Reaction to Utah’s plan to go to SCOTUS on same-sex marriage

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

The Sutherland Institute:

Sutherland Institute is happy the Attorney General has decided to take the marriage case directly to the Supreme Court. This gives the state of Utah an opportunity to protect the ability of people in every state to decide for themselves to defend marriage as society’s way to encourage a married mother and father for every child.

Charles Stormont, Democratic candidate for Utah Attorney General:

“The continued defense of Amendment 3 is an incredible waste of taxpayer resources. Contrary to what Mr. Reyes and Mr. Herbert have said, the Attorney General does not have a duty to blindly defend clearly unconstitutional laws. The Attorney General is supposed to be a legal advisor.  Given the rulings in every court that has looked at this issue since Windsor, there is little to no chance this expensive appeal will succeed.”

“We should stop wasting our tax dollars trying to break up families and start investing resources to protect children. If Mr. Reyes and Mr. Herbert want finality and certainty, there is a simple way: end this appeal.”

The Utah Pride Center:

Since Windsor, courts across the country have unanimously ruled that laws like Amendment 3 discriminate against LGBTQ couples and families. Going directly to the Supreme Court does expedite the process of moving toward equality, but in the face of overwhelming judicial decisions in favor of same-sex marriage, it is another slap in the face to LGBTQ families. There is no reason to pursue this to the Supreme Court when Governors around the country have chosen to take high-road and accept the decisions of the lower courts.

Equality Utah:

The Supreme Court may or may not take up this case. In the meantime loving committed couples, their families, and their children remain in limbo. Governor Herbert has the power to give resolution to this matter today by doing what other republican governors are doing all across the nation – don’t appeal the decision and let the marriages stand.

 It’s regrettable that on the one hand Governor Herbert wants Utah to be a destination for economic growth, and at the same time he is choosing to send the message to the world that Utah is a hostile place for anyone that doesn’t fit a very narrow mold of what it means to be a family.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights:

“We want this case to move forward to a final resolution as quickly as possible. Every day, loving and committed same-sex couples and their families in Utah are being harmed by the continued enforcement of measures that deny them equal dignity, security and protection—even though both the federal district court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals have held they violate fundamental constitutional guarantees.  We look forward to the day every family in Utah has the freedom to marry, and we will work hard to make that happen as soon as possible.”

Sen. Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake City:

While I am not surprised by the decision, I am disappointed. This is not a case where Utah should lead the way. Leading the way in discrimination is a bad tag for our state. 
I fear that by bringing this case, after 22 straight judicial losses, Utah will be sending avery bad message. It will also coats Utah taxpayers millions. 
I am not sure that the explanation by Governor Herbert and the Attorney General Reyes that they are just ‘doing our duty’ will fly. So many GOP Governors and AG’s have said, ‘This is wrong. We will not go there’.
The Governor and Attorney General are risking their legacy. They may well be remembered for generations as the last stand of LGBT discrimination–and they may bring the state’s reputation with them.
In the 1960’s Gov George Wallace kept saying, this has nothing to do with segregation–it’s about states rights. Yea. Turns out, it was about segregation! And this is about animus toward LGBT people.


    • Arlee

      Heading should be Homosexual Reaction to Utah’s Plan to go to SCOTUS…. Well, who cares what their reaction is? All Utah’s knew what the reaction would be. Righteousness will prevail and the rights of the people of Utah will be upheld. Our votes were counted, homosexuals lost and the Utah Constitution will be upheld against all with criminal intent. Marriage is only between a natural born man and a natural born woman in Utah. Our borders are open to the left coast.

  • Trish Ramirez

    You are all wrong. Give it 6 months and LGBT marriage will be legal. This is a lost case, and a waste of resources to keep appealing and fighting. The citizens of Utah don’t have the Constitutional right to vote away the civil rights of their neighbors because they disagree with their lifestyle.

    • Bob

      My sympathies for Mr. Lonnie Hutton, 49, from Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The poor man was arrested after attempting to have an intimatate interlude with an ATM and a picnic table. The police don’t have the Constitutional right to take away the civil rights of this man just because they don’t agree with his lifestyle. At least Mr. Hutton didn’t try to get up close and personal to a hornet’s nest.

    • Arlee

      Trish, you know the Utah Code regulates deviant behavior through the criminal code. Homosexual behavior in a park is against the law and will put you in jail for a long time. And with a minor for a long, long time. We are talking about a perversion life style.

      • kartmann

        Arlee, you are wrong. Utah’s anti-s o d o m y statute, as well as similar laws in all other states, were struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court years ago. It’s not illegal.

        Please stick to the facts. And I suggest you get over the idea that, as a conservative, you should be using the legislature or the courts to engineer society as you see fit. Leave that behavior to the liberals. Government has no right to dictate what members of a (supposedly) “free country” do in the bedroom.

    • kartmann

      Well, Trish, at least you’re using the “C-word.” That’s a good sign. Let’s examine your statement in that context, shall we?

      What is “constitutional” in Utah depends on the Utah Constitution, as amended. Utah voters amended the Constitution to define marriage. By doing so they eliminated the Utah courts, including the Utah Supreme Court, from the equation. Neither the Utah courts, nor the legislature, have any say in the matter. The Governor and the Attorney General, being oath-bound to “protect and defend” the constitution of the State of Utah, have an ethical and legal obligation to defend that Amendment in the Federal courts.

      Now let’s address it on the Federal level: You are saying that citizens of the United States do not have the right to “vote away the civil rights of their neighbors.” That is true…..if the behavior in question is a “civil right” protected under the United States Constitution. That remains an open question. Until the Supreme Court says it is, then we don’t know the answer.

      You have made the argument that the Supreme Court HAS so rules because it “kicked the matter back down to the States” in a previous case. Actually, if they invoke the Tenth Amendment and “kick it back down to the states” they’re saying that the Federal government has no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter, and therefore it’s up to the individual states to decide. (Which Utah did, via Amendment.) Their decision means the exact opposite of what you think it does.

      Paradoxically, they may choose not to hear the current case, which means they’d be agreeing with the appeals court ruling AGAINST Utah’s Amendment…..which would contradict their own “kick it down to the states” ruling a couple of years ago, in which they said that it’s up to Utah to decide.

      I don’t know which direction they’ll go here, but if they simply refuse to hear the case then they’re obviously in complete disarray and not paying attention to their own rulings.

      Incidentally, Amendments to any Constitution always trump all three branches of government that are empowered by that Constitution. That’s why the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery overruled the high court’s decision in the Dred Scott case, in which they ruled (just a few years before the Amendment) that slavery WAS legal. It’s also theoretically possible to LEGALIZE slavery via Amendment, and the Courts would have no say in the matter. We could legalize slavery of all liberals named Trish if we wanted to. The nation, its government, its Constitution and its laws belong to We the People.

  • TB

    Arlee, seriously? and you know this from experience I take it? I got news for you there are more Heterosexual Deviants in the park than Homosexual ones…just saying watch the news once in a while…

    • rich

      Heterosexuals are not trying to cram down our throats their sexual deviant behavior like the homosexuals are.

    • Arlee

      99 % Heterosexuals in Utah vs <1% homosexuals.

      So if what you keep track of is true. A strange preoccupation, I might add. Then say 51% of bathroom crimes are committed by heterosexuals and 49% by homosexuals as you suggest, then that must involve more than half of the Utah homosexual community. Wow! Sorry, But still does not make a difference.

    • Bob

      Arlee has it right TB. Based on the overwhelming percentage of the population that understand what nature intended you’d have to be an idiot not to realize that there are a higher percentage of heterosexual deviants. What part of simple logic is it that you don’t understand?

  • kartmann

    When Utah’s Amendment is struck down (and it will be), there are two remedies open to American Citizens in this matter:

    1. At the State level, simply remove the word “Marriage” from all legal documents. Get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Marriage belongs to society in the first place, not to government. Let government handle the legal contract aspects of it, and leave it to society to decide who has a “husband” or a “wife.” That would be my suggestion.

    2. Pursue an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to define “marriage” as between one man and one woman. That would overrule anything that the Supreme Court could say on the matter. Courts in this country derive their authority from The People, who delegate it to the Courts via Constitutions. State Constitutions for State Courts, and the U.S. Constitution for Federal Courts. No Court can declare the Constitution which empowers it “unconstitutional.” Contrary to popular (and ignorant…..and scary) belief, the Supreme Court is NOT “supreme.” The Constitution is.

  • your trash

    Have any of you idiots claiming that this majority still holds acctually left your houses latley or do you just sit in you home beating your kids with the bible? The rest of the world has accepted this its time for equility in all forms now.

    • rich

      Equality for what? Civil rights should not to be confused with sexual deviant behavior. We still hold the majority and those that think otherwise are living in a bubble. One judge does not make a majority.

Comments are closed.