Quantcast
U.S. & World

DOMA at the dock: Defense of Marriage Act under Supreme Court scrutiny

Comments

Return To Article
  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 30, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    This isn't about love, and marriage.

    It's about benefits!

    We're a nation of whiners, and beggars.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    March 29, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    @Mr. Bean
    Pheonix, AZ

    "Everyone has equal rights re marriage... i.e., chose someone of the opposite sex to marry... applies to all equally..."

    Applies to heterosexuals exclusively. If you think that's equal than you are still living in pre-1978 and pre-1964.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    March 29, 2013 4:54 a.m.

    @Alfred --

    "If you wish to marry, chose someone of the opposite sex. This applies equally to all. Sounds like equal treatment to me."

    **If you wish to marry, choose someone of your own race. This applies equally to all. Sounds like equal treatment to me.**

    Sound familiar?

    @Mr. Bean and @wrz--

    "Oops!! Except for children... who can't marry... "

    The reasons why gay marriage is different from polygamy or pedophilia or incest have already been gone over ad nauseam, but in very very short form here they are once again:

    1. children and animals can't give informed consent. Consent is an essential aspect of all contract law. It can not be removed from our legal system.
    2. polygamy is illegal for **all**. There is no discrimination. It also has significant, known, concrete risks, especially to women and children.

    The US and Canadian courts have already proven that they know the differences between gay marriages and polygamists. And the Scandinavian countries that have had gay registered partnerships for upwards of 20 years now have not had any trouble beating off the non-existent hordes of would-be polygamists at their gates.

    These facts reflect reality. Your fears do not.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 28, 2013 11:32 p.m.

    The factual consequences of gay marriage:

    'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09

    Line:
    'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'

    The lowest divorce rate...since 1940.

    So please, do not lie and fabricate reasons to be against gay marriage....

    and call yourself a Christian.

  • goldfever St. George, U
    March 28, 2013 11:02 p.m.

    I'm against gay marriage, however what business is it of mine to tell two consenting adults what they can or cant do? In the end we will have to answer for OUR actions and no one else. Let the gays get married and be miserable like everyone else. If its against God then let God deal with them when they die, if its not than why worry. Worry about yourself and stop being meddling in other peoples freedoms. I don't want people telling me I cant do things that may bother them. I don't care what they think and vice versa.

  • Mr. Bean Pheonix, AZ
    March 28, 2013 9:29 p.m.

    @LValfre:
    "Why can't you people grasp the notion that everyone regardless of race, color, creed, nationality, orientation, gender, etc should have equal rights?"

    Everyone has equal rights re marriage... i.e., chose someone of the opposite sex to marry... applies to all equally...

    Oops!! Except for children... who can't marry... because the law says so... a discriminatory law. I think your same-sex friends are correct. There is discrimination in our laws since children can't marry. We need to get that fixed.

    @Open Minded Mormon:
    "The fact remains, marriage is an arraignment, by people who LOVE each other, who care about each other, who share everything - hopes, dreams, goals, housing, bills, ambitions -- and struggles, hurts, success, and disappointments, together -- not going about life alone."

    I feel that way about a whole group of folks. Should I be free to marry all of them at the same time? Inquiring minds wanna know.

  • Alfred Pheonix, AZ
    March 28, 2013 8:33 p.m.

    @Lane Myer:
    "The Constitution DOES promise that it will treat all citizens equally under the law."

    If you wish to marry, chose someone of the opposite sex. This applies equally to all. Sounds like equal treatment to me.

    "Doma states that married gay couples in states that grant gay marriage will be treated differently than other married couples in that same state."

    No, no. DOMA says marriage is between a man and a women. And all other combinations are not marriages. And federal law trumps all state laws.

    @JWB:
    "DOMA was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 when he had interaction with Monica Lewinsky..."

    DOMA was passed by the US Congress. Clinton's signature to the law was incidental.

    "President Clinton is one that would like to repeal it now since it didn't serve the purpose for why he signed it..."

    Clinton is a typical Democrat... they evolve.

    @Sneaky Jimmy:
    "Can anyone state a clear reason why the DOMA is constitutional and why it is good for the country?"

    DOMA provides equal treatment for all. Chose someone of the opposite sex to marry. Applies to all citizens.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    March 28, 2013 7:54 p.m.

    @cjb:
    "Their (same-sex) relationship didn't affect my marriage..."

    Same sex marriages in the first step in the eventual death of marriage. First, other aberrations will come forth wanting the same treatment, such as polygamists. And there is no reason polygamists cannot get the same marriage benefits. Then other combinations will emerge such as adults/children marriages. There is just as much logic in those marriages as there is in same sex marriage... even more. Then, whole groups of mixed sexes will come forth demanding the same treatment. At that point the government will exit its role in marriage altogether, relegating it to churches or to... nothing.

    In order to keep marriage in this country safe and healthy, it must be reserved for one man and one women, period.

    @FatherOfFour:
    "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."

    Signing contracts is a function of law... and laws can be changed with a simple vote of lawmakers.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    March 28, 2013 6:10 p.m.

    Cindyacre,

    "...the business (a religious business, mind you) of marriage..."

    Please provide proof (copyright, patent, etc.) that marriage is a "religious business".

    (I am willing to believe the "business" part about religion, but not that marriage is owned by, invented by, or in any way the intellectual, historical, spiritual, or other "property" of religion).

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    March 28, 2013 5:54 p.m.

    Defense of Marriage? They are not defending marriage! They are defending discrimination and hate. If you look at it, marriage needs more protection from heterosexuals. How many heterosexuals get divorced each year. How many children of heterosexuals end up in broken homes? I guess that is healthy for them, isn't it. these people destroy the institution of marriage all by themselves and it is absurd to act like gay people are a threat! so, face it, discrimination is what they want. I think we eventually get what we put out there in one way or another.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    March 28, 2013 5:13 p.m.

    @cindyacre

    You nailed it!

    Though it does ignore the significant benefits of the traditinal family unit to society.

  • cindyacre Shelley, ID
    March 28, 2013 1:56 p.m.

    The reason why the "government" got into the business (a religious business, mind you) of marriage in the first place is that there was money to made by licensing marriages. Take government OUT of the equation and let couples decide where and who they want to marry - and this all becomes a government non-issue. Government should have no say in inheritance rights, either, as those are private family issues. To turn all of this into "rights" of marriage because of money and benefits - isn't that a trite shallow?

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    March 28, 2013 1:47 p.m.

    It's simple ... equal rights. Why can't you people grasp the notion that everyone regardless of race, color, creed, nationality, orientation, gender, etc should have equal rights? Why do you want to hold people down that don't live the same way you do?

    Fear?

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    March 28, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    The opposition to marriage equality in this country is a horse that won't ride... lame out of the gate, and more and more people are seeing that fact.

    The crux of the SCOTUS dilemma is between State's rights versus Federal authority. Even if the SCOTUS refuses to rule on Prop 8, you can bet they will rule against DOMA, especially since the rationale for DOMA was, according to a House of Representatives report, "to express moral disapproval of homosexuality."

    It is not a legitimate purpose of Federal Law to express "moral disapproval" of lifestyle choices of its citizens without rational basis. There is NO rational basis for Federal disapproval of homosexual activities, much less "moral disapproval" of persons who identify themselves as homosexual.

    Even if the overturning of Prop 8 is not endorsed by the SCOTUS, Prop 8 is dead in the water. Public opinion has so turned against such bigoted law -- you can be guaranteed, a contrasting Amendment proposition is already written and waiting in the wings in California as well as numerous other States to reverse the travesty that was Prop 8.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    March 28, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    Don't want gay marriage? Move to Saudi Arabia. Leave the grown up issues to the grown ups.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 28, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    @ JWB
    You wrote:
    "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."

    JWB what you are decrying is education and information. People are becoming enlightened because of these technological advances. Yes, people are changing their minds....they are evolving. That is good.

    @ ProudUtan
    I held deeply religious beliefs as well. The difference is I don't take tradition anf faith at face value. If you are honest and want to do what God wants.... do it! Just make sure your actions do not override either of the two main commandments: "Love God above everything else, and love your neighbor as you love yourself".

    Actions based on fear and/or bigotry are not what my Christ teaches me. I was an LDS for many years (in many ways I still am), My heart still rejoices in the Gospel and the new understanding we are getting little by little, line by line.

    I certainly hope that when all this struggle is over we can all reconcile as the brothers and sister we are.

    LGBT people have a lot of practice forgiving.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 28, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    DWAYNE: : The best way to summarize this power is to say 'all states are required to honor the acts of all other states unless a majority of all states through their elected Representatives in congress choose to exempt such acts."

    -------------

    Oh, I totally disagree. No where in your quote does it say that congress can allow states from giving full faith and credit. It merely gives them the "Manner" in which they ARE proved and the effect thereof.

    Maybe only with marriage between whites and blacks did they allow one state to disallow anothers states acts, but we know that the SCOTUS said that was unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia.

    Why would they start the full faith clause with: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Recordas, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."?

    That is a complete sentenance. It has a period after it. It is not something congress can veto. They can merely say how it is going to work, right?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 28, 2013 12:41 p.m.

    Most of the children I know living with Gay couples were not invitro / inseminated / surrogated / adopted / ect., but were born in a traditional Husband/Wife "marriage".

    The fact is, 50% of ALL marriages end in a divorce, even Hetero-sexual ones.

    In the instances I mentioned, the Women had custody of the children,
    later in life finds a better "match", who just so happens to also be another woman.
    In one case I can think of, she also had 3 children of her own (ala, Brady Bunch)

    The fact remains,
    Marriage is an arraignment, by people LOVE each other, who care about each other, who share everything - hopes, dreams, goals, housing, bills, ambitions -- and struggles, hurts, success, and disappointments, together -- not going about life alone.

    BTW - to those of you who keep insisting on defining Marriage strictly by Sexual terms...
    YOU are the one's dragging the institution of marriage through the gutter.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    March 28, 2013 12:19 p.m.

    Polgamy? Gasp!!!

  • QuercusQate Wallsburg, UT
    March 28, 2013 12:06 p.m.

    Proud, I fail to see how equality in marriage for the gay population defeats the Proclamation to the Family.
    A. It applies only to the LDS, and is not a civil law for anyone.
    B. Many gays and lesbians (especially in Utah) already have biological children because their family and religious leaders strongly advocated that they marry.
    C. No one that I know, gay or straight, disagrees that marriage and family are great, even sacred, and are essential to society.
    D. None of us knows God's plan for every person on earth. We don't even know if there IS a God. At most, the religious have faith and hope.
    E. Whatever the edicts of religion and society, each person must search and obey their own heart and best intentions.
    F. There is no immediate nor foreseen danger of humankind becoming extinct by the failure to procreate.

  • Don Bugg Prince Frederick, MD
    March 28, 2013 11:37 a.m.

    ProudUtan: I didn't accuse you of being uncompassionate, and I didn't ridicule your Chrisitan beliefs. I'm already intimately familiar with, and in agreement with, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." What I want to know is how you think it will help preserve traditional marriage if we do as you suggest, by eliminating the various differnces between married and unmarried people in the way government treats them. I don't think that will protect marriage in any way; in fact, I think it will tend to destroy it. I'm certainly willing to consider what you have to say, however, to try to convince me otherwise.

  • ProudUtan Grantsville, UT
    March 28, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    @Baccus0902 and DonBug,
    People are free to chose how they want to live their lives, but that does not mean all lifestyles should be protected by law. My views will be difficult to understand to those who do not share my deep Christian beliefs, and they will continue to be ridiculed and challenged. Nothing I can say to you will change your mind and vice versa. Sadly, you may judge me to be uncompassionate for my beliefs, which is far from true. Let's agree to disagree. I believe "that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force, that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ." The Family: A Proclamation to the World" Look it up.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 28, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    I am almost 60 years old and I was adopted at birth. Not only do I know nothing about my "father"; I know nothing about my "mother."

    With the changes to adoption laws, I could probably mount a search, and with a great deal of time and money, find out about them. I have chosen not to do so.

    There are many, many people in this nations who do not know their biological parents. They know the people who loved and raised them - their true parents.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    March 28, 2013 10:53 a.m.

    Joan Watson:
    [If the father, whose sperm it is, is unknown and unknowable what knowledge or claim have such children on its paternal father and his heritage? Mother to child - I am your mother, child to mother, who is my father? Mother to child - unknowable. Comforting to the lesbian mother perhaps - but confusing and unsettling to children as they mature.]

    Sounds like you just have a negative opinion of adoption, in general. Lesbians also adopt. Straight parents also use sperm donors for various reasons. Many gay men are also the biological fathers of their own children too, either from previous relationships or by using a surrogate.

    The world isn't all that cut and dry.

  • QuercusQate Wallsburg, UT
    March 28, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    Since 1880 there have been 14 instances of the Supreme Court declaring that marriage is a "fundamental right." We must understand that gays and lesbians have that right just as much as do heterosexuals.

    I grew up in the shadow of BYU, where my dad taught. I graduated from Provo High, then BYU. For years I dated boys, then men; I held and kissed them, spent all my time with them, tried to fantasize about a life with them, even got engaged twice. I've had many men as my best friends, but I couldn't find a spark of physical attraction for them. I prayed, fasted, went on a mission, did everything I could to encourage God to help me feel romantic love.

    He helped me, but it was to realize how much I loved women, romantically, physically, emotionally, enough to yearn to bond with a another woman for the rest of my life. Life's journey made sense for the first time. I didn't have to be alone. This isn't a matter about sexual addiction, weakness, perversion, or selfishness. It's about deep, enduring love.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 28, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    "If the father, whose sperm it is, is unknown and unknowable what knowledge or claim have such children on its paternal father and his heritage? Mother to child - I am your mother, child to mother, who is my father? Mother to child - unknowable. Comforting to the lesbian mother perhaps - but confusing and unsettling to children as they mature."

    =============

    The same is true of an unwed mother, right? I don't see you prohibiting them from having or raising children. In fact, 40% of children born today are to an unwed mother.

    At least these children are wanted and planned for. There are not accidents and usually there are two parents to provide love and support for these children.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 28, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    @ ProudUtan
    You wrote: "However, redefining marriage is NOT the answer.... why don't they target changing the actual laws prohibiting their receipt of benefits (i.e. inheritance tax, health, etc). Marriage between a man and a woman should be protected."

    My friend, can you please give us what is "your" definition of marriage? I am asking for "your" definition, because marriage have had different roles, customs and components through out history and cultures.Marriage has never been the same around the world at any given time.

    You ask for protection for the marriage between a man and a woman. Please again, clarify for us, in what way SSM is a threat to you and your marriage? I am very slow, so please give us some specific facts. I really would like to understand your position and see how you reached your conclusion.

  • Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID
    March 28, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    it is very unpopular to write or say anything against gay marriages. However alone and unpopular one may be in ones opinion and conviction, a gay marriage does not and will not have, regardless of legalization, the same status a marriage between a man and women whose children populate the world. Homosexuals are able to adopt children who may or may not know their biological parents, but in the case of lesbians, if pregnancy occurs it is only by male sperm.
    If the father, whose sperm it is, is unknown and unknowable what knowledge or claim have such children on its paternal father and his heritage? Mother to child - I am your mother, child to mother, who is my father? Mother to child - unknowable. Comforting to the lesbian mother perhaps - but confusing and unsettling to children as they mature.

  • Don Bugg Prince Frederick, MD
    March 28, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    ProudUtan: I'm not sure I understand the logic of your statement. You seem to be saying we should take away all the legal distinctions that treat married people differently, so that people who want same-sex marriages will stop caring about marriage and stop asking for it. This, you say, will help us to avoid "redefining" marriage. However, to my mind, that would be redefining marriage, or rather, defining it out of existence as far as the government is concerned. How would this "protect" marriage between men and women?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 28, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    morpunkt,

    I think the reason the tide has turned so quickly, is that gays are open about themselves now. This is so different than just 10 years ago and especially 20 years ago. Everyone knows someone who is gay, unless you seem to be judgmental, and then they may still hide it from you!

    Kids can see their mom, dad, aunt, uncle, cousin, brother, sister, or friend they grew up with as a gay person and, because they know these people and their character, they know that all the stereotypes and bad things that have been said about homosexuals is wrong. When you see that, all laws discriminating against those you love seem wrong too.

    It is a different world because gays are not afraid to tell those around them that they are gay. It has made a world of difference in the prejudice that has been shown towards gay people.

    If all the harsh stereotypes had been true, things might not have changed. But most gays are not like the types dipicted by end-of-the-world predictors, but just like everyone else.

  • ProudUtan Grantsville, UT
    March 28, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    Legal/monetary loss of benefits seems to be the loudest cry from the LGBT population and perhaps they should receive some of the same benefits as married men/women do. However, redefining marriage is NOT the answer.... why don't they target changing the actual laws prohibiting their receipt of benefits (i.e. inheritance tax, health, etc). Marriage between a man and a woman should be protected. Any other relationship is a choice for individuals but should not receive the same recognition.

  • Don Bugg Prince Frederick, MD
    March 28, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    Sneaky Jimmy: The most concise argument I can think of is that the Federal government has the right to define the scope of its own laws, and since some of its laws relate to the question of whether people are married, it has the right to determine for itself whether certain relationships are to be recognized as marriages for Federal purposes.

  • Don Bugg Prince Frederick, MD
    March 28, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    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.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    March 28, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    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.

  • morpunkt Glendora, CA
    March 28, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    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.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    March 28, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    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.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    March 28, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 28, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 28, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    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.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 28, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    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.

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    March 28, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    @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.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    March 28, 2013 7:34 a.m.

    @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.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 28, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    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".

  • OnlyInUtah Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 28, 2013 7:08 a.m.

    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!

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    March 28, 2013 7:04 a.m.

    @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.

  • DaveRL OGDEN, UT
    March 28, 2013 6:45 a.m.

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

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    March 28, 2013 6:39 a.m.

    “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.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 28, 2013 6:31 a.m.

    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.

  • Albert Maslar CPA (Retired) Absecon, NJ
    March 28, 2013 6:03 a.m.

    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.

  • truthseeker55 corpus christi, TX
    March 28, 2013 3:42 a.m.

    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.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 10:20 p.m.

    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.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 10:15 p.m.

    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.'