Quantcast

Comments about ‘DOMA at the dock: Defense of Marriage Act under Supreme Court scrutiny’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, March 27 2013 9:45 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Why is DOMA unconstitutional?

Gay couples pay into Medicaid, can't use it.

From our own Deseret news:

'Gay marriage wins rulings in pair of federal challenges' - By Denise Lavoie - AP - Published by DSNews - 07/08/10

'U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. (sic)
'The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.'

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Another reason why DOMA is unconstitutional.

From our own Deseret news:

’Gay Ca. veteran sues over denial of benefits’ – By Jessica Gresko – AP – Published by Dsnews – 02/01/12

‘The lawsuit announced in Washington involves a 12-year veteran of the Army, Tracey Cooper-Harris. After leaving the Army she married Maggie Cooper-Harris in California in 2008. Two years later, Tracey Cooper-Harris was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and she has received disability benefits through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs as a result. But her application for additional money and benefits that married veterans are entitled to was denied.’ – article

Our veterans fight for us. Sacrifice for us. Get legally wed in some states. Pay into VA benefits. Granted to straight couples.

Denied to LGBT.

truthseeker55
corpus christi, TX

The issue is, will we allow entities that do not represent a marriage to receive the benefits of marriage.

If a man and a woman live together outside of marriage should they have the same rights as a couple that is married?

Civilizations have a responsibility to promote marriage between a man and a woman as it is the glue that holds the social fabric together... those who promote homosexuality and homosexual marriage do so at the expense of our country.

Albert Maslar CPA (Retired)
Absecon, NJ

It does not appear that marriage is anywhere in the Constitution and therefore needs to be for the "Several States" to define and decide, not SCOTUS. As to anecdotal evidence where there might be unintended financial or loss of benefits that might harm gay partners, that occurs with every law that protects one class to the detriment of another class. Basically the entire homosexual and related gay marriage issues are simply in conflict with Genesis, the first book of the Bible that narrates how God created them male and female, blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” That solves the issues of marriage, homosexuality, and the source of life. Believers believe; non-believers do not; it is a free individual choice. To disagree on this or other topics is a basic human right. SCOTUS should revert the entire gay marriage issue back to the Several States.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Gay Marriage is not the Problem

My problem with the defense of marriage act is I fail to see how not letting gays marry affects the marriages of straight people, for good or ill. In our neighborhood there have been two gay couples that I know of, one two men, the other two women. Their relationship didn't affect my marriage, nor would it have had I been aware that they called their relationship marriage.

I think people fighting gay marriage are missing the point. It is not gay marriage that is the problem, but gay adoption. A child should have a mother and a father. When this can be provided to a child that is to be adopted out, it should be.

FDRfan
Sugar City, ID

“A democracy should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say.

A slight correction - 5 unelected people.

DaveRL
OGDEN, UT

Equal rights should not be dictated a group of religious zealots. If anything equal rights should be God given rights protected by the government.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@truthseeker --

"those who promote homosexuality and homosexual marriage do so at the expense of our country."

Fortunately, that isn't your call.

DOMA applies only to couples who are *already* legally married in their states of residence. Since you don't live in their states, you have nothing to say legally about their marriages.

Once they **are** married, the federal government is required by the US Constitution to treat them just the same as any other legally married couple.

And THAT is what the Supreme Court case against DOMA is about. It has nothing to do with whether you happen to approve of them, or not.

OnlyInUtah
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The constitution doesn't promise that we can all have the same things. It does promise that we can enjoy the same opportunities and that we have rights to those opportunities. I have the right to legal benefits when I marry someone of the opposite sex.. so does everyone else. Neither I or a donkey would get those same benefits if we married. Even though the donkey would like the benefit that could be realized by participating in the marriage.

Don't be a donkey - Leave traditional marriage alone!

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

OnlyInUtah..tell me where it's legal to marry a donkey and your argument may have some credence otherwise it's hyperbolic nonsense. Gays can be "married".

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

@OnlyInUtah,

A donkey cannot sign a contract. But a consenting adult can. A child cannot sign a contract, neither can a truck or the Statue of Liberty. This is why you cannot marry a donkey, a child, or the Statue of Liberty.

The Bible warns against homosexuality. It is in the part between explaining how to treat your slaves and the part on the evils of eating shellfish. I can't wait until the Supreme Court looks into a federal ban on pork.

Springvillepoet
Springville, UT

@FDRfan:

I completely disagree. It has always interested me that when the SCOTUS comes down in favor of what a person believes, they are suddenly the most wise jurists in the land, but when there is a possibility they will go against what a group of people want, then they are useless, and a danger to our democracy. When Roosevelt tried his court-packing plan, he was sorely mistaken, as you are right now. We give Justices life appointments so they will at least be technically beyond bribe or blackmail, but also so change to the the laws and practices of our legal system will be a slow process. The unfortunate side effect is civil rights progress takes a long time, however, it also ensures changes come along more in line with the slow social progress of the people.

Nine (or five, as you put it) Justices is what the Constitution calls for, and if you listened to the arguments as I did, you would have heard both liberal and conservative judges grilling the lawyers from both sides of the case, not playing favorites. It is our process, and it works.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

OnlyinUtah,

The Constitution DOES promise that it will treat all citizens equally under the law. Surprise! It cannot promise we will all be alike and have the exact same things or the same opportunities, but where it give some citizens benefits and privileges, it will give other citizens similarily situated, the same benefits and privileges.

Doma states that married gay couples in states that grant gay marriage will be treated differently than other married couples in that same state. Tell me how that can be constitutional when we have the 14th amendment? Or, if you are like Justice Kennedy, how does that fit under the 10th amendment of having each state say what is a marriage? The federal government has no right to define marriage which is what Doma also does.

Totally unconstitutional.

It will be interesting to see what they do with section 2 of Doma - which allows each state to say whether or not they accept gay marriages from other states. That runs smack dab into the full faith and credit clause and seems to be unconstitutional too.

Doma has served its purpose and should go away.

Eliyahu
Pleasant Grove, UT

Bible verses and religious beliefs have nothing to do with the issue before the court. It's purely about civil marriage and its recognition by the government for legal purposes. No one is asking that churches be required to perform marriages that go against their doctrines or that churches give religious recognition to any particular marriage. It's similar to marriages between Mormon and non-Mormon, or between a member of any church that doesn't recognize or perform marriages between its members and non-members. They're legally married, but those churches still don't have to recognize it as a valid marriage for purposes of faith and membership. Fifty years ago, many states had laws prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites, and supporters of those laws had their bible verses to back up their arguments against it. They were wrong. Fifty years from now, we'll look back on this issue the same way.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ OnlyInUtah;

My friend, please don't date a donkey. They are unpredictable, kick very hard and can be awfully stubborn. Besides, I'm afraid it would be illegal and improbable that you can marry the donkey that owns your heart. They are bad spellers and have a hard time holding a pen to sign their name in an official piece of paper. Nothing wrong with keeping it as platonic as possible.
Sincerely,
Abby

Fortunately for the SCOTUS, they are deciding in a couple of more simple cases. Prop 8 and DOMA, both cases have to do with legally recognized American citizens and their right to join in matrimony. The questions are: Can an adult, sound of mind, free of legal burdens, marry another adult in similar circumstances? If their state allow them to marry, shouldn't the Federal government recognize them as it recognizes any other married couple, providing them with equal protection under the law?

We have to wait and see.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

DOMA was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 when he had interaction with Monica Lewinsky on at least nine occasions from November 1995 to March 1997. It was his personal defense of marriage act trying to say he was in support of conventional marriage while in the White House. It showed he was a good man and wouldn't lie except to federal investigators and to the people of the United States of America with our great ally sitting next to him,Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini (Arafat) watching in dismay as President Clinton said he didn't have interactions with that lady. It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

President Clinton is one that would like to repeal it now since it didn't serve the purpose for why he signed it, to get the special investigation and impeachment out of the way.

It is amazing how fast the people and nation can change their opinions with the advent of the Internet, Twitter, Facebook and other forms of communication.

The Republican victory in House 1994 and again in 2010 shows that people can make a difference. The Senators are chameleons.

Sneaky Jimmy
Bay Area, CA

Can anyone state a clear reason why the DOMA is constitutional and why it is good for the country? Please, no quotes from the bible, just a concise statement.

morpunkt
Glendora, CA

With the gradual indoctination of our youth in the nation's universities, combined with the relentless obsession of the mainstream media support, it will only be a matter of time, before gay marriage becomes legal. It's no use. Let the slippery slope begin.
And where it ends, nobody knows. Polygamy is next. Trust me.

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

truthseeker55:
[Civilizations have a responsibility to promote marriage between a man and a woman as it is the glue that holds the social fabric together...]

Is that the reason that "civilization" collapsed here in Utah, because of plural marriage?

There is no proof for you statement. None. The difference between marriage and civil unions is just semantics.

Civil Unions:
Denmark (1989), Norway (1993), Sweden (1994), Greenland and Iceland (1996), Netherlands (1997), France and Belgium (1999), Vermont (2000), Finland (2001), Tasmania (2003).

And then some, but all of these have had same-sex civil unions for 10+ years and civilization has not collapsed. In fact, most of these countries rank in the top 20 on most economic and human development indexes.

Same-sex Marriage:
Netherlands (2000), Belgium and Ontario (2003), Massachusetts (2004), Spain and Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway and Connecticut (2008), Sweden (2009), Iowa (2009), Vermont (2009), New Hampshire (2009), District of Columbia (2009), Mexico City (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010), Agentina (2010).

And then some, but after 3 years none of these have "collapsed".

So please, provide evidence before reporting this tired, old, and untrue statement.

Don Bugg
Prince Frederick, MD

Springvillepoet: The Constitution doesn't call for nine justices. It just calls for a Supreme Court. The number of justices has varied a great deal throughout history, as modified by Congress.

to comment

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