Quantcast

Comments about ‘Obama reignites battle over gay marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 23 2011 11:29 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
We the People
Sandy, UT

Regardless of my views of the issue, I am very troubled that a) Obama cannot accomplish his role as chief executive to "faithfully execute the laws of the United States" and b) has assumed the role of the judiciary.

Very troubling.

gmryno
Salt Lake City, UT

What else did you expect from this "Anti-American" Administration.

hatuletoh
Sugarhood, UT

That sets a bad, bad precedent. The judiciary doesn't get to pick and choose. The law was passed by politicians pandering to their bases, and / or people with an almost absurd level of fear, but that still doesn't mean the Feds get to opt out of defending it. If it's a bad law then defend it and let it be struck down.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

It is not the job of the Justice Department to decide which laws it will enforce or defend and which it will not. This is another example of how the Obama Administration is on the wrong side of right.

ute alumni
Tengoku, UT

o continues to demonstrate that he and his administration have NO clue. the only hope and change is that he will be out of office in one year and ten months. almost sounds soon, but not soon enough.

dave
Park City, UT

"President Obama's personal politics are trumping his presidential duty," Hatch

Mr Hatch, I believe you have it backwards. Your religious views seem to be trumping your constitutional duty. It is clearly unconstitutional.

So. Cal Reader
Escondido, CA

Greatest leader, President of all time. Yep. You betcha-- Change is Coming. (all said with tongue firmly planted in cheek!) Can't wait for this "one-term wonder" to get out of office. Most liberal voting senator (during his 1st and ONLY term as a senator) has certainly followed through on his liberal tendencies. Next two years can't come quick enough!

Doug10
Roosevelt, UT

Very troubling, the government won't defend this rite or the rite we have to keep illegals from entering our country.

R.Burgundy
Cedar Hills, UT

What do you expect? I didn't vote for the guy.

Considering
Stockton, UT

This is not and should not be about your or even Obama's personal views about DOMA or any other federal law.

How many would quickly switch sides if a republican president said he was no longer going to defend the constitutionality of various gun control laws, or federal ADA laws, or federal OSHA laws, or federal anti-discrimination laws?

Congress passes a law, the executive signs it (or it passes over a veto). It is now the executive's SWORN duty to uphold and defend the laws. If the law is bad, Obama should make his case to congress to repeal it just as he successfully did with DADT.

EVERY person here who supports Obama in refusing to defend this law before the courts must then concede that every future president (democrat or gop) has the same prerogative regarding ANY law s/he doesn't like. Think carefully about that.

If DOMA is bad law, make the case to congress. If it is unconstitutional, make the case to the courts, but do so against a full, honest, vigorous defense.

Obama's path here leads to rule of man rather than law.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Yeah, I'd say most of us are pretty upset. It always upsets us when Democrats go AWOL, to avoid their duties.

We're even more upset, however, over this Obama regime coup d'état.

DOMA should be defended. It's often been upheld. It's a perfectly good law.

But, of much greater concern is Obama assuming powers delegated only to the other branches of government.

His executive branch made its own determination that DOMA is no longer the law of the land.

Whaaa . . . ?

If it can do that, what do we need Congress for?

This is the latest and scariest in a long series of Obama regime legislative power grabs, including using executive agencies, like the EPA, to create new law -- to legislate.

Obama's executive branch made its own determination that DOMA is unconstitutional. So, why do we need the Federal Judiciary?

This is the scariest of the regime's power grabs.

There are now no limits. No oversight. No appeal. We now live at the whim of the President.

Yeah, we're upset.

John Charity Spring
Alloway, NJ

The Founding Fathers established the government with three branches because they expected that each branch would faithfully perform its role. What Obama has done flies directly in the face of the Fathers.

George Washington in particular would be appalled to hear of a chief executive who has abdicated his role by refusing to enforce the law. By doing so, Obama has effectively rendered the roles of the legislative and judicial branches completely moot.

The modern left-wing executive branch apparently feels that it knows better than Washington and the other Fathers. This is obviously not the case.

merich39
Salt Lake City, UT

in my view, if Orrin Hatch is upset about it, you can rest assured it's a good thing. I'll sleep peacefully tonight knowing Orrin will not.

also, I think this is a great cost saving move by the Obama administration. kudos to the White House for this fiscal responsibility.

speedyedee
Watkinsville, GA

This is what I don't understand. If people who believe in same-sex relationships want to have a legal & binding contract with rights and privileges of such an agreement, why would they want what heterosexual people have--a marriage, a wedding? Why don't they come up with a name for same sex relationships that include legally binding constraints that is specifically homosexual? Why would you, who want homosexual relationships, want a legal relationship that has historically been between a man and a woman? Seems you'd want to have an original & distinct name for the relationship of a life time that is between a man & a man or a woman & a woman.

charlie91342
Sylmar, CA

hatuletoh | 4:26 p.m
"that still doesn't mean the Feds get to opt out of defending it. If it's a bad law then defend it and let it be struck down."

you are probably right... but perhaps they just don't want to look stupid since there is no legitimate defense. and they don't want to waste taxpayer money on a definite losing case.

The govt won't defend the law because there is no legitimate defense. The only arguments they have use words like "immoral" and "sin". And since being gay is legal in all 50 states, how can they defend a law that discriminates based on a legal action?

I am glad they stopped the madness. Its a waste of my taxes. Same reason the CA gov and DA didn't defend prop 8. it would be a waste of money. there is no defense. all you have to do is read the transcripts from the prop 8 trial and you will see the defense was a joke.

why do you people want to waste money on a case you cannot possibly win? arent we in enough debt already?

pikap1868
Layton, UT

Sorry to further disappoint you but the president is able to deem certian parts of a law unconstitutional and un-enforcable. Pres. Bush did that many many times thru signing statements. Also, several courts has already ruled that DOMA in unconstitutional in recent years, so the fact that Pres. Obama did this is not too surprising. Furthermore, from AG Holder, "Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court."

Kass
SLC, UT

The latest polls indicate that over 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage.

@ hatuletoh: The precedent for this was established in 1946 and there have been several instances of it since then.

The DOJ under G.W. Bush refused to defend a law prohibiting ads for the legalization of a certain plant because such law violated the First Amendment.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

How is an executive choosing not to defend a law in the courts any different from the legislature choosing not to fund implementation of a law? Isn't the GOP-led Congress not funding health care reform because they can't repeal it outright the same circumvention of Constitutional responsibilities?

WonderingAloud
Ogden, UT

The headline "Utahns Upset" is a complete over-reach. In reality it seems to be the Deseret News telling its readers how to feel as opposed to defining what is actually in the news story. This one-side, slanted story only gave the reaction by one side. I am sure there are plenty of Utahns who are glad the government is going to stop wasting our money defending this silly law.

Cali Girl
Temecula, CA

It was only a matter of time before this happened. He only said he supported traditional marriage to get voted into office.

And now, the real lying President of the disintegrating United States of America is showing his true intentions.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments