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
dwayne
Provo, UT

Lane Myer,

"No where in your quote does it say that congress can allow states from giving full faith and credit."

Yes it does since that was the exact intent of the clause. The Constitution was written in clauses and not sentences and was written by people more intelligent than you and those who wrote it, like most people, understood the meaning of "effect thereof."

It doesn't mean a specific action. Congress can not legislate how an act of one state is applied in another instead it can only legislate as to the effect of the law or act. This congressional power isnt procedural or specific but general.

Even though DOMA is clearly constitutional state laws that deny gay marriage are not. We do not need to undermine the entire constitutional framework to achieve what the constitution already protects.

"They can merely say how it is going to work, right?"

The exact opposite. They can't say how its going to work. They can only say if the acts of one have a full faith and credit effect in another. This clause does not grant unconstitutional power to 'say how it is going to work." Only the effect thereof.

LValfre
CHICAGO, IL

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?

cindyacre
Shelley, ID

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?

the truth
Holladay, UT

@cindyacre

You nailed it!

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

RFLASH
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

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).

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

@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.

Alfred
Pheonix, AZ

@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.

Mr. Bean
Pheonix, AZ

@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.

goldfever
St. George, U

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.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

plainbrownwrapper
Nashville, TN

@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.

LValfre
CHICAGO, IL

@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.

worf
Mcallen, TX

This isn't about love, and marriage.

It's about benefits!

We're a nation of whiners, and beggars.

to comment

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