@LDS Liberal 1:46 p.m. Sept. 17, 2013The problem is not whether a
person "likes" the Constitution. A lot of people "like" the
Constitution even when they fail badly when they try to argue its provisions.
They think that "reading" it is enough, and fail to realize that it is
necessary to STUDY the Constitution in depth and breadth, and over a significant
period of time with qualified instructors, to truly comprehend and understand
what it says, what it means and how it works. Just reading it isn't
I still don't see what all of the fuss is about. If the feds recognize
SSMs legally entered into in one state, the couple moving to another state
shouldn't turn them into roommates. What business is it of the new state
whether the feds recognize a couple's marriage from another state.
That's between the couple and the feds. The state doesn't have a dog
in this fight.it seems that the DN simply wants to prevent
Utah's gays from going to CA or another states, get legally married, and
then return and have some government entity deem it a valid marriage. This is a
transparent attempt to be able to continue to marginalize same-sex couples.Until the Supreme Court tells states, like they did with mixed race
marriages, that they can't discriminate, Utah will still be able to deny
gays state issued marriage licenses.
The DNews has a well thought out argument. Unfortunately, the Obama
administration does not care about trivial things like the constitution, states
rights or, Heaven forbid, the will of the people. The homosexual community has
a loud, unrelenting voice that champions one, single agenda with no regard for
other points of view. And they vote for Obama. So no matter how reasoned an
argument, it falls on deaf ears in this populist national administration.
@L WhiteSpringville, UTMy, my, my. I am beginning to
think that we are a nation of idiots. I know that some people would think that
if you use the word "idiot" that they cannot post your comment, but it
is the best word to describe what is happening in America. The
people who take Social Security and Medicare from the government. They demand
and demand and demand. It seems to me that they have no idea how
blessed they are to live in America where people care about the poor, the sick
and the elderly.10:25 a.m. Sept. 18, 2013======= There, I fixed it.Does that still make any sense L White?Is
it still consistent?Does it prove and maintain integrity for you?
Re: "Did Christ appeal to Caesar for help? Did he go to Herod and ask that
taxes be raised to help the poor?"Did Christ complain to Caesar
that his taxes were too high, or grumble that they were being gathered for and
spent on things not authorized by the Roman constitution?Did Christ
go to Herod and say, "Herod, whatever you do, do not raise taxes to help the
poor - in fact, don't have the government do anything to help the poor, the
sick, the elderly, or the hungry"?Did Christ say somewhere that
universal health care was wrong, or that the government should stay out of
healthcare?Did Christ start, support, campaign for, or donate money
to any ballot initiatives to change the civil marriage laws or to keep them from
being changed?Did Christ, the person who was criticized for being a
drunk and for associating with sinners, the man who said to treat others as you
would want to be treated, tell business owners to judge their customers, or to
refuse their services to certain people?
My, my, my. Hasn't the government made another mess? But, what should we
expect when the government tries to redefine words? I do not remember anything
in the Constiution that allows the government to regulate marriage. It is just
not there. If it is not there, then shouldn't it be left to the States to
regulate?I am beginning to think that we are a nation of idiots. I
know that some people would think that if you use the word "idiot" that
they cannot post your comment, but it is the best word to describe what is
happening in America. The people who make demands on the government do not even
know what the government is allowed to do. They demand and demand and demand.
If they would read the Consitution, they would learn how few things the Federal
Government can do without breaking the law. I think that they do not care about
the law. They just want to do as they please no matter how they destroy our
society. It seems to me that they have no idea how blessed they are to live in
America where the people limit the authority of the government.
Re: "Some people would have government force us to be charitable."Leviticus: "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt
not wholly reap the corners of thy field ... And thou shalt not glean thy
vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt
leave them for the poor and stranger." - Deuteronomy: "When thou cuttest
down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou
shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the
fatherless, and for the widow ... When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt
not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless,
and for the widow."That was the civil law among the
Israelites.Wasn't the government forcing people to be
charitable? Didn't it keep some of the fruits of their labors from those
who owned them, preventing them from maximizing their profits, and forcing them
instead to support the the poor?Yet according to the Bible this law
of "forced charity" came from God himself ("And the LORD spake unto
Moses, saying ..."), therefore "forced charity" must be compatible
with his teachings.
to LDS Liberal 8:13 a.m. Sept. 17You just hit the nail on the head.
Can't help but wonder... what would conservatives (Especially
someone from S Jordan) whine/preach about if marriage was not to regulated by
Some people would have government force us to be charitable. Did Christ appeal
to Caesar for help? Did he go to Herod and ask that taxes be raised to help the
poor? Did he demand "HerodCare" to provide health services? Did he
campaign for same-sex "marriage" before the Sanhedrin?Did he
re-define "marriage" and demand that each city accept same-sex
"marriage"?Christ's doctrine prohibits judging and
attacking others. Some claim that they follow the Master even as they go about
judging and attacking others. Alma the younger did that until he was
converted.Millions of people throughout the world ignore the
"barking", as Bruce R. McKonkie described it: "What does it matter
if a few barking dogs snap at the heels of the weary travelers? Or that
predators claim those few who fall by the way? The caravan moves on."Although many would redefine "marriage" so that they can claim
that their way of life is good and proper, "the caravan moves on".
Those who know the purpose of motality will not be moved aways from the doctrine
that brings eternal happiness, regardless of the "barking" of others.
procuradorfiscalThere are, of course, many, many reasons...(to deny SSM).
KJKHow are newlywed seniors, whose marriage can't produce kids,
different than 2 lesbians marrying? Why are the former allowed to legally
married, but not the latter?PThe burden's on those
advocating change to show those they hope to convince that their position will
not burden or adversely affect our rights.KJKRights aren't
affected. Businesses can't discriminate against protected classes. If you
don't want gays listed as a protected class (like religious belief, race,
gender, etc..) requiring businesses to serve them, contact your state
legislator. Let the majority opinion prevail. I'm sure that bakers and
photographers who opposed mixed-race marriages on religious grounds felt
justified in refusing business to such couples. How are today's bakers and
photographers any different? Churches won't be forced to marry
gays. If someone tries, even most gays would support a constitutional amendment
protecting churches. Churches could also refuse to perform ANY LEGALLY
recognized marriage and ask their members to marry civilly and/or have a
non-legally binding religious service. The state can't dictate religious
practice. No RIGHTS are harmed, only assumed privilege.
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahYou are free to worship God as
you please. I and many millions more made a covenant that we would never, ever,
under any circumstances be ashamed of Christ or of His doctrine. We covenanted
to stand as a witness at all times and in all places, even when naysayers
attacked us.========= Like what Mike?Caring
for the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the needy?How about having All
things in Common?Where do you stand in judging others?Paying
Taxes?What about War and the Death Penalty?Obeying honoring and
sustaining the Laws of the land -- ALL of them?I'm curious Mike
-- what Doctrine is it exactly, and where do you stand on them?I know
where Christ's is -- it's also WHY I'm a Liberal.
@Mike Richard's so I am curious were you got that from my comment? I
have seen some serious straw man arguments on these pages but that maybe a new
all time straw man. How about you address the actual comment which was asking if
you in your 2:23 pm post are going against your religious leaders counsel by
calling others faithfulness into question. As to the rest of your
comment once again you made a covenant with your understanding of your god and
your understanding is not a universal one and certainly not a universal truth
and therefore doe no hold any more validity as an argument then anyone else that
uses religion over observable facts as an argument.
Spring Street,You are free to worship God as you please. I and many
millions more made a covenant that we would never, ever, under any circumstances
be ashamed of Christ or of His doctrine. We covenanted to stand as a witness at
all times and in all places, even when naysayers attacked us.A
covenant is a promise made between man and God. Only man can break that
covenant. God is bound to keep His part as long as we keep our part. I am not a
covenant breaker. I could care less about the mocking tone that so many use
when they think that they're more capable of running society than our
Creator.Many people in many religions throughout the world honor the
covenants that they have made. They would never accept the philosophies of man
as a replacement for the doctrines of God.Government is not charged
by the People with defining marriage. It has no right to impose a
"redefined" marriage on us.When mankind sets aside pure
docrine and gets caught up in the philosophies of man, he's headed for
@ procurador: Ah, yes - archaic anti-miscegenation laws from the early
1900's. I guess I should not be surprised that those are coming out of the
wood-work again - even if they are not enforceable for their original
purpose.As for your comment that those who wish same-sex marriage
must prove it does no harm: never, in the history of the United States has an
individual or group had to prove it is entitled to the same rights as everyone
else by proving that giving that right will cause no harm. Indeed, our entire
government is based on the ideal that rights are not given by the government but
exist in spite of the government. It is those who wish to limit or prohibit
rights who must prove a valid reason for that limitation.@ 2 bits:
In early Europe, the church was the government. In many cultures and many times
religion and government have been closely related. Indeed, the separation of
them is part of what made the US so unique when the Constitution was drafted.
However, their close ties do not negate the role of government in recognizing
Now, procuradorfiscal, name states that actually enforced that law between the
years between Loving vs Virginia and when Romney dredged it up. There's a
reason Las Vegas stays in business.
are you questioning other peoples faith again Mike? Is that also not against
your religions leaders counsel?
Re: "Name one state and its law that invalidates heterosexual marriages that
are valid in other states."Any state that has adopted The
Uniform Marriage Evasion Act, for starters [includes Illinois, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Vermont, and Wisconsin]. And that act merely codifies what is
already law in most other states, as well.The intent of the Uniform
Act, as well as the law of most states is to assure that, if a resident
prohibited from marrying under the law of one state goes to another, for the
purpose of avoiding this prohibition and there contracts a marriage which would
be void within the home state, that marriage is held to be void by the home
state, just as if it were entered into there.
I agree with some of the comments I've been seeing....especially "Joe
Blow". We are supposed to be the United States of America. That has never
meant that we always agree, but what it does mean is that we try to give people
equal rights. States have been (and I believe will always be) unique in certain
ways. But just as we now give rights to interracial marriage (although not all
agree with it) we should do the same for gays. If people don't like these
things, then they don't need to participate, but states should still be
required to adhere to the law. In Utah, the prominent LDS church (and any
others) are not required to perform the marriages that they don't approve.
So, the state should not battle giving the people their rights that have
performed this in other areas that allow it.
Democrats keep trying to make the case that this is only confusing because
religion got involved. But originally Marriage was a religious rite not
regulated by the Government.I'm trying to point out that before
government got involved it was pretty simple. Involving Government and lawyers
in it is what makes it needlessly confusing.I say the government
should have no say in marriage or who we marry. And yes... gay people should be
allowed to marry. All they have to do is find a preacher who will marry
them.It's the government involvement that makes it complex.
Some States recognizing your marriage, some not, etc. That kind of stuff.
Back before governments got involved, say cave man days, or adam and eve (if you
believe in that)... I doubt they had to go to the government office to get
marriage defined or to get the government's permission to marry. It was simple.I do research on early European marriage records,
and they weren't recorded by the government, they were performed and
recorded by the church (not the government).
It's interesting to read comments from a former missionary who now promotes
gay marriage and another poster who often quotes the "brethern" when it
suits him, but now, when it's time to stand up for what they taught and
what they claim to believe, they mock Deity. The "Brethern" have clearly
stated: ". . . marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and
that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny
of His children."God instituted marriage for the benefit of
mankind to protect men and women from those who were so full of guile that they
would present other plans to cause sorrow and pain to the human race. Even if
you now claim that you don't believe in God, He still believes in you.Marriage is sacred, even when millions trivialize it.Marriage is the only institution that will exist beyond the grave. Those who
don't understand that concept can learn. There are at least 75,000 young
men and women who will glady help you comprehend how sacred and precious
marriage is when it is properly understood.
Ranch,It's not as cut-and-dry as you pretend. RE:
"The US Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law to ALL
citizens"... then by the Constitution children should be allowed to marry.
And any law preventing it is "Unconstitutional". Otherwise they are not
being treated equally under the law.How about polygamists?
We've had the same Constitution for awhile, and they have been prevented
from marrying for a LONG time (even today). Is the government violating their
Constitutional rights by not allowing them to marry whoever they want?You seem to think this is only about same-sex marriage. But by your
interpretation ALL people should be able to marry whoever, or whatever they
want... or the ACLU needs to get involved. But obviously they don't.
Why?Because you are wrong. The Constitution doesn't say you
can marry whoever or whatever you want. Originally the government wasn't
even involved in Marriage (it was a religious rite). Now that government has
become involved... the definition of "marriage" changes.It
used to be a covenant between God and the couple. Now it's just a
Government contract (how romantic).
When Utah doesn't have hundreds of polygamous families living openly then
Utah senators can start talking about the defense of traditional marriage. You would think hypocrisy would bother people..
@RanchHere, UTYou must forgive Mike Richards.He
doesn't like the Constitution.He's pro-Theocracy - not much
different than the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Sharia Law extremists we're
fighting on the OTHER side of the world.
Re: ". . . there is no reason on earth why same-sex couples shouldn't
be treated the same by the government as opposite-sex couples."Says you.There are, of course, many, many reasons, both on earth
and off. Childishly refusing to recognize or acknowledge them, doesn't
diminish their existence. It's simply not helpful to engage in bleating
contests, to see whose opinion can be shouted loudest.The
burden's on those advocating change to show those they hope to convince
that their position will not burden or adversely affect our rights.To date, the LGBT community hasn't been very effective at that.They continue to deny that our opinions matter. They continue to bully and
overreach, suggesting our rights to believe, practice our beliefs, associate
with those we choose, provide business services and artwork to those we choose,
even to speak of our beliefs as we choose, are PROPERLY affected by their
desire, not merely to engage in behaviors -- they already have that -- but to
force those who disagree with them to validate or celebrate those behaviors.
@Mike Richards;Once again you foolishly expound upon the "god
created the institution" when Adam and Eve never even existed, the world is
(much) greater than 6000 years old and the bible, upon which you base your
comments is wholly fiction.The US is not a theocracy and your
religious views have no relevance to the governance of this country.Furthermore, you do not have a copyright on the word "marriage".
@ SEY: And if a couple didn't register with the government, they were not
considered married for tax, inheritance, or paternity purposes. As for common
law marriages, those still take place - but until they are registered by the
government, it is just two people living together - no tax benefits, no
inheritance benefits, nothing. And the government sets the rules for what
creates a common law marriage.Marriage has always been about
government involvement and government recognition.@ 2bits: Just
because the governments that recognized marriages throughout human history may
no longer exist, does not mean government was not involved with recognizing
those marriages.Whether the government was a tribal leader or the
ruler of a kingdom or any level in-between, marriage has always had government
involvement. It determined community membership, land and food allotments,
community requirements, and, in the days before DNA testing, paternal
recognition and rights - as well as many other things. Just because the Roman
Empire fell does not mean the Roman Empire had nothing to do with Roman
marriages. And the higher your class and status, the more money and property
was in question, the more the government was involved with your marriage.
SEY and Maudine: Marriage may not have always been about government, but it has,
for at least the last 5 centuries, been about contracts--contracts that created
or fostered financial, social, and even political alliances. Contracts rife for
intrusion by the state! In England, the state-run Church of England, seeing a
source for revenues by having a say in approving marriages, established laws
regarding marriage licensing (or banns)…and continued to exercise its
power throughout the American Colonies, many of which later adopted similar
laws. Wherever there is power to be had or revenue extracted from its citizens,
you can be sure government will have a say.SEY & 2 Bits: Agreed!
Government has no place in marriage. Here's irony: the dual feature of
marriage--constructed by state law and public policy and yet understood as a
"natural" and pre-political custom. Does it not follow, then, that if
marriage is "a pre-Christian institution written into the human psyche,"
federal and state laws to define it are wholly unnecessary?
As usual, there are those who demand that civilization accept their definition
of marriage instead of accepting our Creator's definition of marriage. The
first ordinance performed on this earth was our Creator joining Adam and Eve in
marriage. That ordinance predated all civil government. That ordinance
predated all the self-appointed experts who claim that they know what is best
for civilization as they tell us that no matter the consequence to children,
they WILL have sex with anybody at any time and that society had better accept
it.Government cannot "define" marriage. No where in the
Constitution has the Federal Government been authorized by the people to define
marriage, to perform marriage or to stipulate that States must accept their
re-definition of marriage.Once you let community organizers
re-define religious ordinances to suit their political agenda, you have the
"confusion" that the government has created. The Court
cannot legislate. Since the Constitution gives no authority to the Federal
Goverment to legislate marriage, the Court cannot rule on the Federal
"definition" of marriage.
I still say that it is ironic that in a day and age when marriage is becoming a
joke, performed while skydiving, or underwater diving, Elvis impersonators, one
day "on line ministers," drive thru chapels in Vegas, ect. ect. that the
same sex crowd finally got their way. You can have it. Most people these days
have as a first step to marriage "living together." Then children,
then an engagement, then maybe a marriage, if the "relationship"
hasn't broken up by then. Todays society has so abominated the whole
institution, that it is not the "sacred bond" it was intended to be.
Let's let people marry their pets too. Why not. Who's to judge? I
just don't want any of this secular junk getting into LDS Temples.
@2 bits;It isn't that they agree with me, it IS the right thing
to do. The US Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law to
citizens. We ARE citizens. It doesn't matter that we have differences of
opinion, we need to respect those. And in the case of marriage, there is no
reason on earth why same-sex couples shouldn't be treated the same by the
government as opposite-sex couples. There would be no confusion if the states
actually abide by the Constitution. How often are you automatically divorced
for crossing state lines?
Ranch,How is it that people only get things right when they agree with
you? Is that how tolerance of other ideas works?
At least the Deseret News got one thing right: The confusion IS needless. If
states actually honored the US Constitution and recognized marriages from all
states (like they do for heterosexuals), there WOULD BE NO CONFUSION.
DanO: I'm fine with any kind of marriage that doesn't violate laws of
human rights as established under the U.S. Constitution. No marriage can take
away individual rights.
Maudine: look it up. In the U.S., government didn't get involved until the
middle of the 19th century. Government merely recorded whatever form of marriage
took place, even common law marriage. If a couple said they were married by
whatever means, that was good enough.
IMO "Marriage" is not a government issue. The institution of
"Marriage" pre-dates any existing government. People have been uniting
in marriage in all civilizations I know of, even ones that pre-date every
government currently on the earth. Even primitive societies are known to have a
tradition of pairing up as men and women in what they observed as a
"marriage". I don't know if they had "Gay Marriage" back
then. Maybe they did. But it wasn't a big hit IF the goal of the
relationship was to start a family.But since governments insist on
being involved.... we have to address it the way we are today (politically).
Politicians pretty much have to adopt the most liberal definition of
"marriage" that's out there... or risk disenfranchising someone.So if it's no longer a biological necessity, or a religious thing,
and it's just become a government contract... this opening it up to
whatever relationship you want is inevitable. I suspect a guy wanting to marry
his toaster could sue the government and win (or he would not have equal rights
under the law).IMO the government should not define
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.
@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.
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.
@ 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."
The confusion is needless, yet perpetuated by states like Utah.
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 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.
‘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?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
"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?
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.
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?
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.
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.