Quantcast

Comments about ‘President Obama: Marriage benefits should cross state lines’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, June 27 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Surprise, surprise! Obama's agenda, instead of being transparent, as he promised, is now becomming clear. He preached class envy. He told us that some "rich guy" would pay for government services. He gave out free cell phones to his supporters. Now he tells us that he has the authority to compel States to accept same-sex marriage.

When will he ever take the time to read the Constitution? When will he ever understand that the office of President has less authority than the office of Governor BECAUSE the authorized duties of the Federal Government are enumerated in one sentence, Article 1, Section 8?

He is not King. He is a temp worker who only thinks that he is King. Take away his "private jet" until he at least understands the limits of his authority.

The Skeptical Chymist
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@Mike Richards

I think you need to go back and learn how to read more effectively.

Where in this column does it say that President Obama says "he has the authority to compel States to accept same-sex marriage?" I don't see a direct quote from him on this topic in the article, and the only statement attributed to him says "recognition for same-sex unions should cross state lines." This is a "should" statement, which expresses a desire for how things ought to be, in the view of the speaker. If I say all students in the U.S. should learn to read before the third grade, even if I were the president, this would not imply that I have the authority to compel such an outcome.

In the wake of yesterday's decision, President Obama may have the authority to permit legally married same-sex couples to retain their federal benefits if they move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, but he certainly does not have the authority to compel states to accept such marriages. I suspect that will be an issue for the Supreme Court in a future case.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Skeptical --

"he certainly does not have the authority to compel states to accept such marriages. I suspect that will be an issue for the Supreme Court in a future case."

I have heard that a case challenging section 2 (the section involving state-to-state recognition -- the "Full Faith and Credit" clause) is already in the works. Dunno if that's true. States already recognize **straight** marriages from one state to another -- even in cases where one state has laws against that type of marriage (for example, first cousin marriages) -- so I see no way for them to hold onto their discrimination against gay marriages. Time Will Tell.

@Mike --

"Now he tells us that he has the authority to compel States to accept same-sex marriage."

Don't be ridiculous. He never said any such thing.

Arizona1
Tucson, AZ

This is where the slippery slope argument comes into full play. Obama has stated on numerous occasions that he thought "gay marriage" should be decided on the state level, that it is a states' issue. Are we to assume that he has evolved yet again? Now that the Supreme Court has given him an inch, he wants a mile.

FDRfan
Sugar City, ID

DAKAR, Senegal — President Barack Obama on Thursday praised the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage as a "victory for American democracy" and said recognition for same-sex unions should cross state lines.

It is fitting that these remarks are being made in Africa because the Obama government is more in line with African styled governments than with the America we had for 2 and a half centuries. What a slam on American democracy.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

@ The Skeptical Chymist,

Where did Obama have the authority for "Fast and Furious"? Where did he have the authority to spy on us without a warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause that we had committed a crime? Where did he have authority to fund Solyndra? Where did he have authority to lend $2,000,000,000 to George Soros via Brazil? Where did he have authority to spy on the AP to see who their sources were? Where did he have authority to NOT build the fence that Congress had directed him to build? Where did he have authority to use the IRS to harass political opponents and to keep them from have the same tax exempt status that was given to his brother when his brother created the "Barack H Obama" foundation?

He had no authority to do any of those things, but he did them anyway.

His administration is scandal laden, yet some pretend that he knows nothing. Does that mean that they're admitting that he is totally inept? If he knows nothing, he's not doing his job and is guilty of nonfeasance. If he does know, he's guilty of malfeasance.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

Why didn't Obama consider it "a victory for American democracy" when Californians used their constitutional right to vote and accept proposition 8? Apparently it's only a victory for democracy when people vote for things that are in accordance to his agenda. Otherwise, he considers it a miscarriage of justice or some such thing.

It's the US Department of Justice's legal obligation to judicially support federal laws passed by Congress. And yet Obama went against that in directing his Attorney General to not support DOMA before the Supreme Court. This is the first time I can remember a U.S. president doing such a thing.

Obama is setting a poor precedent in picking and choosing which laws of the land he will support according to his own personal political agenda. That truly is not being a good leader who is supposed to represent all people... even those with opposing viewpoints, especially when they already had legal standing before the court. He is showing himself to be a leader with an extreme bias.

Now he wants federal law in this case to trump individual state laws. That would NOT be a victory for American democracy.

The Skeptical Chymist
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@Mike Richards

I suspect that there are many examples where you and I would agree that President Obama has abused his authority, as have just about all of the preceding 8 or 10 presidents, and many others before them. However, that was not the point of my comment.

My point: If you want to vilify President Obama, there are many issues you can point to (including some that you mention) that are real. The idea that he claims to have the authority to compel states to recognize same-sex marriage is not supported by anything he has said and making this claim diminishes the credibility of everything else that you say.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

Somewhat in Mike Richard's defense...

In directing his administration to comb through all federal statutes regarding this latest court ruling, the president apparently would like to find a way to make all states accept homosexual marriages, especially in regards to receiving benefits... even those who currently have provisions in their state constitutions that recognize only marriages between a man and a woman. If and when he does find that way, then the word compel will come into play.

I believe Mike was probably using the term "authority to compel" in an anticipatory way.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@FDR fan

"t is fitting that these remarks are being made in Africa because the Obama government is more in line with African styled governments than with the America we had for 2 and a half centuries. What a slam on American democracy."

the vast majority of African countries have very harsh laws against homosexuality, abortion and use the force of law to make their citizens follow religious dictates I would dare say they are far more in line with the far right then with Obama.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@tators
"Why didn't Obama consider it "a victory for American democracy" when Californians used their constitutional right to vote and accept proposition 8?"

simple because as the courts found there is and never has been a right to vote away others federal guaranteed rights and protections.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

@Tolstoy:

Not so simple as you may think. It wasn't legally established that this should be a federally guaranteed right until just this week by the Supreme Court (and by just 1 vote, meaning it's now legal but still very controversial).

When proposition 8 was initiated and petitioned for, it was given clearance by the state of California to continue as a legal democratic procedure that could be voted on... and was. Any time that process happens, it should be considered a victory for American democracy... unless, apparently, it champions a cause that is against your political left-wing ideology.

Another case in point. Illegal immigrants currently don't have any legal binding right to the same federally protected rights and protections as citizens do. Someday, they might. But unless and until that is later determined to be otherwise, then their current status is still a binding case of legal American democracy in work.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

Even though most African countries do have harsh laws against homosexuality, as Tolstoy pointed out, a possible reason for Obama making his political remarks on this subject in Africa is because over there he is still regarded as a hero... one of their own, as evidenced by the "Welcome home" posters his many admirers there had. He could announce almost anything over there and not encounter any controversy.

He's no longer nearly so popular here in America as he is there. In fact, with all the covert activity (NSA, IRS, etc.) on American citizens (recently brought to light) by his self proclaimed "most transparent administration in history", there seem to be a growing number of former supporters who would no longer vote for him if the election was held all over again today. And for good reason.

George
New York, NY

@tators
Problem with you reasoning, simply because the government officials at the time gave it the go ahead does not mean it did not violate the federal constitutional rights which you do not get to simply vote away Utah and many states have become notorious for passing laws that are later struck down or never enforced because the violate federal laws and/or constitution.

George
New York, NY

@tators

Birther conspiracies, really?

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Arizona1,
why did you think you could believe what BO said when he said it should be decided at the state level?

WHATEVER gave you the idea he is at ALL trustworthy?

to comment

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