Published: Sunday, June 30 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
The editorial is wrong on many levels, but the one that matters most is that
DOMA created 2nd class citizenship status for millions of Americans. The
court's decision affirmed that if our nation's constitution means
anything it means that there are no second-class citizens, and that the majority
may not vote away the rights of the minority.Your marriages are not
harmed one whit by either the DOMA or the Prop 8 decisions.Forty
years from now we'll look back on this and wonder how we managed to get so
worked over this issue in exactly the same way that today we wonder how people
40 years ago fought against permitting inter-racial marriages.
Gee, if the Supreme Court of the United States could just borrow someone from
the DN editorial staff maybe their decisions wouldn't be so thoughtless.
The judges are just so under-qualified.
Marriage not only lost, but children, our most important resource, took another
blow. On a day the selfish celebrate, the children mourn. Into the coliseum
they trod, another sacrifice in the uncaring search for fulfillment.
Sad to say, I see a great deal more wisdom in this newspaper article than I see
in the judgement of the Supreme Court. I think that they (the Supreme Court) had
a chance to find the middle ground and come up with a win, win situation. But,
instead of showing "supreme wisdom in handling this delicate subject, they
showed only their dedication to "Supreme" political posturing". When
I was young, the premise was that the Supreme Court was above party politics,
but those days seem to be gone forever. Sad, Sad, Sad, My next door neighbor is
Gay, and I am the religious father of 10 children from one wife. Neither one of
us is happy with how the Supreme Court handled this issue. Why, because their
political posturing had more to do with the outcome, than did any citation from
the Constitution of the United States. It has been our common belief (my gay
neighbor and I) that the Supreme Court is to interpret the law - not to create
the law - we both fear for the future of our country if this trend is allowed to
Well, in the opinion of many non-bigoted people around the country, this ruling
was Needed, Thoughtful and Healing. Needed because the clash between DOMA
and local state laws made a mess of commonplace things like filing income tax. A
married homosexual couple in Massachusetts could file as married in MA, but had
to file separately on their federal taxes. You would not believe how complex
this turns out to be (my wife is a tax preparer). And that's just one
example. Thoughtful because striking down DOMA simplifies things because
now the Federal government can harmonize with states. This is the American way.
States are supposed to have a level of autonomy, and really, what business does
the Federal government have in saying what constitutes a marriage? Marriage is a
local thing. It's a family thing. The Feds do not need to be involved.Healing because now there is one less government body passing judgement
dividing families into "legitimate" and "illegitimate" camps.
The march of history is against you bigots. Your words of hate couched in the
language of religion will soon seem as antique as blacks waiting hand and foot
In several years time, the world will still be turning and we'll look back
and think how petty it was to deny the rights and responsibilities of marriage
to gays and lesbians. The News may claim this ruling was needles, but tell that
to Edith Windsor who was taxed over $600,000 dollars in state and federal taxes
because of the inequality of DOMA. Tell that to the thousands of soldiers who
fight for our country and whose partners sacrifice along with heterosexual
couples yet receive nothing when their partners are killed.If you must
blame someone for the sweeping decision, blame the Republicans in Congress who
pushed the issue. They wanted a ruling and they got one. It's just a shame
for them it wasn't the one they, nor the News wanted. I'm sure if the
ruling had gone the other way, the News would be overjoyed and not criticizing
the Court for making a "needless" ruling.
"Historically, it has been our republican institutions of representative
government rather than our unelected courts that have done the best job of
balancing, tempering and accommodating passionate competing interests into
accommodative policies."Really? That would be "our
republican institutions of representative government" that made it a crime,
and prosecuted people, for engaging in homosexual acts? The "republican
institutions" that made it illegal to marry if the person you loved was of a
different race? The "Republican institutions" that put in place poll
taxes, and segregation? The "republican institutions of representative
government" that supported and made legal slavery and racism?
"Historically". That's the group that has
"historically" "done the best job of balancing, tempering and
accommodating passionate competing interests into accommodative policies"?
Really?This editorial is a joke.
The Deseret News and all of Utah should get used to the fact that gay marriage
is coming to Utah. The fact that the DN (meaning the Mormon church)
believes that these decisions are 'needless, thoughtless and damaging'
is totally irrelevant to that inevitable outcome, not to mention that your
conclusions are subject to serious dispute.Within very few years the
children of traditional marriage in Utah will have the children of same-sex
marriage as friends, playmates, classmates and even pew-mates. They will see
with their own eyes that these families and children are fine and that gay
couples and their families are just folks. And they're going to begin to
wonder about a lot of other things that they've been taught by their
parents and their church and their leaders and concept of "morality."America and the world have huge problems, including problems with
society and family and with children and growing up. This is not one of them.To the degree that marriage is the foundation of society, gay marriage
will only add to it and strengthen it.You and your church would
probably be better off worrying about the coming legalization of polygamy.
Oh, yes, extending the dignity of marriage is certainly "needless,
thoughtless and damaging". It no doubt makes perfect sense to you that the
military can't notify a LEGALLY MARRIED SPOUSE if their military husband or
wife is killed or injured because the federal government decided to encode
discrimination. You find it perfectly reasonable that a LEGALLY MARRIED WIDOW be
penalized with heavy inheritance taxes. And that is because of how much you love
and respect us so much and not because you're homophobic. Sure we believe
that. And are you going to penalize opposite sex couples who can't or
don't have children because the only reason (according to you) for marriage
is procreation? Of course not, because that absurd argument is only dragged out
when you try to justify denying gays the dignity of marriage.
The path towards freedom is still full of potholes. The people who claim that
their God is the only one want to impose their beliefs on others. They feel that
God has told them they are the only path . While the churches want freedom for
themselves, they want to restrict the freedoms of others.Their God is
vengeful and closed minded The right to practice freedom is not allowed. The
harms they perceive make them want to tell people what they think is the way to
live. My opinion is that I would like for all the religions to stay out of my
life. If Jesus came back to earth he would be disgusted at the humongous
churches and the big salaries paid to the leaders..My religion says that we must
help the poor and the sick. Same sex marriage is allowing people to live their
lives as they see fit.All I ask is that you do not try to harm me as I would not
try to harm you.I am not a homosexual butI believe that people should not be
denied the right to live as they see fit.
A mostly thoughtfully written opinion with many valid points - up to this
statement;"Historically, it has been our republican institutions
of representative government rather than our unelected courts that have done the
best job of balancing, tempering and accommodating passionate competing
interests into accommodative policies."I could not disagree more
with this statement. Congress has been one of the most weak kneed organizations
when it comes to the protection of rights by minorities - no matter how you
define that minority. The most discriminatory have emerged out of
legislatures.This ruling was no surprise. The Supreme Court has a
long and consistent reputation for ruling that actions between two consenting
adults will be legal. There are many things we final "legal", that we
still should be apposed of on moral grounds - drinking is one of those. Being
allowed to do something does not make it moral or immoral. We don't need
laws saying adultery is illegal to know it is wrong.Government
should not be the tool to enforce religious laws... it is a far too dangerous
path to head down.
Well said. The tactic of characterizing someone with whom you disagree as being
motivated by prejudice, malice, ignorance or just plain stupidity in the context
of any policy debate, including same-sex marriage and immigration reform, has
the very predictable result of dividing on superficial grounds rather than
uniting on common substantive ground. Setting up those with whom you disagree
as straw men (or women) recipients of these kinds of simplistic argumentum ad
hominem attacks is intellectually immature if not outright dishonest, and
ultimately serves no useful purpose. Such attacks certainly do not materially
advance the cause for which they are employed, and only make it that much more
difficult for constructive discussions to occur.
This article is beautifully written. I agree 100%.
Over twenty-six pages of dicta, Justice Kennedy refers to children only four
times and each and every time he does so it is only in a very minor, tangential
way while he otherwise directs his attention to expounding the rights and
desires of adults. Never does Justice Kennedy refer to any purported
benefits that will accrue to children who are raised by a couple whose
relationship by definition necessarily excludes one of the sexes. Instead, he
only catalogues what he views as deleterious effects of DOMA: —He speaks of "the urgency of this issue for same-sex couples who
want to affirm their commitment to one another before their children" (p.
14); —He mentions how DOMA "humiliates tens of thousands
of children now being raised by same-sex couples," makes it "difficult
for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own
family" (p. 23), and "brings financial harm to children of same-sex
couples" (p. 24); —And he says, "DOMA instructs . . .
all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children,
that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others." (p.
25.) He otherwise is silent about benefits of SSM for children.
Good grief, DN editors. This is one of your most irrational, illogical opinions
to date. Everyone supports traditional marriage! Who doesn't?
Those who would deny same-sex couples the right to marry in the name of
"supporting traditional marriage" are just fooling themselves. It
amounts to nothing more than animus and malice (even if they refuse to recognize
it.) "Dialogue"? What sort of dialogue can there be when one
side states that homosexuality, by itself, is unnatural and "wrong",
when it's just a fact of nature?Legislation over court rulings?
What's the difference, really, if gay marriage happens via either route.
It's here - that is, if you really are advocating for honest respect of gay
people as you suggest in this piece.
It is clear that many advocates of same sex marriage believe that religious
doctrine.is an insufficient excuse for failing to wholeheartedly embrace same
sex marriage. The Washington Attorney General is prosecuting a florist for the
crime of declining to do special flower arrangements to celebrate a same sex
wedding ceremony, even though the couple was able to procure substitute
services. Presumably the same would apply to a wedding band or caterer or
photographer that declined to participate. The AG in our state did.not even
recognize First Amendment rights with lip service let alone real respect. The
couple was not harmed.in any material way, their only harm was to be told that
not everyone in their community endorsed their actions. On the other hand, the
hate of state government calling for the state to hate the florist is in the
tradition of totalitarian governments through history.
An opinion. That is all that the supreme court gave us. Opinions are not
inherently right or wrong. This is just their official response to the popular
thinking of the day that reflects their political will.Opinions don't
change reality. We all have our own opinions. When people use their political
power to force their opinions on others then it creates a false and temporary
reality but it doesn't change right or wrong.
Oh sat does the Star-Spangled Banner yet wave over the land of the free and the
home of the brave? When you get married, your liable for their debt
In the DOMA case, the issue that was decided was whether the federal government
can constitutionally give federal benefits to legally-married heterosexual
couples, but deny them to legally-married same-sex couples. Justice Kennedy
found that there is no legitimate cause for unequal treatment in this regard.
To deny federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples would indeed be
unequal treatment. Regardless of how the opinion was worded, the correct
decision was reached.
"against those who cherish how traditional marriage unites men and women for
the benefit of children."One More Time: gay marriage does
NOTHING to damage straight marriage. NOTHING. The vast majority of marriages
will ALWAYS be straight marriages. The ONLY thing that these rulings do is to
increase the number of people who invest in the TRADITION of stable, monogamous
relationships."He suggested that fundamental liberty interests
are at risk but couldn't elucidate the history and tradition normally
required to assert vigorous judicial protection of unarticulated
liberties."You're kidding, right?"Equal
protection" rights are in our Constitution. That's easy to look up.As for marriage itself -- from Loving v. Virginia: "Marriage is one
of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence
and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v.
Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). ""supporting traditional marriage
is not the equivalent of disparaging, injuring, degrading, demeaning or
humiliating homosexuals."The **US House Report** on DOMA clearly
stated: "Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment
and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality."That's a
very clear admission of animus, made by the House itself.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments