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
George
Bronx, NY

those of you that keep claiming that marriage is for the purpose of procreation and that those that want to be married must be able to have children without outside help where in any laws it states such. It maybe your belief but has nothing to do with the law or reality beyond your own desires.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@dtup --

You said: "When do we start allowing a legal definition of marriage to extend to polygamous marriage; for older men to legally marry underage girls"

In many cases underage girls and boys can already get married -- if their parents give their consent. But they can't marry **without** that consent, because children aren't capable of giving informed consent -- unlike adults.

As for polygamy, the voters and the courts have already proven that they can distinguish between types of marriages -- when they passed laws against polygamy. Those laws are already on the books, and have been for many years.

"perhaps I should be married to my dog or cat"

Your dogs and cats are not capable of giving informed consent -- unlike adult human beings.

"WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?"

We draw the line with the wishes of the voters and the courts.

"Principles do not change no matter what anyone believes or "feels""

How about the Biblical principle that slaves should obey their masters? Or the Biblical principle that a man should have sex with his wife's servant, if the wife can't get pregnant? Do we still follow those principles today??

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

To Orem Parent 7:16 a.m. Feb. 23, 2013

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

------------------

It is a wise thing, however, that they do listen to all sides of a controversy (including the well-written and well-argued brief submitted by the White House concerning DOMA). The Justices are not doing their job if they don't consider the briefs submitted from all sides of the issue.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

Jon Huntsman Jr. is pretty much connected at the hip with the President. Maybe this will be the push to get Jr. to the Democratic Party instead of trying to push the GOP to become more moderate.

Fortunately, the House of Representatives, in Congress, don't listen to everything the President wants. Such a benefit to have a separation of powers. The President, I believe, gave up his right to practice law when he didn't keep up his bar. I am not sure if he kept up his certificate in D.C., if he had one, so he won't be making his plea except through those he appointed to the Supreme Court.

We still line in a great country. Amicus briefings are part of the process but the Constitution of the United States of America is still the most important document for the Justices and not just a well-written brief.

Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

The definition of Marriage has always been, is, and always will be the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Definitions: A Husband is - a man married to a woman. A wife is - a woman married to a man.

The definition does not include a woman married to a woman or a man married to a man. Perhaps a new word is necessary, someone suggested parriage, but marriage does not fit for same gender relationships.

Despite what courts may decide, voters may vote, legislators may enact or leadership may declare. Marriage was, is and always will be the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.

One can say it is dark outside when the sun is a noon day on a perfectly clear day but it does not make it so. Marriage is what it has always been.

Most of the argument could be ended if all legal rights were afforded to all who want to enter into a legally recognized relationship as two adults. All rights could be made available to those couples as is done in some states without calling the union marriage.

LeslieDF
Alameda, CA

dt up: "WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?"

Around your church. Around your home. Around (good luck with this one) your kids - they grow up. Let us all know what your line looks like.

Basic Biology 101: Some members of all the species alive today and all the species that ever lived, do not reproduce, and some do not ever show any sexual behavior at all. (gasp) Some members of some species exhibit homosexual behaviors - transient, or permanent, or as a part of group behavior for unity among the community. None of these species become "extinct" because of this behavior.

And, Basic Logic 101: No species, save humans, "marries." Yet, none go "extinct" because they do not marry. Imagine that!

George
Bronx, NY

@rocket

Unfortunately for you as has already been pointed out history just does not square with your version of marriage. The definition of marriage has changed and varied throughout history and cultures and will continue to do so long after you and I are gone.

The Deuce
Livermore, CA

To LeslieDF, Alameda, CA - I apologize if you failed to understand where I was going with tmy comments. First, society as a whole benefits from stornger families as a whole both economincally and structurally. Second, the answer is right in front of us. If what the gay/lesbian side is asking for are legal rights and recognition, simply grant those legal rights to domestic partnerships or civil unions. Leave the word marrigage to define one woman and one man. Again, back to my original argument, celebrate the differences and recognize that everything is not the same but that it can work together. I hope I was able to clarify this for you.

Badger55
Nibley, Ut

"Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the Country, and never to tolerate their violation by others...

...When I so pressingly urge strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying that there are no bad laws, or that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But, I do mean to say that although bad laws, if they do exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for sake of example they should be religiously observed."
-Abraham Lincoln

DOMA and Immigration are examples of laws that have been disregarded by the executive branch, at the Presidents direction. Contradictory to one of the, if not the greatest leader who ever lived. Lincoln knew that if violation of the laws were tolerated it would give people reason to violate any law. DOMA may or may not be a good law, but it is still law.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Badger55 --

You said: "DOMA and Immigration are examples of laws that have been disregarded by the executive branch, at the Presidents direction. Contradictory to one of the, if not the greatest leader who ever lived. Lincoln knew that if violation of the laws were tolerated it would give people reason to violate any law. DOMA may or may not be a good law, but it is still law."

Obama is not by any stretch of the imagination the only president to ever ignore laws. For instance, Bush II made more official refusals to obey or enforce given laws (which included many "signing statements" asserting executive privilege) than ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED. (Referenced from the Washington Post, 7/24/2006)

Badger55
Nibley, Ut

amazondoc,

The DOJ has said before that the constitution provides the authority to decline to enforce laws that are unconstitutional. The Memo can be read on the DOJ website. Bush argued his signing statements on the grounds that certain provisions in some bills were unconstitutional or interfered with executive powers. The courts did not overturn any of his executive orders either. Only two presidents have had their executive orders overturned, Clinton and Truman. The problem is Obama ordering that the immigration law be ignored based purely on policy and "it is the right thing to do". Find that reason in the constitution. I would hope the courts overturn it, but it may never happen. There is a difference between not enforcing a law because it is unconstitutional and not enforcing it because it doesn't fit an agenda.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Badger55 --

You said: "Bush argued his signing statements on the grounds that certain provisions in some bills were unconstitutional or interfered with executive powers.[....]There is a difference between not enforcing a law because it is unconstitutional and not enforcing it because it doesn't fit an agenda."

"Executive Powers" (especially the unitary executive theory) **was** Bush's agenda. Even the ABA president described Bush's practices as a constitutional crisis in the making -- he said: "We will be close to a constitutional crisis if this issue, the president's use of signing statements, is left unchecked." And the 10 member ABA panel that condemned Bush's practices included prominent conservatives as well as Dems. Bruce Fein, a conservative constitutional lawyer who served on it, even suggested that Congress should take collective legal action against the White House for Bush's continued refusals to obey the laws. (And btw, some of Bush's signing statements did also interfere with immigration controls, so Obama isn't alone in that either.)

I'm not saying that it's good for a president to interfere with established law. But you can't condemn Obama for doing it while ignoring what previous presidents have done.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

@ Scoundrel:

Even though this isn't the issue of the current article, the only reason Obama has theoretically deported more illegal immigrants than any other president, is because, unlike any other president, he changed the definition of what constitutes a deportation... in order to skew the numbers in his favor. Do some research.
He also changed the way unemployment numbers are counted in order to keep the numbers looking better than they really are... obviously for political reasons. People still not working, but no longer receiving unemployment benefits are no longer counted in the unemployment percentages, even though in truth they are still very much unemployed.
And because he couldn't get Congress to go along with his personal immigration agenda, he declares presidential edicts to go counter to our existing immigration laws. There is no where in the Constitution that allows him to use Presidential powers to support his own political agenda in the ways he has. The executive and legislative branches of government have different purposes and are kept separate in our Constitution for good reasons. I'm confident the Supreme Court will eventually determine that to be the case.

Rikitikitavi
Cardston, Alberta

The executive branch of government ought to stay the heck out of the affairs and decisions of the judicial branch. Bad enough that the President gets to select justices for appointment to the high court, and then proceeds to meddle in their decisions. BO ought to be impeached for meddling in the independence of another branch of government. The independence of the three branches of government is designed that way for a purpose. Law professor ought to know that after all.But when has he even cared what the constitution states.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@rikitikitavi --

You said: " BO ought to be impeached for meddling in the independence of another branch of government."

Bush II made **161** signing statements during his term of office. So far, Obama has made only **28**. So just exactly WHO is it that has tried the hardest to meddle??

"The independence of the three branches of government is designed that way for a purpose. Law professor ought to know that after all.But when has he even cared what the constitution states."

Obama taught **constitutional** law for 12 years at the University of Chicago Law School before he ever ran for office. I think it's safe to say that he has quite a lot of knowledge about and interest in the constitution.

Incidentally -- as reported in the NYT today, **75** prominent REPUBLICANS have just filed an amicus brief in FAVOR of gay marriage. The brief states, in part, that "same-sex marriage promotes family values by allowing children of gay couples to grow up in two-parent homes, and that it advances conservative values of “limited government and maximizing individual freedom."

to comment

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