Comments about ‘In our opinion: Editorial: Regrettable decision on Defense of Marriage Act’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 23 2011 5:38 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Bubble
SLC, UT

Marriage is a state's rights issue - always was until the Federal Government stepped in with DOMA.

It is only right that this issue is turned back over to the states where it rightfully belongs.

Pheo
Saint George, UT

People who talk about states rights actually love it when the federal government enforces laws that they agree with.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

Another step on the right direction!
I find President Obama slow to act and of course politically motivated. But, whatever the reason(s), I celebrate the fact that all citizens eventually will be able to enjoy all the privileges, rights and responsibilties of our democracy.
Tradition should not be used as an excuse for discrimination and inequality.
Today is a good day in the U.S.A. and the future looks even brighter.

Californian
Santa Ana, CA

In California, the people voted for Prop 8, marriage defined as a man and a woman. The governor, Schwarzenegger, and governor elect, Jerry Brown, who was serving as attorney general, refused to support the will of the people in this legitimate effort. All political..nor ethical or moral.

Bubble
SLC, UT

@ Californian: Attorney General Brown refused to defend a law and yet the majority of Californians elected him Governor....

Hmmm.... Why do you think that is?

Do you think that maybe some of those who voted for Prop 8 changed their minds and that is why he was elected? Maybe they found out that the ads used to support Prop 8 were a bunch of lies? Or maybe once 8000 of their fellow citizens got married and the world didn't end they decided it really wasn't that big of a deal after all....

Whatever their reasoning, the majority of Californians obviously are not too upset with Jerry Brown.

WonderingAloud
Ogden, UT

This is not unprecedented. In fact a similar thing happens every day in cities and counties and in federal offices where government attorneys general and local district attorneys refuse to prosecute old, unconstitutional, and out of date laws. At a time when our governments are bloated and debt ridden, defending this law is a massive waste of money.

Now if only this administration will stop defending ObamaCare in court!

Schwa
South Jordan, UT

The Deseret News is on the wrong side of this issue.

silas brill
Heber, UT

[ We deplore the penchant of this administration to override tradition and process in order to enact untested social policy. ]

The Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health decision was decided on November 18, 2003. That was 7 1/4 years ago. It's tested social policy already. There are ample precedents in other countries, like Canada, for example, which legalized same gender marriage on July 20, 2005.

What do you need to know? How would you recommend we test social polices?

Tekakaromatagi
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

The Deseret news is right. What I found somewhat alarming is that the AG confused justifiable moral objections with 'animus'. In my experience 98% of the time what is identified as 'homophobia' (bigotry towards gays) is simply someone's moral or cultural objections. It is the height of cultural chauvinism to conclude that someones moral or cultural beliefs are an indication of bigotry or a borderline pschological problem.

Tekakaromatagi

BYR
Woods Cross, UT

McBilly - good point.

Perhaps I am incorrect but the article, as I understand the first three paragraphs is NOT about same sex marriage but about the fed defending the law of land. I am not saying those laws are right, good, etc. But I do NOT see this article as a defense of marriage.

Woodyff
Mapleton, UT

It is what you would expect from Obama. He determined it was unconstitutional, I thought the Supreme Court was to rule on the constitutionality of laws. But not now that we have Obama. The Obama administration should not be deciding which laws they will enforce, but they have done that before.

Jared
Gainesville, FL

Re: MenaceToSociety

All men are created equal? Is that why the Founding Fathers also abolished slavery? I know some were opposed to slavery but slavery persisted for almost another 100 years. So what does the Declaration of Independence state?

"All men are created equal" - Notice the word "created", implying by God.
How are they equal? They are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". So they are endowed by God with certain rights - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Again, even with this background, slavery was still allowed. There were a lot of reasons for that but the term liberty meant different things to different groups of people at that time; none of the meanings really meant how we typically use liberty today (read David Hackett Fischer's Washington's Crossing for a good discussion of this). So, when it was written, "all men are created equal", it didn't mean at that time quite what we take it to mean today.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

I happen to disagree with the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. Still this editorial makes a reasonable case that the Justice Department should provide the resources to make a defense of it. I think the proper course to take is to repeal this legislation.

NT
Springville, UT

Typical Obama - totally disregarding his oath of office - again

I continue to expect the unexpected (and illegal) with this Chavez-like administration

Arizona2
Tucson, AZ

I think the article and the comment by Henry Drummond are right on. Whether or not the executive agrees with enacted laws, they should still defend them in court. It shouldn't be their prerogative to pick and choose what to enforce.

JSB
Sugar City, ID

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?

bjh96
Orem, UT

Most people are missing the point of this article. This is not entirely about the homosexuality issue. This is about effectively enacting law (or reversing existing law by non-enforcement) as a non-elected official.

Congress is meaningless if Holder starts choosing what to enforce. The proper remedy is passing legislation against DOMA (the article clearly states this). This shouldn't be Holder's decision. Nobody elected him to guide us on social reform - only to help Obama enforce the laws.

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

This editorial leaves out that the Obama administration did in fact defend DOMA in court and lost. What they are deciding to do now is not continue on appeals. One of the things we empower the Administrative Branch with is to make decisions on what decisions to appeal or not. There is no expectation that an administration must continue to fight a losing battle if they don't believe they will win.

Considering
Stockton, UT

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, Obama should make the case to congress. If it is unconstitutional, citizens should 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.

TheWalker
Saratoga Springs, UT

Homosexuality is, always has been, and always will be, a form of sexual perversion. The majority of Americans do not support same-sex marriage, but even if they did, that would not change the nature of the relationship.

Love/lust does not justify changing the definition of marriage, nor does it justify forcing those who oppose homosexual marriage to accept it as an alternative to the divine origin and meaning of marriage.

to comment

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