asking for adoption by gay couples, advocates of gay marriage are asking too much.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    April 27, 2014 6:40 p.m.

    To WRZ "We all know what the final outcome will be."Here's some guesses... polygamy, marrying your brother, sister, aunt, uncle, cat, dog, and possibly all your neighbors... everybody/everything you love.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    No where in the story are any of your guesses mentioned. To me they appear to be nothing more than overly speculative thoughts or information not included in the story. It is my understanding that the Deseret News will not approve comments that contain this kind of speculation. Since they allowed your comments to post, obviously they didn't feel that they met this criteria. Therefore I would appreciate your source references for the subject matter you presented and what passages in the story mention or reflect on the conclusions you reached. Thank you.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    April 27, 2014 8:19 p.m.

    mpo
    "Any single parent, unmarried heterosexual couple, or married/unmarried homosexual couple who genuinely wants to give a child its best shot at life would not try to adopt one."
    -----------------

    My wife and I have adopted one and are adopting another. Both children were in foster care and not doing well. Now, both are doing very well physically and emotionally. They are adjusted and happy.

    I suppose there is a possibility that a wonderful hetero couple could have adopted them... but they didn't.

    And according to the professionals, they probably would have stayed in foster care.

    Instead, they are getting a fantastic start and will have a good life. And they have two moms.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    April 27, 2014 8:30 p.m.

    cjb
    "In asking for adoption by gay couples, advocates of gay marriage are asking too much."

    Why?

    In many places gay and lesbian couples have been adopting and raising children for many years, including Ohio.

    Same-sex marriage will mean that we have the same protection for our family as any other married couple - right now, our family is without those legal protections and benefits.

    So why is it too much?

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    April 27, 2014 9:26 p.m.

    @ Candied Ginger
    "So why is it too much?"
    It is too much because all children rightfully deserve a mother and a father. Depriving children of this is immoral, selfish, and evil. It is an act of barbarism to keep children from the traditional family structure that they need.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    April 27, 2014 10:28 p.m.

    @ Candied Ginger

    I, for one, would like to congratulate you, your wife, and your family. You are inspirational and have my profound respect. Every child deserves to be part of such a loving family.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    April 28, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    To Candied Ginger: You and your wife have my profound admiration. Not only have you enriched the lives of two children, you have also enriched your lives. A win win situation.

    To Avenue: "@ Candied Ginger It is too much because all children rightfully deserve a mother and a father. Depriving children of this is immoral, selfish, and evil. It is an act of barbarism to keep children from the traditional family structure that they need."
    To say I disagree with your position in your response to Candied Ginger would be an understatement. Apparently you would rather see their two children remain in foster and/or state care than being adopted by Ginger and her wife.
    "It is an act of barbarism to keep children from the family structure that they need." I removed one word to make your statement correct.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    April 28, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    Avenue
    "It is an act of barbarism to keep children from the traditional family structure that they need."

    Last comment, clear and brief.

    The state of Utah has nearly 3,000 kids in foster care in the state.

    Children over the age of 7, or from minority groups, or with medical needs, or with behavior problems have a near zero chance of adoption. They stay in the system to age 18 - that is barbaric.

    When we investigated adopting we wanted a healthy newborn. The social workers told us about the kids who were unlikely to ever have a family.

    Our needs and ego about the perfect child came way behind the needs of real children who need real homes.

    Both our children had a mother and father who abused and abandoned them and no other "mother-father" couples wanted them.

    Keeping children in the system is barbaric. The fact special-needs kids are virtually unadoptable is barbaric. Trying to keep children from loving couples is barbaric.

    How many children who would otherwise grow up without loving parents or stability have you adopted?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 28, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    @Cats;

    Children have a right to a loving family, regardless of the genders of the parents, but anti-lgbt people like you dont' want them to have the same benefits your own children enjoy; what utter selfishness on your part.

    @Riverton Cougar;

    The only thing that diminishes the "sanctity of marriage" is people who would deny it to others.

    @higv;

    "Voter approved initiatives" can't violate the Federal Consistution. You don't get to vote on other people's rights.

    @El Chango Supremo;

    Then outlaw divorce and death.

    @USAlover;

    Did you marry for love or just to "beget children"? (I smell some hypocrisy).

    @gwtchd;

    The state is "immoral" trying to purposefully harm others.

    @Avenue;

    You're saying kids would be better off in foster care?

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    April 28, 2014 11:28 a.m.

    @Candied Ginger: I'll add to the voices expressing admiration and respect for the family you have created, and the choice you and your wife made to adopt older children with special needs. They are very fortunate to have parents who make this sort of choice, as with all parenting, there will be other tough-vs-easy choices in the future, and they have assurance that you won't be tempted to merely default to the easiest path.

    And I'm impressed with your measured response to the inflammatory comment from @Avenue. We can only hope that he/she never has the misfortune to learn what the words "evil" and "barbarism" really mean.

    P.S. Way to represent Unitarian-Universalism! My children have benefited greatly from UU and its supportive/tolerant faith community.

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    April 28, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    To: rad3 - it you feel so embarrassed about living in Utah then maybe you should move somewhere else where you will be happy. That's what most people do.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 28, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    @suzyk#1;

    Wouldn't it be more Christian to make all people feel welcome instead of just telling them "if you don't like it leave"?

    Utah IS an embarassment. Utah's leaders are going to go down in history right alongside the George Wallaces and Archie Bunkers as hateful bigots. Is that the legacy you want attached to your church (to which these people belong).

  • davidmpark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 28, 2014 9:35 p.m.

    In 1890, the Feds forced our Great-Great-Great-Grandparents to adopt a state constitution pretty much at gunpoint. In our day, we made changes to said constitution to further our own lives, and the feds come in again and force us again to their standards and will. At what point is this OUR state constitution?! I agree with the AG; we voted on this amendment and we should decide our own fates. I'm really getting tired of the Feds dictating our lives. We are a state of the people, by the people, and for the people. Not for the whims of the feds nor of their donors.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 29, 2014 9:00 p.m.

    @davidmpark;

    This is our state too. You don't have the right to vote on the rights of other Americans. WE are ALSO "the people" every bit as much as you are. It's time for you to stop your bigotry and accept that all Americans should be treated equally.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    April 30, 2014 5:05 p.m.

    @RanchHand
    In Utah, all Americans are treated equally. All citizens can marry, as long as the marriage is within the bounds the law has set. Amendment 3 is 100% constitutional.

    To everyone else:
    "...God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet"(Romans 1:26-27)

    For this reason I cannot support homosexual families. Homosexuality is an unnatural desire.