Quantcast

Comments about ‘Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 31 2012 11:52 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Ouch!

The ultra-Cons are going to go ballistic with this news.

Pull up a chair,
pop some corn,
and let the show begin....

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

@LDS Liberal
Here's how it works. When the courts overthrow a law the ultra Cons hate, then the judges are strict constructionists. When they use the exact same logic to toss out a law the ultra Cons like, then they are "legislating from the bench."

John20000
Cedar Hills, UT

I have two dogs. Why does the federal government discriminate against my dogs? I should be able to claim them as dependents. The definition of "dependent" in the federal regulations is unconstitutional. I pay for my dogs' food, shelter, education, and entertainment. Why should a family with children get tax benefits by claiming their children as dependents and I don't get those same benefits? There is no difference between their children and my dogs. We both take care of them and love them and consider them part of our family. What is with this ban on dog dependents?

Cinci Man
FT MITCHELL, KY

Here's how it works. Now that the slippery slope is out in the open, what possible reasoning can be used to EVER block polygamy? There will soon be no principle to invoke to block anyone from marrying anyone else of age, because that would be discrimination. Congratulations court system. You've done it again!

Cinci Man
FT MITCHELL, KY

Some will say that laws against polygamy are already on the books. Well, that's what many states are trying to do with marriage protection laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But supporters of gay marriage claim that infringes on the rights of same sex partners who love each other to be married to each other. The same argument can be applied to laws limiting marriage to a single partnership of 2. In the same way, it infringes on the rights of groups to inter-marry. I see this as a dangerous precedence and the occurrence of stable homes and marriages will suffer as a result. Of course there are lasting relationships of all kinds and many heterosexual relationships fail. But society WILL take a hit when marriage is no longer protected as a sacred union between a man and a woman. That's all I'm saying.

toosmartforyou
Farmington, UT

Everyone knows this is headed to the US Supreme Court. So just be patient....it isn't settled yet.

Hawkeye79
Iowa City, IA

Actually, I think opponents of same-sex marriage will be pleased with this ruling. Take note of the grounds for which the court ruled.

According to the judges' ruling, DOMA is unconstitutional because it interferes with the rights of states to define marriage. This would suggest support for the 30+ states that have defined marriage as between "one man and one woman" in their state constitutions. Additionally, it would suggest support for the voters of California to pass laws like Proposition 8, as they have the right to define marriage in their state.

LVIS
Salt Lake City, UT

And, of course, the ultra-Libs never go ballistic over anything. I mean, not counting Prop 8 in CA, of course.

Because here's how it works. When the courts overthrow a law the ultra Libs hate, then the judges are.... Well, you get the idea.

Anne26
West Jordan, UT

I say leave it up to each individual state. Let the people vote and then respect their decision. The problem is, the gay community is unwilling to accept that.

zoar63
Mesa, AZ

@Cinci Man

"Here's how it works. Now that the slippery slope is out in the open, what possible reasoning can be used to EVER block polygamy? There will soon be no principle to invoke to block anyone from marrying anyone else of age, because that would be discrimination. Congratulations court system. You've done it again!

Polygamist compounds should relocate to states that allow same sex marriage then let the lawsuits begin.

George
Bronx, NY

@anne26
why should they gay community "accept" second class status? I am sorry that they do not want to go to the back of the bus sit down and shut-up but I don't blame them they should not have too.

birwin
Herrmian, UT

The courts haven't destroyed the sanctity of marriage... We have... Look at our divorce rate! If we want a marriage that is pure, wholesome and eternal in the sight of God, we can have it. The courts can't take that away from us! Why is this a big deal?

It really sounds like a money issue to me. Are we afraid we won't collect as many tax dollars from people living alternative lifestyles?

Coug420
Salt Lake City, UT

John20000, your argument assumes that humans and dogs are equal which isn't a valid comparison. I know you are trying to be clever and aren't serious but with your line of reasoning, we should also allow dogs to vote.

I'm not sure why everyone gets so bent out of shape with gays trying to get married. Especially in this state, it has become some religious duty to deny equal rights for gays just because the bible condemns homosexual practices. I'm sorry, but the world won't come to an end just because 2 guys or 2 gals get married.

I agree with commentors that polygamy should be legal as well as long as they are consenting adults. It is hypocritical to deny one and allow the other. The hypocrisy can go either way. Anyone who knows about utah history would know that Brigham Young, John Taylor and Wilfred Woodruff wanted rights to pracite marriage in their own way so it's ironic that we are now leading the charge against equal marriage rights.

Jake2010
bountiful, ut

If we open the legal marital union between gay lovers we MUST as a matter of congruence open up marital union to polygamists.... Anything short of that will be discrimination.... Polygamists should be able to file joint tax returns too shouldn't they? Supposing that any of the wives have jobs..... Any argument to the contrary simply shows ignorance that will never be overthrown so please argue my point carefully.

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

So, let's get the balance of powers right. The legislative branch, led by Congress (the House and the Senate), make the laws. They did that with DOMA, passing it as law in 1996. The executive branch, led by the President of the United States, enforces the laws passed by Congress. Then the judicial branch, headed by the Supreme Court of the United States, interprets the laws and decides their constitutionality. The Supreme Court doesn't make laws or enforce them, and neither Congress nor the President should interpret them.

This law is going to the Supreme Court to be judged of its constitutionality. However, it currently stands as law, and the President is sworn under oath to enforce it! He is failing in that duty. His refusal to defend the law is a violation of his oath to uphold the constitution.

Likewise, he refuses to enforce it because he deems it unconstitutional. Therefore, he is overreaching his power into the judicial branch. He must enforce it until they pass judgment.

Either way, Obama has broken his oath of office. He should know his place! If he truly understood and loved the constitution, he would enforce DOMA.

williary
Kearns, UT

@Anne26

Sort of like we did with slavery?

That worked out well.

Letting the majority vote on an issue that does not affect them in any way at all, but only affects whether a couple in the minority can get a piece of paper that says "Marriage?"

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

You had the chance to protect traditional Marriage with the compromise of allowing Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships --
aka, legal records at the County Couthouse, with a Justice of the Peace.
No Church, No Religion, No God.
Just a legally binding document, like a business agreement.

Even the LDS Church's statements about securing legal rights for the GLBT community could have been taken into account without the need for redefining "Marriage".

But No, the Ultra-Conservatives had to go for broke, All-or-Nothing.
No compromise.

Well, Guess what...

birwin
Herrmian, UT

To @Hawkeye79 and @Anne26 posts I would have to say that there will be some messy issues that will need to be resolved if this is left up to states (Not saying this should not be a state issue, just saying it will be messy if it is).

By moving across state lines, people could suddenly have their marriage annulled?

If someone is on a vacation and gets injured and they are on their spouse's insurance, will they be uninsured if the other state does not recognize the marriage?

Does this have interstate commerce ramifications? If so, can the federal government legislate this?

Just asking...

George
Bronx, NY

I am not sure why those that oppose gay marriage think they arguing to get out of bring polygamy into the conversation every-time. Do they think are remaking some kind of point? Every time they bring it up those that support gay marriage always agree polygamy between consenting adults probably should be legal. So again what is the point, maybe to try to find something we actually agree on?

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@Anne26

The problem with that is, marriage is such an integral part of society, how would 50 different laws work? If two men got married in MA, and one got transferred at work to UT, would they still be married? One could argue the 10th amendment, and the other could argue the full faith and credit clause. There has to be one National Standard on something this big.

Personally, I think government should get out of "marriage" and allow "unions". Require everyone to go to the courthouse to get married by a Judge, and then whatever religious ceremony you want can be done afterwards.

to comment

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