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.
What else did you expect from this "Anti-American" Administration.
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
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.
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.
"President Obama's personal politics are trumping his presidential
duty," HatchMr Hatch, I believe you have it backwards. Your
religious views seem to be trumping your constitutional duty. It is clearly
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!
Very troubling, the government won't defend this rite or the rite we have to
keep illegals from entering our country.
What do you expect? I didn't vote for the guy.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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!
@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.
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.
@ 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?
@charlie91342The 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
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.
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.
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...
@JSBThe 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.
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.
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.
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.
[ "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.
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??
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
Won't defend this law. Won't enforce immigration law. What a fraud!!!!
Let's vote this guy out!
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 ISection 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 IVSection 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?
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.
A lame attempt to smooth the ruffled feathers of a minority group to shore up
his sagging popularity.
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
@ 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.
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?
@ 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.
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 - 07/08/10Line:'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.
Another example of the increasing demise of our society.
Well, he finally shows his true colors.Rainbow.
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.
'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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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".
Good decision by Obama. When was the last time Utah politicians were behind
positive social change?
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,
'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 - 08/24/09Line:'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.
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.
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: 27-28So that, if wu trust in God, we can
obey His Law.
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.
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;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
@ 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.
Sorry Redshirt. Mine was directed to RanchHand.
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.
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.
'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.
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?
@ JoggleYou 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
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.
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.
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 2.67times 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 2004Any 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.
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."
@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
Isn't it an impeachable act to NOT do what you have been sworn in to do?
Is it time for a constitutional amendment to place marriage out of reach just
like religion and speech?
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.
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: 27-28So 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
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?
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.
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?