Comments about ‘Supreme Court justices skeptical of federal marriage law’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, March 27 2013 12:06 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
worf
Mcallen, TX

Federal benefits have brought our people to their knees, and are destroying this country. We've become a down trodden begging people qualifying for benefits.

Maudine
SLC, UT

@ worf: Are you offering to give up the federal benefits you receive from marriage? If not, your comment is kind of hypocritical don't you think?

isrred
South Jordan, UT

Even if you are lucky enough to have an employer that allows you to have your Gay or Lesbian spouse on the insurance plan, that benefit which is just a normal fact of life for heterosexual couples is in the eyes of the Federal Government and the State of Utah a form of taxable income to Gay and Lesbian couples.

Take two families identical in every way except the gender of the parents and one family gets to enjoy insurance protection as a benefit while the other has to pay exorbitant amounts of taxes on that same insurance policy.

Just one of many examples of how no, Gay and Lesbian couples are NOT treated equally and fairly already. No matter how much the radical right tries to scream otherwise.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

Mother nature thinks marriage should be one man and one woman.

Pope Francis think mother nature should be one man and one woman.

Mormon Prophet Monson thinks mother nature should be one man and one woman.

I agree with mother nature, Pope Francis, and Prophet Monson

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

If you follow mother nature...

then you should live in the forest, without power, and avoid driving a car.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Nature by no means adheres to heterosexual reproduction. And religious leaders are just religious leaders; their title provides no more insight than mine. We can add the dignity of federal benefits to gay marriages.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

People like to cite and fabricate the 'destruction' of our country if gay marriage is allowed.

FYI? Massachusetts was the first state, to allow gay marriage in 2004.

Here is the factual result:

'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09

Line:
'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'

From the National Center For Vital Statistics

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@worrf
So then by your own logic you admit that there are benifits that can only be optained through marriage . Thanks for acknowledging why anything less then marriage is not equal treatment under the law.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Pagan" Massachussetts also has one of the lowest marriage rates in the US. Since Marriage and divorce rates are meausred in events per 1000 people, it is impossible for Massachusetts to have a higher divorce rate than most other states. However, if you assume that all marriages performed in Massachussetts remain there, and do some math, you find that they have about 50% of all marriages ending in divorce.

The sad thing is that in Utah using the same assumptions, you have a higher marriage success rate than in Massachussetts.

lket
Bluffdale, UT

i dont care one way or the other and this issue is just to take focus off more important matters. budget, econemy, education, and jobs. let em have it stop the missfocus of attention. just like abortion, it effects less people then the time spent fighting about it, and divides us when we need to come together.

m.g. scott
LAYTON, UT

The thing I don't understand about what the Court seems to be doing is this. A federal ban may be unconstitutional and therefore the states should make the rules. But if the same court overturns Prop 8, then the states don't have the ability to rule individually on this issue and will have to adhere to federal guidelines. Let's face it, this thing is going to be another Roe/Wade type blanket decision. Hard to believe on an issue like marriage. Won't be long before getting a dog license is a federal issue.

xscribe
Colorado Springs, CO

m.g.: Prop 8 won't be overturned. States will retain rights. We will be exactly where we were before the Supreme Court took this issue into consideration. That's my take; of course, I could be wrong.

Vladhagen
Salt Lake City, UT

I think that perhaps the right leaning middle could garner a great deal of support by just conceding more privileges(which differ from rights, note) to same gender couples. Allowing same gender marriage blows out the flame on a lot of the more liberal policies of the left leaning faction of the US. Give gay couples benefits and Obamacare on the whole may become less appealing to those who vote in favor of the plan only because of what it will do for gay couples. Surely there are some gays who on the whole are right leaning, yet feel that they need enfranchisement of their privilege to marry, and so vote for the political left.

Vladhagen
Salt Lake City, UT

While this is a national and political issue, religion should not be slapped in the face and told to shut up. The voice of religion must be heard, just as the "Pagan" voice is heard. Ultimately, though, from a legal standpoint, there is not a strongly compelling argument against gay marriage. There is a moral standpoint, yes. I know what leaders of various churches have said. While it is true that a marriage between a man and a woman which instills virtues of morality upon their children is the ideal that I and millions of other Americans seek for, the reality is that there are many gay couples that will do a better job keeping their children in school, keeping their children off welfare, and perpetuating a decent America than many heterosexuals do.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Look at the case at the heart of the DOMA suit. It was brought by a lesbian woman whose marriage was valid in the state of New York, but not recognized by the federal government due to DOMA. When her spouse died, she was assessed $300,000 plus dollars in estate taxes. Had she been in a heterosexual marriage in the state of New York, her tax bill would have been zero.

Does that outcome equate to equal treatment under the law? I think not, and that is the real issue at stake here.

airnaut
Everett, 00

Hard times for Republicans....

Another term with a Black Democrat President,
The sick and the poor have access to Healthcare [Obamacare IS Constitutional],
Loosing seats in the House and the Senate,
We are out of Iraq,
Osama Bin Laden is dead,
The Economy is out of the GOP led tailspin, and beginning to recover,
Universal Background checks may soon become law,
FoxNews, Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh are loosing listeners and advertisers,
and because of their lack of compromise (Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships), it looks like Gays will finally be given the right to "marry".

You can win the battles,
and still loose the war.

Time to think of something you are FOR,
rather than just being the party of NO to everything.

worf
Mcallen, TX

@ Maudine:

Many heterosexuals don't get married because it benefits them.

worf
Mcallen, TX

spring street:

Benefits come at the expense of others.

Many are forced to pay for things they are against.

Being responsible citizens, we shouldn't be shouldn't be on our knees begging for benefits. That's what gives the feds power over us.--Take some pride in yourself, and earn what you get.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@worf
I do pay my way and I suspect part of yours but the point is that if you extend certain benifits to only those that are married you cannot claim anything less then marriage for gay couples is equal.
Having said that I am curious following you logic it seems you are arguing we should end all benifits to married couples so they are not dependent. Is this what your are proposing?

Interloper
Portland, OR

It is not true that SCOTUS ruling against Proposition 8 would change the status quo regarding gay marriage nationally, as some people believe. All it would do is affirm that gay people in California who are already married have legitimate marriages. California courts could then readopt legal gay marriage for the future.

The problem is that Proposition 8 takes away a right that existed before it passed, depriving gay couples of equal protection under the state's constitution. The same issue comes up in the Michigan anti-affirmative action case. People of color are deprived of equal protection because a law passed by referendum singled them out to lose a previously held right.

Success for the plaintiff in the DOMA case would also not create new gay marriage laws. It would simply apply federal law to valid homosexual as well as heterosexual marriages. Currently, those laws discriminate in favor of heterosexuals.

to comment

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