Quantcast

Comments about ‘George F. Will: True conservatives would oppose Defense of Marriage Act’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, March 21 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "By striking down DOMA . . . the court would defer to 50 state governments . . . ."

George is generally right, but he apparently got caught up in the liberal moment, and went badly wrong on this issue.

DOMA is an admittedly clumsy, but necessary check on the power of states to impose their laws and views, not on their own residents, but on residents of other states.

DOMA curbs disingenuous liberal abuse of "full faith and credit" comity principles BETWEEN states that would otherwise destroy a state's ability to determine its own policies on marriage, NOT 10th Amendment rights WITHIN a state.

DOMA should, and likely will, be upheld.

And then, it'll be interesting to watch the Obama regime's antics in squirming out of enforcing DOMA.

Maudine
SLC, UT

Contrary to Will's assertions - many Liberals want DOMA struck down for precisely the reason articulated in this article.

The man's writings would be so much more tolerable if he would stick to facts and skip the hyperbolic snark.

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

I really hope the Republican party and the LDS Church never change their opinion on this issue. I hope they fight it day and night. I hope they use all their resources to fight against gay marriage as much as they can. I hope the republicans make this their top campaign issue. Please do this.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

DOMA was a direct assault on the Constitution. States should decide, if anything, what constitutes 'marriage'. Thank God I live in Utah. Whatever our foibles, at least we don't don't wonder what constitutes 'marriage'.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

banderson,

Do you believe in the full faith and credit clause of the constitution? Should a gay couple married in MA be married in Utah? Or should we keep that part of DOMA? Without DOMA, all states MUST recognize the marriages performed in other states.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

Will's argument is soundly reasoned around the issue of Federal powers in a matter that is traditionally left to the states. If conservatives truly believe in limited government, they would be true to that not just to checkmate liberal policies but also domestic issues that don't neatly fit under the banner of either left or right.

DOMA was passed in the 1990s as a pre-emptive strike against same sex marriage when it was looming on the near horizon. Now that attitudes are shifting, ideological confusion is setting in among moral traditionalists who once thought this particular law was a good idea.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Half of the states prohibit first cousin marriages and half the states allow first cousin marriages (six, including Utah, with certain restrictions). All of the states generally recognize first cousin marriages legally performed in other states (I assume the federal government recognizes them, too). There is a patchwork of state marriage laws that has been adequately worked out for first cousins and no one is in a dither about that, nor did Congress see a need to interfere with legislation. Gay marriage should be no different.

It's absurd that a legally married couple would have to file individual federal income tax returns when they can file a joint state return, not get spousal Social Security or military benefits, or endure any of the other indignities that come from their marriage not being recognized by the federal government.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Procuradorfiscal – “George is generally right, but he apparently got caught up in the liberal moment, and went badly wrong on this issue.”

And as a matter of constitutionally enumerated powers, George Will is exactly right. For once (and I say this mainly to liberals) we need to let the States do what the Constitution said they should do. Otherwise this will just be Roe v Wade all over again, turning this into a political football and dividing the nation for decades [on an issue that in 20-30 years should and likely will be a total non-issue. Most people under 40 think being gay is about as interesting as being left-handed.]

And there are ways to deal with the Full Faith and Credit clause that don’t involve affirming DOMA… simply striking down section 2 while upholding section 1 comes to mind.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "If conservatives truly believe in limited government, they would be true to that not just to checkmate liberal policies . . . ."

Conservatives really do believe in limited, localized government.

What we don't believe is that liberal local governments in Massachusetts or Oregon should be empowered to force their deranged view of marriage on Utah, or on all American tax and benefits policies.

That's what DOMA prevents.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Both sections of DOMA are unconstitutional.

Section two deals with states not recognizing gay marriages from other states, an obvious unconstitutional section because of the full faith and credit clause.

Section three treats gay citizens who are married by their state differently than heterosexual citizens married by their state. That smacks into the 14th amendment - just like Loving v. Virginia did.

Just get rid of DOMA. It served its purpose while Americans came around to realize that gay citizens are just that - Citizens, with all the rights and privileges that other citizens enjoy. We have a 58% majority now that believes that gays should enjoy all the privileges and rights as citizens. Just let DOMA go.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@FatherofFour
"I hope they fight it day and night. I hope they use all their resources to fight against gay marriage as much as they can. I hope the republicans make this their top campaign issue. Please do this."

As a liberal I'd like Republicans to keep throwing themselves at this. Should help the odds Democratic politicians have.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Procuradorfiscal – “What we don't believe is that liberal local governments in Massachusetts or Oregon should be empowered to force their deranged view of marriage on Utah…”

Hyperbole aside, you’re right.

But only section 1 of DOMA does that. Section 2 goes far beyond that and is prima facie unconstitutional. If the Federal government wants to define marriage, they need to pass a constitutional amendment… otherwise this is a State issue.

@Red Corvette – “The camel's nose is under the tent and all arguments against same sex marriage wills soon be moot.”

There are arguments against same sex marriage? Sorry, let me rephrase that… “there are arguments against same sex marriage that don’t involve tautologies or references to the Bible?”

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Lane Meyer: First, name me which section and article of the constitution says that the federal government should be involved in marraige. Does the 14th amendment trump the 10th amendment? You, of course, would say 'yes'. You, of course, have given up your liberty and have joined the crowd of power seekers wanting to compel people to do something that violates their conscience. However, I still believe in America as a republic, something that ceased to exist after the civil war. There are those who still believe in liberty. If you believe in the Declaration that states 'are, and of right ought to be free and independent...', then the states would still retain the power that our founders envisioned. Most,per your own views, want to give up your liberty to tyrants, kings, or big brother. Not me! Irrational thinking aside, if the power seekers want the federal government to decide everything for them, let them. Slaves they are and slaves they'll be. Just don't declare that you believe in Liberty!

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

banderson, why did the founders insert the full faith and credit clause into the constitution per your views? "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceeding of every other State."

Doesn't that mean that Utah must recognize a gay couple that was married in Massachusetts?

And please don't forget this part: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

We went from the Articles of Confederation (strong states rights) to the Constitution. Many people believe that this was under the direction of Providence to do so. The main difference between the two is that the Federal Law is Supreme, right? I thought we already fought a war about this.

I beleieve in our Republic. I believe that liberty is not just for those who act like you do, but for ALL American citizens. If we start denying rights and privileges to one group, the next group will yours!

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
I really hope the Republican party and the LDS Church never change their opinion on this issue.

========

That begs a question then...

What will you do not if, but when they do?

Leave the Republican Party?
Leave the LDS Church?

Better pull your head out of the sand, and open your mind to all the options.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

As I recall,

Pre-Civil War --
When States laws supercedeeded Federal recognition --

A Black man could be considered free in the North,
but was still considered a slave in the South.

The Federal Government stepped in and settle that debate once and for all.

The same laws apply today.
How could a gay couple be legally married in one state,
and that marriage not be in recognized in another?

Ultra-Conservatives need to figure out how they are going to react.

As a side note you might want to consider that after much needless blood-shed... the South lost anyway, and America - the land of Free - became a more perfect union because of it.

Diligent Dave
Logan, UT

Perhaps not since the time of Sodom and Gomorrah 'proper' (or 'improper'), IF even THEN, have homosexual relationships been equated to the marriage between a man and woman. Sure, homosexuality has been rampant in many societies through the ages. But viewing it for what it really is, an abberation, and NOT the norm, have helped, to some greater or lesser degree, for past societies and civilizations to keep it in check.

But NOW, where and when the attempt, not unlike that made by even the blinded Sodomitex trying to get in and at Lot's house guests even AFTER they were blinded, so are those who have become spiritually blind, IMO, trying to get at and, again, IMO, destroy marriage by trying to get the law to FORCE everyone to accept it as legal, normal, and acceptable. It is still, no matter that the US President, Hilary Clinton, even Queen Elizabeth now support it, does NOT make something wrong right.

Isaiah 8:11-13 well applies here. Opinion cannot change God's laws (PERIOD). I don't care if Mitt Romney, the Pope, and President Monson came out for Gay Marriage, none of them could change God's viewpoint on the matter.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Mr. Will's argument fails to account for the Constitutional provisions for "full faith and credit" and "privileges and immunities." A marriage legal in one state must be legal in all, or you contravene the full faith and credit clause. Likewise, the privileges and immunities granted to married couples in one state must be recognized in all. The Federal Constitution requires this, regardless of what states may do.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Re:DiligentDave

"Southern preachers and slave owners believed the many references in the Bible permitting and regulating slavery (well over 100 verses), in both the Old and the New Testaments, were clear evidence that the institution was a part of God’s social and moral order. Abolitionist preachers argued in their sermons that the verses related to slavery in the Bible were a reflection of the cultural context and times in which the Bible was written and did not reflect God’s endorsement of slavery. They argued that there were “weightier” scriptures on justice, mercy and love that superseded those on slavery. This was the position that Lincoln himself adopted."

(Rev Adam Hamilton)

Bebyebe
UUU, UT

Dave,

I'm not a member of your religion. I don't believe in your god. Therefore your 'gods law' simply doesn't apply to me.

Consenting adults have the right to marry who they want.

to comment

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