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
Don Bugg
Prince Frederick, MD

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.

ProudUtan
Grantsville, UT

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.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Don Bugg
Prince Frederick, MD

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?

Joan Watson
TWIN FALLS, ID

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.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ 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.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

"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.

QuercusQate
Wallsburg, UT

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.

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

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.

ProudUtan
Grantsville, UT

@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.

Don Bugg
Prince Frederick, MD

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.

QuercusQate
Wallsburg, UT

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.

dwayne
Provo, UT

Sneaky Jimmy,

I want to be very clear from the start when I say that I support gay marriage but the argument of some who do undermine us. DOMA is constitutional even if it is not good for the country. It has nothing to do with the Bible either. DOMA is a law that falls under Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution which requires all states give "full faith and credit' to the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state" but "Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

DOMA is constitutional because it is an exercise of this power. It is not a good exercise of this power but it is one that we must recognize as legitimate. 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. Without this power a single state legislature could rule the entire country. This is a separate issue to the constitutionality of state marriage laws

xscribe
Colorado Springs, CO

Polgamy? Gasp!!!

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

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.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

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?

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ 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.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

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

I M LDS 2
Provo, UT

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.

to comment

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