Quantcast
Utah

Obama reignites battle over gay marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • Devilion Taylorsville, UT
    Feb. 28, 2011 5:22 p.m.

    If the definition of marriage changes. This begs the questions of arrange marriages, and the muslim practice of multiple wives. I'm sure that there are many other marriage practices that are currently against US law. Would all of these other marriage practices also be legal?

  • coco_sweet Sandy, UT
    Feb. 28, 2011 12:10 p.m.

    Oh good heavens people. These type of decisions were also done by W. Bush, Clinton, Bush Senior etc. for other laws they felt were unconstitional... Nothing new here.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 27, 2011 1:37 p.m.

    Tekakaromatagi - The laws for marriage define marriage as being between two people who could potentially be biologically united to create a child. If two men or two women can meet the standard of being potentially able to jointly conceive, I am all for them being married.

    LDS: If the standard to qualify for a legal marriage is "two people who could potentially be biologically united to create a child", then let's only give marriage to couples who can potentially bring children into the world. No new marriages for women over 45, for the sterile or infertile, etc...Also, for those couples who don't produce kids within..say..3 years of being married, their marriage licenses should be revoked. If they can't produce kids, why do they need or deserve marriage any more than same-sex couples who can't either?

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 27, 2011 1:32 p.m.

    gladys - Just remember the legend in your coins "In God we trust" and what has God has said? we can read and find the answer in the holy Bible where God has spoken since the world's foundation, He says: Romanos 1:26-27 after this, Do we really trust in God?
    Do Gays have rights? of course they have them, like citizens, but they couldn´t change God´s Law about marriage the Holy Bible says: Génesis 1: 27-28
    So that, if wu trust in God, we can obey His Law.

    LDS: No one is trying to change God's laws. Just man's laws.

    We LDS also need to obey scripture like you imply above. Legal Civil Rights mustn't be limited by others' subjective moral or religious views. The apostle Paul specifically scoffs at this idea (1 Cor. 10:29). See also D&C 134:4 about letting our religious opinions prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others.

    Taking away the rights of others simply because we feel that that right is a sin is itself sinful.

  • Led Zeppelin II Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 26, 2011 11:35 a.m.

    This is another reason why Obama is worse than Bush was. And Bush was one of the worst President we have ever had. What is really scary is Obama is starting to look more and more like Rocky Anderson. And Rocky Anderson is one of the worst cancers we have ever had in politics.
    I lived in Downtown SLC when Rocky Anderson was Mayor. An absolute nightmare! So glad to get out of there. If Obama goes on the Rocky road I will illegally flee out of the country.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 25, 2011 2:54 p.m.

    Is it time for a constitutional amendment to place marriage out of reach just like religion and speech?

  • Andy Horlacher Sandy, Utah
    Feb. 25, 2011 1:00 p.m.

    Isn't it an impeachable act to NOT do what you have been sworn in to do?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
    Feb. 25, 2011 6:38 a.m.

    @Kalindra:

    It isn't animus to deny federal benefits to people that don't meet the standard for receiving the benefits. I cannot receive veteran's benefits, or social security benefits. I don't meet the standard. Various laws outline the standards. The laws are not discriminatory because they limit certain groups (non-veterans, non-seniors) from receiving the benefits. The laws for marriage define marriage as being between two people who could potentially be biologically united to create a child.

    If two men or two women can meet the standard of being potentially able to jointly conceive, I am all for them being married.

    Tekakaromatagi

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Feb. 25, 2011 6:36 a.m.

    Interesting thought - we might never have had a Defense of Marriage Act - had the institution of Marriage not been so denigrated by those whom it sought to support. Whenever you seek to preserve an institution, you need to set a righteous example when entering into it, not treat it like a convenience as it has often been treated for so many years. In the end - "you make the bed you lay in."

  • 22ozn44ozglass Southern Utah, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 9:28 p.m.

    Re: Pagan:

    "After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate..Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate"

    Response: Due to the way these divorce statistics are collected, any insinuation that legalizing gay marriage is causing MA to have one of the lowest divorce rates in thes states is not based upon legitimate science.

    However when SSM and SS legal parternship divorce rates are studied in countries with a longer history/tradition of SSM/partnerships such as Sweeden the statistics tell a much different story.

    "gay male couples were 1.5 times as likely (or 50 percent more likely) to divorce as married opposite-sex couples, while lesbian couples were 2.67
    times as likely (167 percent more likely) to divorce as opposite-sex married couples over a similar period of time" Maggie Gallagher & Joshua K. Baker May 2004

    Any claims that legalising SSM is causing a lower divorce rate in MA or any other state is using (actually abusing) statistics to promote social adjendas that are not based on science. Sadly any research that does not portray homosexuals in a positive light is falaciously labled gay bashing, homophobia or bigotry.

  • JohnH Cedar City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:27 p.m.

    Here's the thing about despots that most Americans cannot comprehend. They will do as they darn well please, and do not recognize any limits on their authority. The president is NOT authorized to pick and choose which laws the executive branch will enforce. He is in violation of his oath of office.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 24, 2011 6:24 p.m.

    As those who have read my stuff before, I am not an Obama basher, and actually think all things considered, things are improving considerably. That said, this move and timing smell of an act to appease and anger the bases on either side. It feels, smells and taste like a political move, that I would have preferred we not go down this path at this time.

    I personally am not a big fan of the notion of gay "marriage", though honestly I don't think the government should be in the business of dictating who "loves" who. Honestly, it will happen, and it will also change the world far less than many believe it will.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Feb. 24, 2011 5:03 p.m.

    @ Joggle
    You didnt respond to my concernsonly implied that I have homophobia. But I do not have an irrational terror of homosexuals. For the good of our children, I am concerned about the long term social consequences of liberalizing the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. As a former public school teacher and principal, I made the same observations and conclusions as many other people in education: Children are much better off in a traditional home with a father and a stay-at-home mother. Other situations (working mother, single mom, divorce, etc.) tend to be harmful to the healthy development of the child. Homosexual marriage will inevitably lead to other strange relationships including polyamory that I mentioned in my prior comment. How will this affect our children, our schools, our neighborhoods, etc? Do you want a polyamorous family living next door to you? Or even in your own neighborhood? We must strengthen the home, not undermine it. Why cant homosexuals see the potential social dangers in opening the Pandoras box of gay marriage. The keep saying "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Feb. 24, 2011 4:25 p.m.

    To "Pagan | 2:09 p.m. " go and look up the laws on joint ownership. No wills are needed there. Your whine only covers the will. Plus, if you read the response by Sonoma County, what they did was in accordance with their policies when domestic abuse has also been reported, as was the case with these 2 gay men.

    Imagine if a man and woman had been living together and there was a history of domestic abuse. Would you want the woman, with all the same documentation, to have power of attorney over her abuser, or should the county step in?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 2:09 p.m.

    'Not true. Put your assets in a revocable living trust and assign your partner as the beneficiary.' - Jonathan Eddy | 1:10 p.m.

    'To "RanchHand | 12:56 p.m. " actually, if your partern was a joint owner just like a spouse...' - 'Redshirt1701 | 1:21 p.m. Feb. 24, 2011

    I disagree with both these statements.

    Why?

    Just look at Harold and Clay in Sonoma county, CA.

    They had Medical directives, Power of Attorney and living wills that directed each other as benificiary.

    The county, overuled all legal documents and sold off all items owned by the two to cover medical expenses WITHOUT consent of surviving member.

    A good lawyer or distant relative can overule these things as gay couples have zero legal standing without marriage.

    Also, how do you CREATE these documents?

    You pay a lawer.

    For something married couples get for $75 at city hall.

    ' If gay marriage were allowed, the logical extreme would result in the elimination of humans within one generation.' - coleman51 | 1:45 p.m.

    Coleman, that's if every human, on earth, turned gay, now.

    Also, you ignore artificial incimination used for 'John and Kate plus 8.'

    Trying to 'clear the fog'?

    Don't lie.

  • coleman51 Orem, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 1:45 p.m.

    Let's clear the air and fog over the issue of gay marriage. If gay marriage were allowed, the logical extreme would result in the elimination of humans within one generation. There obviously is a compelling reason why for centuries marriage between one man and one women was the only type of marriage recognized under legal statute. The second issue is the origen of homosexuality. This is not a natural occurrence, people being born of this disorder, because not only do we not see it in nature, but nature does not make that many mistakes. Homosexuality is a disorder much like pornography addiction. It becomes reinforced by practice. It also is reinforced by gay porn sites such as one would see on the internet. The core problem is that certain groups in this country wants us to grant rights to a group of people afflicted with an addictive disorder. They need therapy, not legal rights granted to them which will only reinforce their addictive behavior.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Feb. 24, 2011 1:21 p.m.

    To "RanchHand | 12:56 p.m. " actually, if your partern was a joint owner just like a spouse, then they would pay no taxes. So inheritance isn't an issue.

    If you cared to do a simple internet search, you could find that most of the problems that gays complain about really aren't problems at all.

    Again, where in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage? Please provide the quote.

    While you are doing a search, please tell us about your opinion of polygamy, or allowing people to have group marriages made up of however many people they want with whatever sexual orientation they may have.

  • Jonathan Eddy Payson, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 1:16 p.m.

    Sorry Redshirt. Mine was directed to RanchHand.

  • Jonathan Eddy Payson, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 1:10 p.m.

    @ Redshirt1701

    "Here's one punishment:

    My partner can't inherit my estate without paying taxes as though he were a stranger to me, your spouse inherits without paying a dime."

    Not true. Put your assets in a revocable living trust and assign your partner as the beneficiary. This is not a taxable event and you don't need to be married to do it.

    So, what's your next issue? I'm willing to help resolve all of them and you can maintain your lifestyle without a ring.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 12:56 p.m.

    Redshirt1701;

    Here's one punishment:

    My partner can't inherit my estate without paying taxes as though he were a stranger to me, your spouse inherits without paying a dime.

    If you cared to do a bit of investigation, you could see the others, but it doesn't affect you so you don't really care.

    The Constitution guarantees Individual LibertY IN the VERY FIRST SENTENCE.

    We the People of the United States, ... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Proposition8, Amendment3 are both laws that violate the Freedom of Individuals.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 12:51 p.m.

    Glady's;

    What makes you think that your bible is translated correctly? Are you aware that there were at least 15 words in the bible, pre-translation, that have been translated into the word "abomination"?

    Do you eat Shrimp/Lobster?
    Do you wear Cotton/Nylon mixed fibers?

    You commit an abomination each time you do so.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Feb. 24, 2011 12:09 p.m.

    To "RanchHand | 8:22 a.m." what punishment is being imposed on Gays by denying them the term Marriage?

    Aren't they actually being saved from all of the problems and issues involved with marriage?

    If you say that they are being denied the right to marry the person they love, give me the constitutional reference for that right. Also, why stop at Gay marriage, as has been already posted, why not allow polygamy, polyandry, or any other form of marriage that people can think of.

  • gladys Pachuca, Hidalgo, México
    Feb. 24, 2011 11:17 a.m.

    Just remember the legend in your coins "In God we trust" and what has God has said? we can read and find the answer in the holy Bible where God has spoken since the world's foundation, He says: Romanos 1:26-27 after this, Do we really trust in God?
    Do Gays have rights? of course they have them, like citizens, but they couldn´t change God´s Law about marriage the Holy Bible says: Génesis 1: 27-28
    So that, if wu trust in God, we can obey His Law.

  • Iggle Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 11:10 a.m.

    Time for religious groups to get out in front of this thing. Gay marriage is going to be the law, and while I personally don't support it, I realize there's nothing constitutionally that justifies a legal ban on it. Religious groups have to compromise and get it on paper that preaching against homosexual behavior will not be punishable by law. Also, that there will be no grounds for a lawsuit against any church or preacher who refuses to marry a same-sex couple.

    Head it off at the pass, because by law, you're going to lose the battle of keeping gay marriage illegal.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 11:00 a.m.

    'Gay marriage will lead to profound changes in school curriculum, adoption rights, and other family issues.' - Go Big Blue!!! | 10:46 a.m. Feb. 24, 2011

    You mean like a lower divorce rate?

    *After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate.' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09

    Line:
    'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'

    Source? National Center for Vital Statistics.

    How about an economic boost?

    *'Same-Sex Marriage: Who Profits?'
    - Reported by ABC News - 04/08 - By Aude Lagorce, Forbes magazine.

    Line:
    Same-Sex Marriage Could Add $16.8 Billion to Industry.

    What was your source Big blue?

    Oh, yeah.

    You don't have one.

    Supporting falshoods does not make you 'moral'. Abortion has been legal 31years BEFORE gay marriage. Schools educate children. Not try to make them gay.

    And if you want to talk about your family...

    love your gay son/daughter.

    Not condemn them for something they have never had any control over.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Feb. 24, 2011 10:59 a.m.

    re - Tekakaromatagi | 10:50 p.m
    "The DOMA is defensible. Various states and 80% of the world's cultures have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman"

    80% of the world (half of which is Islamic) certainly doesn't make it right. and states like Utah passing those types of laws certainly doesn't make it constitutional. Is that really your defense?

    "Children have the rights to be raised by their parents, inasmuch that is possible."

    does that mean we should get rid of sperm banks? because that is almost a guarentee only one parent will be involved...

    "The government needs to send a strong message that it supports marriage because marriage is a strong tool to fight poverty."

    The government IS supporting marriage. They are making it more inclusive, not less inclusive. How is that not defending marriage?

    "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."

    so... you actualy want to make marriage LESS inclusive by limiting it to only male/female couples that can concieve... so what should we tell all the other couples (too old, sterile, etc)?

  • dinosaur jr. Alpine, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 10:52 a.m.

    Good decision by Obama. When was the last time Utah politicians were behind positive social change?

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Feb. 24, 2011 10:47 a.m.

    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".

  • Go Big Blue!!! Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 10:46 a.m.

    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.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Feb. 24, 2011 10:34 a.m.

    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".

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 10:20 a.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 10:17 a.m.

    "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.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 10:01 a.m.

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

    Wrong.

    '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.

  • IDC Boise, ID
    Feb. 24, 2011 9:48 a.m.

    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.

  • Mitsurugi Payson, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 9:45 a.m.

    Well, he finally shows his true colors.
    Rainbow.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 9:33 a.m.

    Another example of the increasing demise of our society.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 9:25 a.m.

    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

    Line:
    '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?

    No.

    Today, we know better.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 24, 2011 9:14 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • IDC Boise, ID
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:54 a.m.

    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?

  • Jonathan Eddy Payson, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:42 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Ridgely Magna, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:36 a.m.

    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.

  • metamoracoug metamora, IL
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:26 a.m.

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

  • Jonathan Eddy Payson, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:25 a.m.

    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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:22 a.m.

    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?

  • goitalone w bountiful, ut
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:11 a.m.

    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.

  • Instereo Eureka, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:10 a.m.

    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.

  • coleman51 Orem, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:10 a.m.

    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.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:04 a.m.

    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?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 7:57 a.m.

    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.

  • Uncle Rico Sandy, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 7:42 a.m.

    Let's vote this guy out!

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 7:35 a.m.

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

  • peter Alpine, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 7:13 a.m.

    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.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    Feb. 24, 2011 6:13 a.m.

    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??

  • silas brill Heber, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 5:38 a.m.

    [ "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.

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    Feb. 24, 2011 5:36 a.m.

    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.

  • APuyA provo, utah
    Feb. 24, 2011 3:39 a.m.

    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.

  • I-am-I South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 12:13 a.m.

    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.

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 11:36 p.m.

    @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.

  • CWEB Orem, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 11:34 p.m.

    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
    Feb. 23, 2011 11:16 p.m.

    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.

  • Devin American Fork, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 11:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
    Feb. 23, 2011 10:50 p.m.

    @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

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Feb. 23, 2011 10:18 p.m.

    @ 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?

  • Rosebyanyothername Home Town USA, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 10:06 p.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 10:01 p.m.

    @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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 23, 2011 9:29 p.m.

    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!

  • freddysheddy Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 9:17 p.m.

    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.

  • Cali Girl Temecula, CA
    Feb. 23, 2011 8:26 p.m.

    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.

  • WonderingAloud Ogden, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 7:35 p.m.

    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.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 6:45 p.m.

    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?

  • Kass SLC, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 6:25 p.m.

    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.

  • pikap1868 Layton, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 6:00 p.m.

    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."

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Feb. 23, 2011 5:55 p.m.

    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?

  • speedyedee Watkinsville, GA
    Feb. 23, 2011 5:41 p.m.

    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.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 5:41 p.m.

    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.

  • John Charity Spring Alloway, NJ
    Feb. 23, 2011 5:39 p.m.

    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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 5:35 p.m.

    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.

  • Considering Stockton, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 5:32 p.m.

    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.

  • R.Burgundy Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 5:29 p.m.

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

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 5:10 p.m.

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

  • So. Cal Reader Escondido, CA
    Feb. 23, 2011 4:59 p.m.

    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!

  • dave Park City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 4:59 p.m.

    "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.

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 4:47 p.m.

    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.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 4:28 p.m.

    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.

  • hatuletoh Sugarhood, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 4:26 p.m.

    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.

  • gmryno Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 4:18 p.m.

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

  • We the People Sandy, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 4:18 p.m.

    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.