Quantcast

Comments about ‘Congress likely to ride to DOMA's defense’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Feb. 26 2011 10:16 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Utahprof
Salt Lake City, UT

First, in response to Counter Intelligence, Obama's position is not that the law was not legitimately passed, but that judicial decisions in the last several years have made it very difficult to defend constitutionally - and in this he is quite likely correct. There are plenty of legal scholars who will tell you the same thing, esp. if the District Court decision striking down CA's Proposition 8 is upheld.

Second, this article's conclusion is based in its usage of only right-wing, conservative Christian sources, with little sense of how many members of Congress would actually join in. This issue divides the country regionally, and DOMA is a loser in the Northeast, Midwest, Pacific states, and parts of the West - with real purchase in only the Southern states and the more conservative states. Given recent history, including the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I would very much doubt that one could assemble majorities in both chambers to re-pass DOMA in a way that would strengthen it.

Tommy2Shoes
Lehi, UT

None of this will matter in two more years. The republicans will sweep most elections and control the house and senate and the presidency. Conservatives are tired of the spend, spend, spend Obama. We need more drilling, mining, innovation and lower taxes. We need federal lands to be returned to the states. Reduce the size of fed govt by 2/3 and then you'll see real growth. Our troops must return home and be used to defend our nation's borders. Real health care reform must be passed that truly reduces medical costs (drugs are a big portion of this) and increases quality of life and respect for life. We need to protect our religious rights. Put quality people into elected office. When they do not live up to those standards, then quickly remove them.

ehms
South Jordan, UT

Utahprof,

Regardless of whether the Justice Department is correct in its position, it is not the executive branch's responsibility to decide what is constitutional or not. That is the judicial branch's job. Period. The judicial branch can offer an opinion during the process of creating legislation, and can offer an opinion as to the constitutionality of certain actions of the executive, but ultimately the courts have the final say on the matter. This is a very unfortunate precedent that President Obama is setting. President Bush opened many similar doors to executive behavior and we are paying the price. We'll pay the price for this one too.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Obama's postion is part of his campaign lies. He was lieing through his teeth when he said he opposed same sex marriage. He has all along been plotting to allow for it to be overturned by judicial fiat and his appointments to various judicial positions and the actions of his justice departement have clearly demonstrated that any claim to support of man/woman marriage spoken by Obama was 100% a lie.

Other than one rogue district judge in California no federal judge has ever held that sexual orientation is subject to heightened scrutiny. Even that most liberal of all courts, the 9th Circuit, has refused to find any need for heightened scrutiny in these matters.

It is false to say that Mr. Obama is responsing to judicial rulings in this matter. He is creating a precedent that he is hoping courts will use in considering constitutionailty, not the other way around.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Utahprof,
DOMA is a looser in the Northeast because why? Maine overtuned genderless marriage. The list of states that have approved man/women marriage and reaproved it is almost as long as the list of states. California passed Proposition 8. You are wrong.

Iowa, the only state out-side of the Northeast that has genderless marriage only has it because the unelected judges of that state's supreme court who are appointed on the recomendation of a body of the Bar Association chose to force it. All three of the supreme court judges up for the rubber-stamp approval which happens so consistently that it would even be called undemocratic by the Saddam Hussein regime were voted out of office.

It is clear that the vast majority of people who vote do not want genderless marriage. It is also informative that Obama lied and claimed he opposed same sex marriage when he ran for office. All the evidence points to this being part of a campaign to institute same sex marriage by stealth through judicial fiat.

Devilion
Taylorsville, UT

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?

Alex 1
Tucson, AZ

If the only qualification to be married is to be a consenting adult, then what about the millions of married people who are also consenting adults? Can they be denied the right to marry as well?

to comment

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