Quantcast

Comments about ‘White House urges Supreme Court to strike down Defense of Marriage Act’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Feb. 22 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Oatmeal
Woods Cross, UT

The White House is wrong to do so. I am a Democrat, but I support DOMA. Gays can call their unions by another name.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@oatmeal
The very fact you do not want them to use the term marriage proves anything else will not be equal which is why I support obama's position.

the truth
Holladay, UT

@Tolstoy

Words have meaning.

How about just getting the government out of marriages.

What business is it of theirs?

Then it would not matter at all. And we would not have all this bickering.

Why should the government be defining unions or marriages? Or base anything on it?

More Government involvement is the problem not the solution.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

One man. One woman.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

@the truth
what business is it of theirs, how about the fact that marriage is a civil contract that comes along with over 100 civil protections and benefits that are not extended to those that are not married,

why should you get to define marriage for others?

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

why have government involved? maybe the befits to the couple and to larger society, here is a short list.

If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.
Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.
Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.
Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.
Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

continued...
Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.
Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.
Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.
Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.
Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.

The Deuce
Livermore, CA

When we as a society start down the road of marginalizing marriage, we head down a very slippery slope that will not benefit society as a whole. This is not coming from a moral point of view, but coming from a practical academic view. There is a reason that government should support the concept of marriage. If there are other types of unions or contracts that need the legal protection then make it happen. This issue has gone on far too long when a simple solution is in front of all of us. And yes, life is not equal. It never was and never will be. There are some people faster than others, there are some taller than others, there are some stronger than others. We live with and appreciate the diffences.

Orem Parent
Orem, UT

It is a good thing the Supreme Court doesn't have to listen to a word the White House has to say.

LeslieDF
Alameda, CA

"When we as a society start down the road of marginalizing marriage..."

Divorce? Drunk couples in Vegas getting "married," then divorced in a month? Childless seniors married for a third time? A "husband" who abuses a "wife" and children and ends up marrying again and repeating the scheme? A man and a woman, a "couple" who marry for immigration, or health insurance, or property transfers?

Your "practical academic view" is as clear as mud. And what is "a reason" government should support which concept of marriage?

"This issue has gone on far too long when a simple solution is in front of all of us."

If it is "simple," you fail to state it, unless your conclusion is advocating that only "strong, fast, tall" people are the ones who should marry. They might be able to see over others and run away, faster.

Strange concepts.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@the deuce
What slippery slope? If you are going to claim to becoming g from an academic palace you are going to have to provide a lot more information as to how it is dangerous and provide some references to back it up.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

The whole DOMA disputes reminds me of children making demands on a passive, unprincipaled parent giving in to the demands of an immature, selfish, and entitled child. Give me this, or I will just keep on screaming. The problem with giving children something they don't need or understand is that it just spoils them and it won't make them happy. Here is the core of the whole gay movement. It is wrong and no matter how much they push, shove, or bully, it won't make them happy and it certainly won't make our society better. Those who are in the wrong never find peace because their pride prevents them from admitting something is wrong. It is wrong. If a gay person wants to be treated with greater respect, first begin by acting like a mature people. Scoiety has to stand up for something, marraige a simple one to do so.

Big Bubba
Herriman, UT

I don't think gay marriage is anymore a constitutional right than is abortion. However, a supreme court once made the wrong decision on abortion - let's hope that they don't make the wrong decision on gay marriage (i.e., saying that it is guaranteed under the constitution).

mohokat
Ogden, UT

Listen up you Justices. His Highness wants, therefore you should deliver. Just like in Healthcare.

md
Cache, UT

The shameful obama administration, once again, is undermining the foundation of our once great nation. He has been a miserable failure of a president.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

They will have to mandate, I don't think [If I was them] would want to.

JSB
Sugar City, ID

The issue with gay marriage is what is the purpose of marriage? Is the purpose of marriage to provide legal recognition of the relationship between two (or more) people who want to live together and share sexual intimacy? Or is the purpose of marriage to provide legal recognition of the relationship between two people of opposite sex who want to live together and have children and raise them in a healthy, loving environment so they can grow up to be productive citizens?

If gay marriage is legalized then using the same logic, people in incestuous and polyamorous relationships should also have the right to have these relationships legalized. Under which legal definition of marriage will children in our society be most likely to grow up to be responsible, productive, well-educated and happy citizens? In which situation will there be more children raised in dysfunctional families resulting in more crime, mental illness, poverty, ignorance, homelessness, child abuse, misery, violence, sexually transmitted diseases, selfishness, pride, dishonesty, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc., etc., etc.

JSB
Sugar City, ID

continued:

When laws are being written, should lawmakers simply consider only the short-term gratification of some of the citizens’ wants and desires or should the lawmakers consider the long-term social ramifications of implementation of that law?

The traditional family of a father, mother and their biological children is the most ideal situation in which to raise children well-adjusted children, but there are a lot of environmental and social pressures that are undermining that ideal. Should we strive to have laws that strengthen the traditional family or should we have laws that undermine the traditional family.

Oatmeal
Woods Cross, UT

Tolstoy,

Equal is often used as a synonym for "the same." Gay unions are NOT equal to or the same as heterosexual unions, for the very simple reasons that they are not established for the same purposes, their nature (same gender vs. opposite gender)is inherently different and any benefits to society also differ in various degrees and aspects.

If government establishes gay unions, it is creating a social institution that differs from traditional marriage. Invent an institution, call it by a new name. If it goes by the same name, both gay unions and traditional marriages will be treated identically by the legal system, with no recognition of the differences found in the two very different types of unions. Don't call it something it most obviously is not and which offends many religionists who have viewed marriage as a sacrament or ordinance of their faith for much longer than modern governments have existed.

dtup
slc, UT

Where do we draw the line?
When do we start allowing a legal definition of marriage to extend to polygamous marriage; for older men to legally marry underage girls or for older women to marry underage boys? -let us count the ways- perhaps I should be married to my dog or cat and they should also have "benefits" under the law.
WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?
The line, currently, is drawn at one man and one woman legally wedded. This is what is called a principle. Principles do not change no matter what anyone believes or "feels", all you can do is break yourself against them and hurt yourself and others.
If you don't recognize faith in the matter then any one with some basic health/biology education will recognize that homosexual union/relations, lets call a spade a spade, is biologically untenable and as such must be recognized as a tool designed ultimately bring the human race to extinction, assuming we take homosexuality to its final and complete biological end.

to comment

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