Published: Tuesday, Sept. 17 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Let me see if I understand the second argument of this article: The Obama
administration should basically stop trying to define marriage for the states
because domestic relationships are a states' rights issue, e.g., these
matters have traditionally been governed at the state and local levels, etc.
Based on that logic, I'm fairly confident that when the religious right
came asking the LDS church for its support in getting DOMA passed in 1996,
I'll bet the church declined the invitation on these grounds and stated it
did not support a federal definition that said marriage is only between a man
and a woman. Isn't that how it went down? As to the other argument, yes,
sometimes the big bad federal government (and "activist" judges) have to
step in and protect unpopular minorities from being discriminated against by
state laws. See generally Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, Prop 8, etc.
The U.S. Constitution provides:Section 1 - Each State to Honor all
othersFull Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the
public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. Nothing in the article says that the government is trying to tell the states
what marriage laws they can enact, just that they have to recognize marriages
performed and allowed in other states. The issues mentioned in this article
show that the U.S. Government is adhering to the quoted constitutional provision
and requiring the states to do the same. In other words, the Constitution is
being protected and defended. I thought that's what the far right wanted
our president and the federal government to do.
I really don't understand what the big deal is.Government
entities should issue a "civil union" license to replace
"marriage" licenses.They would act the same in all instances as a
marriage license and be available to any 2 consenting adults.Then,
Churches can issue "marriage" licenses. These would be optional and
carry no legal significance. They would be available to anyone who the church
deems worthy, based on any criteria they want to use.Would either
side have a problem with this? Doesn't this solve the issues?
In the DOMA ruling the courts said the Federal Government must recognize the
marriages performed by a State, the Federal Government is complying. How is this
confusing? Seems pretty straight forward to me.
"The Constitution preserves a system of government that reserves power to
the states and to the people. As the nation navigates conflicting feelings and
emotional views about the proper role of marriage under state law, its leaders
must be wise and allow federalism to work."I'm confused.
For nearly two decades, the LDS church and the editorial board of this newspaper
strongly supported DOMA, which imposed a federal definition of marriage on the
states. Why is Deseret News now changing it's position 180-degrees and
arguing for states' rights to define marriage?
This paper seems to be a champion of state rights when it works for them, but
against state rights when it doesn't.We need to be more
For centuries, governments were not a necessary party to marriages. Why did it
change? Because there were some who decided it was "improper" for
society that certain marriage arrangements were taking place, primarily those of
mixed race or plural spouses. As usual, government intrusion creates more
problems than it solves. Maybe it's time for government to get out of the
There will be NO confusion once ALL states recognize the rights of ALL Americans
to marry the person of their choice.Discrimination against lgbt
couples is bigotry and un-American.
Ya!Curse that Abraham Lincoln for telling States they can't
pass laws discriminating who is Free and who is a Slave based on the color of
their skin!Hallelujah to Gov. Lillian Boggs for sticking up for the
Constitutional "States rights" over Federal and issuing the
Extermination Order against the Mormons![“Gentlemen, your cause is
just, but I can do nothing for you." Pres. Van Buren to Joseph Smith,
because at that time [pre-Lincoln] States have the final say so.]Perhaps we should letting the STATES continue to make those kinds of
The belief that a "residency requirement" could be used is blown away by
the particulars in the Windsor case. Edith Windsor and Edith Spyer had a
Canadian marriage license. Spyer passed away in 2009, two years prior to New
York (their state of residency) enacting marriage equality. The courts ruled
that the Federal Government recognized other marriages performed in Canada, so
it had to recognize Windsor's as well. There was no leeway given for
whether or not their resident state recognized that marriage. The administration
is just following the ruling when it is providing equal Federal services to all
Re: ". . . the LDS church . . . strongly supported DOMA, which imposed a
federal definition of marriage on the states."DOMA did no such
thing.It merely determined that, for purposes of extending
eligibility for certain federal benefits, the federal government would define
marriage as between a man and a woman. That federalism concept has been endorsed
time and time again by the Supreme Court, notwithstanding its nonsensical,
politically-motivated, activist opinion in the DOMA cases.Federalism
clearly permits conflicting federal and state definitions of marriage, just as
it permits conflicting definitions of criminality regarding marijuana, and
similar conflicts on many, many other issues.And, by the way, most
state's marriage laws invalidate marriages contracted by its citizens in
other states or nations to circumvent its own laws.So, good luck
trying to enforce Hawaiian law on Utahns.
Wow, this is all about marriage being defined the way you want it, and the
government doing things the way you want it. The federal government has always
had its fingers in marriage, so you allegations towards the Administration are
just plain wrong. You want it both ways from the feds. Let's make this
simple. Do away with any tax benefits to marriage. That gets the feds out of
the way. As for the states, who should bend? Those states that allow gay
marriage, or states like Utah that deny it? What gets me is that many love
active government support of religion when it goes their way, and whine when it
goes the other way (like the courts interpreting the Constitution). This is one
of those instances.
‘In our opinion: Needless confusion’========= Needless confusion?You mean like get the Feds OUT when it suits my
agenda, and get the Feds IN when it suits my agenda.That sort of confusion?
"The Supreme Court sided with President Obama, and not with Congress."
Actually, no - the Supreme Court upheld the Constitution, which is their duty
and power under the system of checks and balances established by the
Constitution. Congress can legislate all it wants, but that legislation cannot
violate the Constitution.As for state of residence versus state of
ceremony, the IRS is merely following established precedence. For tax purposes,
heterosexual marriages that are valid in the state where they were performed are
considered valid in the state where the couple resides - even if that marriage
would not have been allowed to take place under those circumstances in the state
of residence. Examples of this include, but are not limited to, age, familial
relationship, who attended the wedding, or who officiated at the wedding. If the
IRS changes this rule, numerous heterosexual couples will be affected since
there is no legally valid reason why prohibited heterosexual marriages should be
recognized over prohibited homosexual marriages.Following the
Constitution and the established laws of the land, SCOTUS and the IRS are acting
in the only legally valid manner possible.
The Windsor decision requires the Federal government to accept legal marriages
of Same-Sex couples performed in countries where we accept their opposite-sex
marriages. The Full Faith & Credit Clause appears to require the same of
states regarding marriages performed in other states. Some states allow first
cousins to marry and others don't, yet the latter still recognize as valid
such marriages performed in states that allow them. Why would same-sex
marriages be any different?It would appear, based on the Windsor
decision, to be ILLEGAL for the feds to NOT accept "married" 1040 tax
returns from same-sex couples whose marriages were legally entered into in other
countries and especially other states that legally performed them. How could it
not?States may have the right to not perform same-sex marriages, but
the Windsor decision and the Full Faith & Credit Clause clearly require that
states recognize same-sex marriages performed in states, if not foreign
countries, where such marriages are legal.SSM opponents simply have
run out of objective reasons to justify their subjective stance.
The confusion is needless, yet perpetuated by states like Utah.
@ SEY: Marriage has always been about government. It was a way of establishing
paternity and who had inheritance rights. It has always been about government
recognition - even with the most basic forms of government. @
procuradorfiscal: "...most state's marriage laws invalidate marriages
contracted by its citizens in other states or nations to circumvent its own
laws."Really? Name one state and its law that invalidates
heterosexual marriages that are valid in other states. (Now, of course, if you
look at other countries (not just states), polygamy comes into play - but
Federal law as well as state law disallows the recognition of polygamy and there
are legally valid reasons for prohibiting recognition of polygamy at this point
in time - although that could change. But since this is a discussion of
same-sex marriage not polygamy, I will not be distracted and will not discuss
polygamy any further.) One state and its law that invalidates
heterosexual marriages that are valid in the state in which they were
contracted. Just one. Prove your point.And I again refer you to
"In re May's Estate."
So, Sey, you're cool with Sharia law? Because if the government gets out of
marriages, religions will be left to enforce the rights and responsibilities of
marriage as their own doctrines dictate.
@procuradorfiscal"by the way, most state's marriage laws
invalidate marriages contracted by its citizens in other states or nations to
circumvent its own laws."By the way that is a direct violation
of the full faith and credit clause which is why Utah actually is planning to
recognize those marriages for the purposes of state taxes.
Re: "It would appear . . . to be ILLEGAL for the feds to NOT accept
"married" 1040 tax returns . . . ."Only to someone
unfamiliar with the law.Under the constitution, in matters properly
belonging to federal jurisprudence, federal law is considered "supreme"
to state law. And, the feds are not obliged to accept state law on a number of
subjects, including definitions of marriage, crime, environmental priorities,
adoption, etc.Just so's you know, the DOMA cases were [wrongly]
decided, not upon full faith and credit or comity principles, but upon [flawed]
equal protection theories.Further, the decision left untouched
Section 2 of DOMA, that protects traditional states from overreaching by
pro-gay-marriage states. And, nearly every state refuses to recognize a marriage
contracted in a foreign jurisdiction to circumvent its own laws.Which, by the way is NOT a violation of the full faith and credit clause, but
rather, a recognition of it. Such provisions, along with the still-intact DOMA,
Section 2 prohibit activist overreaching by liberal-controlled states seeking to
dictate the internal affairs of others.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments