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
dinosaur jr.
Alpine, UT

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

charlie91342
Sylmar, CA

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)?

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'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.

Iggle
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

gladys
Pachuca, Hidalgo, México

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.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

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.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

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.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

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.

Jonathan Eddy
Payson, UT

@ 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.

Jonathan Eddy
Payson, UT

Sorry Redshirt. Mine was directed to RanchHand.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

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.

coleman51
Orem, UT

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.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'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.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

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?

JSB
Sugar City, ID

@ 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."

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

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.

JohnH
Cedar City, UT

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.

22ozn44ozglass
Southern Utah, UT

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.

TA1
Alexandria, VA

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."

Tekakaromatagi
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

@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

to comment

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