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
freddysheddy
Bountiful, UT

Here is one Utahan who is in support of President Obama. All of you who are talking in a negative manner toward him and this decision should analyze your life and see if you can find the seeds of bigotry and hate. When will you understand that your views are wrong. Give people an opportunity to form families and unions that will benefit and stabilize our society. Instead you want to turn everyone into automons. I don't want a country of robots. I want a country of freedom of choice and the ability to choose for oneself. President Obama is seeking that and I applaud him for it. For the rest of you... Find away to dispel your anger. Therapy counseling or meditation might do the trick, if not enjoy the heart attack that is probably around the corner. Hate will do that to you.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Obama is a good example of how speeches can persuade people into believing lies. All through history, people have been fooled into believing wrong things. Let's wake up America!

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@procuradorfiscal
"His executive branch made its own determination that DOMA is no longer the law of the land.
"
@John Charity Spring
"George Washington in particular would be appalled to hear of a chief executive who has abdicated his role by refusing to enforce the law."
@pikap1868
"Sorry to further disappoint you but the president is able to deem certian parts of a law unconstitutional and un-enforcable"

No, no, no. It's still enforced and still law. Obama's justice department is just not going to defend challenges to it in the courts. That doen't mean it's not law or not enforced.

Rosebyanyothername
Home Town USA, UT

Sounds like Obama is pushing the envelope to IMPEACHMENT. Since when does a president have the opinion to not support a law that is constitutional?

Scary.

JSB
Sugar City, ID

@ Freddysheddy: It's not a matter of bigotry and hate. There is something far more important here. Whenever we pass a law we should consider the "Law of unintended consequences." Often the long term consequences of a new law are far worse than the problems that the new law was intended rectify. Many people can see no problem with letting gays get married--after all, they love each other. But, if gays can get married, then what is going to prevent a brother and sister from getting married? Or two brothers? Or two sisters? Or a father and a daughter? Or a father and a son? Or two men and three women (polyamory)? And on and on and on. As long as people love each other, then let's let them legalize the relationship. But, once we open the Pandora's box of gay marriage, are we ready and prepared for the social chaos that will be the inevitable consequence? Or are the gays so selfish that they don't care about the long-term damage to society as long as they can get their way?

Tekakaromatagi
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

@charlie91342

The DOMA is defensible. Various states and 80% of the world's cultures have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. Children have the rights to be raised by their parents, inasmuch that is possible. The government needs to send a strong message that it supports marriage because marriage is a strong tool to fight poverty. Because marriage is designed to create an environment to bear children the couple should be able to consumate their marriage in a biologically meaningful way. Otherwise they don't meet the requirements.
This opens up lots of freedom of conscience issues. One evidence is that the AG himself mislabelled valid cultural and religious opinions as animus.

Tekakaromatagi

Devin
American Fork, UT

All of you bashing Hatch for defending what this nation has always stood for, shame on you. I wish the founding fathers could sit you down and give you a piece of their mind.

Joggle
Clearfield, UT

The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits. DOMA forces states to discriminate against its own citizens in order to be eligible for federal funding in federal-state partnerships. Since there is no federal "marriage" AMENDMENT, it continues to be up to the states to decide if they will allow or disallow couples of the same gender to get married. Many, many people are confident that in 50 years, we will look back and wonder, exactly, how anyone might have thought that gay marriage wasnt mandated by the Constitution, specifically, the 14th Amendment. In current language: Look, states, do whatever you want, but dont try to say that some people get to have the advantages of your laws and other people dont.

The time has come for the federal government to secure the blessings of liberty for the many millions of gay citizens. There are no good reason to deny same-sex couples marriage. It's true that gay marriage makes some uncomfortable, but its not a legal argument or a very good reason.

CWEB
Orem, UT

Since WHEN does the Administration decide what is constitutional?

EVEN if you support Obama, IF you are AMERICAN, you must see the direction this man is going. I refuse to call him president.

Next his administration will decide he can serve 3-4-8 terms as head of our nation...

Joggle
Clearfield, UT

@JSB

The arguments against gay marriage don't hold up to close scrutiny. Neither the arguments traditionally raised nor the real feelings of opponents make much sense when held up to the light of reason.
So let's get on with it. Let's get over the aversion to what is opposed for silly, irrational reasons, based on ignorance and faulty assumptions, and make ours a more just and honorable society, "With liberty and justice for all." We really don't know that there will be long-term damage to society. At the end of the day, the opposition to gay marriage stems ultimately from a deep-seated homophobia in American culture, borne almost entirely out of religious prejudice. While many Americans do not realize that that homophobia exists to the extent that it does, it is a very real part of every gay person's life. It is there, it is pervasive, and it has far more serious consequences for American society than most Americans realize, not just for gays, but for society in general. It's hard to see how the promotion of love, commitment, sharing and commonality of values and goals isn't going strengthen society.

I-am-I
South Jordan, UT

And what about those with incestual desires? Are we going to legalize that too? I'm sure they don't choose to be attracted to their mom, sister, or dad either. Its really not any different. Are they being discriminated against because they can not marry their incestual intimate partner? I mean I bet they want tax and insurance benefits too.

I fear we value equality too much and have allowed it to ruin our ideas of decency.

APuyA
provo, utah

I am super happy that this discriminatory act is ending. THANKS Pres. Obama. I am tired of listening people saying things like.. un american president or things like that. I think they should remember what other presidents have done. Violations of Geneva Conventions, Torture, Violation of Montevideo Treaty and dozens of other illegal and, if you call it, un-american things.

FDRfan
Sugar City, ID

Obama is not shifting. His true colors are only emerging. I was wrong about him. But there are others just as bad--only for different reasons.

silas brill
Heber, UT

[ "I think this decision is good news for the defenders of DOMA," said Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program at Princeton University. "The Obama administration, so far, in its defending of DOMA in the lower courts has not so much been defending it as they have been sabotaging it. Their so-called defenses of the act have been so incompetent as to at least suggest that they were deliberately throwing the case. By withdrawing from the case altogether, this will give the House of Representatives the opportunity to secure counsel of its own to defend the legislation and who will defend it robustly and, I think, ultimately successfully in the Supreme Court of the United States." ]

So quit your bellyaching already.

eastcoastcoug
Danbury, CT

There 2 issues here: 1) deciding how to settle the issue between the Feds and the States and 2) what to do with the legal definition of marriage. The action by the Obama administration is more on the 1st issue for now but will ultimately set up the 2nd.

Interesting analogy with the Arizona immigration law last year- why do the Feds think it is OK to change their position on DOMA with so many states legalizing Gay Marriage, but vehemently oppose Arizona implementing (enforcing) laws against illegal immigration??

peter
Alpine, UT

This is BO's stance, and a slight minority of the people, not the majority. It is ever more clear that this man is not for the people, nor for the cause of freedom loving people who fear God. Another reason to rid this country of BO in 2012.

mohokat
Ogden, UT

Won't defend this law. Won't enforce immigration law. What a fraud!!!!

Uncle Rico
Sandy, UT

Let's vote this guy out!

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

If the President and Attorney General are correct that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment, then every state's marriage law is also unconstitutional," said William C. Duncan, director of the Utah-based Marriage Law Foundation. "And that means Utah's marriage amendment and every state's marriage amendment is unconstitutional."
=============================

Exactly right! Laws designed to specifically discriminate against one group of people in this country ARE unconstitutional.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

I-am-I: "And what about those with incestual desires? Are we going to legalize that too?"

Too late. See Utah Code 30-1-1(2). Ironically, the arguments Utah legislators accepted in permitting first cousins to marry ("we're in love", "it's inconvenient to travel to a state where it's legal")are the same ones they reject for gay couples. Also, the inability to bear children is cited as a reason to deny gay marriage, but was made a legal precondition for first cousin marriage.

Not all states recognize first cousin marriages. Does anyone know if the Full Faith and Credit Clause applies to them? Does a state that does not recognize first cousin marriages have to recognize one ordained in Utah? Are they recognized by the federal government? Can they file joint tax returns and get spousal benefits?

to comment

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