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.
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.
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!
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.
"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.
I hope they don't get it. The 'it makes us feel icky' defense
should only take so much time to prepare.
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 KimballMay 19, 2014 Evans v
Herbert,(cv-00055-DAK Doc 45),page 33
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.
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?
Given the massive size of their last losing brief in this case, the state is
probably hunting for even more words to use.
@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".
@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.
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
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.
"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.
This is a standard request among lawyers because delay = more $ in their
pockets, regardless of the case at issue.
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.
@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!
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?
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.”
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.
@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.
@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.
@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.