Comments about ‘Obama reignites battle over gay marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 23 2011 3:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Orem, UT

At the end of the article, the statement made by Robert P. George was correct. Let Congress provide an attorney that will vigorously defend DOMA. The present Justice Dept. will not defend a law it doesn't agree with. For all those Democrats and Independents who voted for Obama, how do you like that "hope and change" now. We have record unemployment, stagnant job growth, a debt that has grown exponentally, a tepid foreign policy that is ant-semitic as it's core, a weak domestic policy that fights against any state that defends our immigration policy, a defence of policies that protect so called "women's rights" over the butchering of the unborn, government spending that increases the role of government and favors unions regardless of their role in bankrupting states, rising gasoline prices resulting from the shut down of the oil industry, and finally the support of gay marriage. This has to be the worst administration ever in history and has no moral center in anything it does. It is anti Christian, anti-American, anti-Semitic, and evil at it's core.

Eureka, UT

The article says that 1. The Obama administration will still enforce the law. 2. It will not participate in Federal Law suits concerning the law. 3. By doing so, they open up the prospect for Congress to act on the law or 4. The supreme court will now be able to decide the constitutionality of the law.

Everyone has their opinion about the laws constitutionality and Pres. Obama should be as free as any one else to express his views. His actions seem to have opened up a way for the issue to get decided once and for all by the supreme court. Maybe now the issue will be settled.

With all the shouting about this matter, it amazes me how many who wrap themselves in the flag who refuse to let some into the tent.

w bountiful, ut

Irrespective of your point of view on this hot issue, it is a dangerous precedent when the chief of the executive branch of government, who has sworn publicly to defend the laws of this nation, openly bypasses the required process by which we maintain our society, the rule of law.
What goes around comes around. Those who support the GLBT ought also to see that, should the pendulum swing the other way, a precedent has been established which may one day be as abusive to their agenda.
This act by the administration is as unconstitutional as the opposition claims the DOMA to be. The differenceis that the DOMA was enacted by congress and signed by the President, as law, as prescribed by the constitution.
That process is what differentiates our republic from the faltering governments around us.
Cheer for joy all you who hail this act of defiance by this President, but remember, what goes around comes around. It could very well bite you in the back one day when a different law is thus treated.

Huntsville, UT

The Constitution for the United States
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I
Section 9. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Section 10. No State shall ...pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts...

Article IV
Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Bill of Attainder
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

What part of UNCONSTITUTIONAL don't you people understand?

Jonathan Eddy
Payson, UT

I'm tempted to never comment in this discussion group ever again. I don't know who at Deseret News makes the decisions on what to allow or what to deny as far as posted opinions go, but how do you voice any opinions without directing some kind of verbal attack on the subject of the article?

Lighten up guys. If I am comparing President Obama to President Chavez when it comes to abuse of power, I shouldn't be flagged for saying so. Stop being so milk toast.

metamora, IL

A lame attempt to smooth the ruffled feathers of a minority group to shore up his sagging popularity.

Magna, UT

George W.Bush used Signing Statements to ignore or invalidate 1,200 sections of bills during his Presidency. That was twice the number issued by ALL previous Presidents combined.

Yet Orrin Hatch never made a peep in protest of the Executive Branch's usurpation of powers.

It seems that Senator Hatch's new found tea party outrage is rather selective, and conveniently forgetful.

Jonathan Eddy
Payson, UT

@ RanchHand

"What part of UNCONSTITUTIONAL don't you people understand?"

Your argument would be valid if we were operating under a Constitutional government. We are not and you have been just as duped as almost every other citizen of the united States.

Since 1913, the united States of America declared bankruptcy and essentially traded in the Constitutional form of government for a corporate government with administrative procedures under the Uniform Commercial Code. Virtually everything we do in this country falls under corporate law.

Forget constitutionality. You are a member of a the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and are subject to the decisions of the corporation and its CEO, Barrack Hussein Obama.

Boise, ID

Obama's actions should be troubling for everyone - even if you are gay with 5 husbands. What happens when a conservative president decides to abuse the constitution and you don't like it? Is Obama a king?

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ Tekakaromatagi: Have you read the Congressional record of the debate around DOMA?

Many of the supporters of DOMA stated their support of traditional marriage based upon tradition and other reasons and then went on to state that on top of defending the traditional meaning of marriage, they supported DOMA because if gay couples are allowed to get married they will qualify for Federal benefits - and that should not be allowed.

They provided no reasons why same-sex couples shouldn't get benefits - other than the fact that they are same-sex couples.

That is animus - a strong dislike and hostile attitude.

If there is a reason other than animus why same-sex couples should not get Federal benefits, please do share.

Salt Lake City, UT

The 'Defense of Marriage Act', or DOMA has been shot down in other courts of law.

'Gay marriage wins rulings in pair of federal challenges' - By Denise Lavoie - AP - Published by DSNews - 07/08/10

'U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.'

The numbers of those against gay marriage has also been failing in the last 15 years.

And last, the president of the United States now refuses to defend DOMA.

Laws that target minorites do a disservice to our country. Proving that animus and discrimination still run rampat in America.

Slowly, the supposid 'reasons' for discrimination are proven false, over and over again.

Should we also restrict marriage for:

Blacks, Mormons, Women, Redheads?


Today, we know better.

Somewhere in Time, UT

Another example of the increasing demise of our society.

Payson, UT

Well, he finally shows his true colors.

Boise, ID

Marriage is between a man and a woman. The problem is not rights. Homosexuals are not fighting for rights, they are fighting for acceptance.

I wish all of the open-minded gay rights supporters would stop discriminating against those of us who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Salt Lake City, UT

'The problem is not rights. Homosexuals are not fighting for rights...' - IDC | 9:48 a.m. Feb. 24, 2011


'The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
- 'Gay marriage wins rulings in pair of federal challenges' - By Denise Lavoie - AP - Published by DSNews - 07/08/10

IDC, since you claim gay advocates are 'discriminating' against you who 'believe' something...

instead of know it....

what 'rights' are you loosing with gay marriage?

And I don't mean more abstract claims about what you believe.

I said rights.

Name them, specifically.

Because the claim that you are LOOSING something due to gay marriage is false...

unless you are part of a gay marriage.

Salt Lake City, UT

"We have record unemployment, stagnant job growth"

13 straight months of job growth is better than the -700k jobs January 2009 that bush left obama with.

"a debt that has grown exponentally"

Make taxes Clinton/Gingrich levels.

"a tepid foreign policy that is ant-semitic as it's core"

Israel is no saint, no nation over there is, giving Israel passes to do anything is immoral.

"fights against any state that defends our immigration policy"

Arizona's law is racist and unconstitutional.

"a defence of policies that protect so called "women's rights""

So now you're upset he's upholding the law?

"favors unions regardless of their role in bankrupting states"

That role is tiny and Wisconsin's unions agreed to cuts, they just want collective bargaining rights.

"rising gasoline prices"

It'd take 10 years to get new gas flowing and it wouldn't reduce prices.

"and finally the support of gay marriage"

Good, it's about time.

"It is anti Christian, anti-American, anti-Semitic, and evil at it's core."

Overdramatic much? Here's a tip, stop watching FoxNews.

Salt Lake City, UT

If people would actually look into the full story they would know that the white house spokesman noted that the justice department would provide resources to any group or congressperson who wants to defend DOMA. It's not like they're going to completely ignore it, they're just tired of wasting money fighting something that has no constitutional defense so let others do it and if they want some help the DOJ will give it to them.

Sylmar, CA

The only reason Obama won't defend DOMA is because there really is no defense for it so it is a waste of taxpayer money. same reason the CA gov and AG didn't try to defend prop 8. it is not a winnable case...

I was hoping my taxpayer dollars wouldn't be used for the defense of a losing case, but after reading the article it seems like the republicans will hire attorneys to defend it.

is there a way to make the republican party pay the legal bills for this, or bill it back to all the churches that want DOMA defended? because I don't mind them wasting their money, but all I see are wasted taxpayer dollars if it comes out of our taxes...

or have one of you people figured out a defense that doesn't include the words "immoral" or "sin"? If not, would you please ask your church to throw in a few million dolars to pay for the legal bills? I don't want to have to pay them just to see the defense say DOMA should stand because "that's the way it has always been".

Go Big Blue!!!
Bountiful, UT

Gay marriage is only the tip of the iceberg. It will be a shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations. It is just the beginning of the gay agenda. Gay marriage will lead to profound changes in school curriculum, adoption rights, and other family issues.

Please don't mock us by stating that gay marriage will only impact those who are part of a gay marriage. It will have an impact throughout our society.

Sylmar, CA

re - coleman51 | 8:10 a.m
"This has to be the worst administration ever in history and has no moral center in anything it does. It is anti Christian, anti-American, anti-Semitic, and evil at it's core."

wow. I'm at a loss for words.... but your comment begs a response...

so Obama is the worst president and is evil incarnate... because he grew the economy after the worst depression since the 30s? because he is trying to give medical insurance to those less fortunate than you?

oh, wait. I know why. it's because he disagrees with your stance on many issues like gay rights, abortion rights, etc. just as I do, and millions of other americans.

gay rights, abortion rights, etc are VERY divisive topics. You are either on one side or the other - there is very little middle ground. Obama (and I) are on the side of equal rights for all, and the rights of the existing person over the rights of the person's unborn fetus. (not a baby). You are on the side of whatever the bible says.

that's not anti-christian. it's anti- "forcing people to follow your religion".

to comment

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