Quantcast
Utah

State asks for more time to file appeal in gay marriage recognition case

Comments

Return To Article
  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Aug. 18, 2014 7:16 p.m.

    How much more time is needed to dress up a losing argument?

    I'm sorry but no amount of word selection or novel lawyering will make "cuz my God says so" any more valid in a secular, civil court.

  • JCapetian Buffalo, NY
    Aug. 18, 2014 7:32 p.m.

    The gross incompetence of the state is showing more and more. They've had plenty of time to get ready. They are like a college student who keeps asking for extensions because they are too lazy or too irresponsible.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Aug. 18, 2014 7:39 p.m.

    Dear Governor Herbert: You don't have a legal leg to stand on, and 30--or 300--days more time isn't going to help. Claiming complex issues and busy attorneys fools no one. Give it up already!

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Aug. 18, 2014 7:51 p.m.

    Well, you can always ask. Can't imagine how anyone will justify moving a filing deadline which is still over a whole month away, another month further away. The legal filings in these marriage and recognition cases, in courts around the country all year long, have seen high-quality 50-page reply briefs written and filed almost overnight. And those are the ones which have been on the winning side!

    The only thing an extension of this filing deadline will provide Utah, is not a better brief, is not a new argument, is not a winning strategy, but only an additional one-month delay in the inevitable loss of its appeal.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 7:55 p.m.

    "This case is factually and legally complex and relates to the constitutionality of Utah's marriage statutes and the recognition of same-sex marriages in Utah, and more time is necessary to adequately address the novel issues presented," Utah's motion states.

    In other words...All of our arguments have been rejected and we are out of ideas. We need more time to come up with something.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 7:58 p.m.

    I hope they don't get it. The 'it makes us feel icky' defense should only take so much time to prepare.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Aug. 18, 2014 8:28 p.m.

    The State of Utah is getting a reputation for using delaying tactics in this case:

    "The court notes that the State chose this forum by removing the action from state court. Unlike Plaintiffs who seek certification in order to obtain favorable rulings from both courts, the State seeks to begin the process anew in a different forum from the one it chose. The court agrees with Plaintiffs that the State’s late-filed motion to certify, asserting a nearly identical question to those posed by Plaintiffs, appears to be a delay tactic."

    Judge Dale Kimball
    May 19, 2014 Evans v Herbert,
    (cv-00055-DAK Doc 45),page 33

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 8:33 p.m.

    Translation: "We've tried parroting right wing think tanks, but that hasn't worked. We need time to come up with something... anything else.

    If people weren't being denied their civil rights, this would start being amusing.

  • riverofsun St.George, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 8:44 p.m.

    Such a waste of energy.
    More families in the state of Utah would finally be able to function as families! That important fact seems to be ignored.
    Instead of fighting SSM, Utah could be working on the air pollution problem which will be upon us again. This is the elephant in the room, the yearly problem that physically chokes and sickens so very many of the states residents and visitors.
    The state could work toward better educating Utah's young people, improving health care, curbing gang violence, working towards more ethical government, better land management.
    There is so much being put on the back burner, or just forgotten. All this time, money and energy going to fight something that Utah is going to lose.
    Do they all know this? Is this why Utah is requesting a delay?

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Aug. 18, 2014 9:12 p.m.

    Given the massive size of their last losing brief in this case, the state is probably hunting for even more words to use.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Aug. 19, 2014 7:17 a.m.

    @riverofsun, Herbert is neither stupid nor naive. He knows all that already. Perhaps his intention is just to stall. If he can keep this at bay long enough, some other state will lose their case and he will be able to say "I didn't want to but SCOTUS made me do it".

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 7:40 a.m.

    @Laura Bilington, I think you hit the nail on the head. He is just waiting for the quintessential "Loving v Virginia" type of ruling so he can save face with his base.

  • Jeffsfla Glendale, CA
    Aug. 19, 2014 8:57 a.m.

    I think each side deserves the proper amount of time to prepare their case. But in doing so I think the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals should tell the State of Utah no other opposite sex marriages should be conducted until the State can complete the organization of their case. We are all about equality in this country.

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    Aug. 19, 2014 10:12 a.m.

    This is outrageous! The Utah state government has had plenty of time to prepare their case. Most likely when SCOTUS does rule on these cases it will base it's decision on the repeal of section 3 of DOMA because these states can't resolve their problems concerning marriage equality.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Aug. 19, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    "The state also writes that the petition in the original case challenging Utah's ban on same-sex marriage took more time than expected".

    Preparing the appeal of Kitchen v Herbert took longer than expected because the State's attorney was so blindsided by his reliance on "tradition" --this is Utah, remember--that he "knew" he was going to win. Therefore didn't prepare a motion to stay the decision pending an appeal, let alone work on the appeal itself. Windsor and the Proposition 8 appeal were decided six months earlier and the dominoes were falling right and left, but if you live in a bubble, silly stuff like SCOTUS decisions don't matter.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Aug. 19, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    This is a standard request among lawyers because delay = more $ in their pockets, regardless of the case at issue.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 11:15 a.m.

    Irony Guy, it is definitely a search for more money. The sad thing is that it is the taxpayers paying for it. The Utah state government is actually using Tony Milner's own money to fight against his rights.

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 19, 2014 11:28 a.m.

    @Laura Bilington: "You don't have a legal leg to stand on, and 30--or 300--days more time isn't going to help."

    Agreed. This has been a long time coming and I'm getting sick and tired of hearing the ad hominem excuses of the anti-gay people. I can't wait to marry. My 90 year old grandmother has social security she doesn't know what to do with and she ain't getting any younger.

    I think it's time for the Supreme Court of the United States to do their job, take the case and rule in favor of SSM. Get on the ball, SCOTUS!

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Aug. 19, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    Miss Piggie, unless your born-in-1924 grandmother worked for 40 quarters of her life after 1935 (not impossible but unlikely), she is collecting social security on her dead husband's account. Even if you could marry her (which you can't, given the consanguinity laws), she has no social security of her own to "pass on" to you.

    Now if you want to milk the system, find an old man who collects on his own account and is not currently married. But your payoff may be less than you think, in more ways than one.

    You were serious about marrying your grandmother, weren't you?

  • Snapdragon Midlothian, VA
    Aug. 19, 2014 1:37 p.m.

    It is time for people to be kind.

    Rubio said. “This intolerance in the name of tolerance is hypocrisy. . .supporting the definition of marriage as one man and one woman is not anti-gay, it is pro-traditional marriage.”

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 19, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    Laura Bilington:@
    "Miss Piggie, unless your born-in-1924 grandmother worked for 40 quarters of her life after 1935 (not impossible but unlikely)..."

    She has worked all her life and still does.

    "...she is collecting social security on her dead husband's account."

    Her husband ain't dead. They both have SS.

    "Even if you could marry her (which you can't, given the consanguinity laws)..."

    I can't believe it. Are you saying I can't/won't be able to marry another female? I thought the fight was about Same Sex Marriage. Boy, was I ever deceived... and disappointed.

    "... she has no social security of her own to 'pass on' to you."

    She has quite a bit. I run her check each month to her bank as a courtesy. She doesn't drive.

    "Now if you want to milk the system, find an old man..."

    I'm not sexually attracted to men. I'm GLBTQ (I forget what the 'Q' means).

    "You were serious about marrying your grandmother, weren't you?"

    Well, I was but now I'm not sure.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Aug. 19, 2014 2:30 p.m.

    @Snapdragon: A civil society must reject intolerance. Intolerance, whether racist, ethnic, sectarian, sexist, or on the basis of any other class characteristic, is poison to peace, justice, and social harmony.

    Calling rejection of intolerance an intolerance itself is a childish defense of unacceptable policies and behavior.

    Put another way: If you're mean to others out of prejudice or bigotry, civilized people not only have a right, but an obligation to call you on it.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Aug. 19, 2014 10:47 p.m.

    @Miss Piggie: "I can't believe it. Are you saying I can't/won't be able to marry another female? I thought the fight was about Same Sex Marriage. Boy, was I ever deceived... and disappointed."

    The fight is about Same Sex Marriage.

    You are talking about incest and, in this story, polygamy.

    Your side seems confused about the differences and the issues.

    Our side is clear.

    And the courts are seeing the same clarity.

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 20, 2014 8:28 p.m.

    @Stormwalker:
    "The fight is about Same Sex Marriage."

    Me and my grandmother are both of the same sex... so, I think that would be consistent with Same Sex Marriage. I could be wrong.

    "You are talking about incest and, in this story, polygamy."

    You seem to be making an exception to incest and polygamy. That seems to be discriminatory to me.

    "Your side seems confused about the differences and the issues."

    The SSM side seems confused about what sex is all about.

    "Our side is clear."

    Clearly a bunch of nonsense.

    "And the courts are seeing the same clarity."

    The courts will see clearly that marriage will be completely destroyed depending on how it rules.