Quantcast

Comments about ‘Topic of the day: Court rules on DOMA and Prop 8’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 26 2013 12:35 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

"The Court ignored the votes of a large bipartisan majority of Members of Congress. It is absurd for the Court to suggest that Congress does not have the power to define the meaning of words in statutes that Congress itself has enacted."

The Supreme Court did the exact same yesterday when it invalidated large parts of the voting rights act. The act was passed by large majorities in congress and signed by the president, G.W. Bush in this case.

Liberals will argue that the court got it right today and wrong yesterday. Conservatives will argue the opposite. "Judicial activism" means the same thing to both sides. It means the court reached an opinion they don't like.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Roland Kayser,
You say "Congress has the right to define the meaning of words in statutes Congress itself enacted".

I suspect the word "Marriage" had a definition before Congress defined the word. I believe people were getting "Married" before the United States even existed. I believe Adam and Eve were "Married" and they didn't even HAVE Congress back then.

So... does Congress have the power to change that age old definition?

I really don't care what the supreme court does on this one. It doesn't affect me. But I wonder what God thinks as he watches us and what we do and say (IF he exists and cares enough to watch).

FreedomFighter41
Orem, UT

"I really don't care what the supreme court does on this one. It doesn't affect me. But I wonder what God thinks as he watches us and what we do and say (IF he exists and cares enough to watch)."

Personally? I think he cares more about what Wall Street is doing, what is being lied about so we can invade a country like Iraq, and how people are serving each other rather than whether or not gay marriage is an option.

It's pretty simple folks. Don't want a gay marriage? Then don't get one.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

To 2 bits: I was quoting from the piece in my first paragraph. Hence the quotation marks.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

We become as noble or as ignoble as we desire when we let our appetites and passions ditate to us what kind of people we will be. We have the option to consider the lives of children and our duty towards them or to pretend that we are merely animals who have no high and holy purpose.

No ruling from any court will ever replace our duty to become what our Creator intended us to become. No judge can take about our responsibility to God to do what we know to be right.

Today many claim that they won a victory. What was that victory? Was it to be noble? To be selfless? To be a proper role model for all people at all time and in all places? Or, was the "victory" just a redefinition of the word "failure"?

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@mike

It was a clear and glorious victory for a Nobel cause by a selfless people that recognized the importance of justice, equality and respect for our fellow man, but thanks for asking.

Rand
Ogden, UT

Mike Richards,

"Noble". What a nice way to spin it. Bigotry and theocratic governance by any other name are still bigotry and theocratic governance, though.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Tolstoy,

You have the right to your opinion.

Compare this "victory" to the Roe v Wade "victory". Who won in that "victory"? A woman was told by the government that she could destroy the life within her and that the government would do nothing to stop her nor would it save the life of the unborn child. Who lost in that "victory"? It's easy to quantify because we know that over 55,000,000 unborn children have died.

Now some people claim another "victory". They tell us that finally the government will license them to do what God has prohibited. Think about that. They wanted someone to reject God for them so that they could dp as they wished. Who is going to "win"? They won't. Government cannot repeal eternal laws. Those who think that somehow this ruling has repealed God's commandment that a man should marry a woman and that a woman should marry a man are trying to tell us that a court had the authority to wave a wand and remove an eternal law.

How sad and how silly. Gavity would exist even if the court decreed otherwise .

twells
Ogden, UT

Where is all the money coming from to support these kind of cases? Are we to believe that there are a large population of gay and lesbian groups that have the financial means to pursue this type of legal action? There are a lot of things I don't agree with- but I don't have the financial resources to pursue them legally? What is going on in this Country? What is equal justice for all? Why do we care more about gay marriage than our soliders that have been left behind? Our own government fails them miserably when they have given all to secure our freedoms? How much money was spent on trying achieve equal justice and our injured vets are put on an endless waiting list to have their needs taken care of. A great day in America-whatever.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

To me, it sounds like, we just got a word from their sponsors.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Mike --

"We have the option to consider the lives of children and our duty towards them"

Yup. And gay marriage HELPS children by encouraging gay couples -- who are ALREADY raising hundreds of thousands of children, with or without marriage -- to form more stable relationships.

Stable families HELP children. Marriage encourages stable families.

Anyone who thinks that kids are important should SUPPORT gay marriage.

"They tell us that finally the government will license them to do what God has prohibited. "

Sorry, Mike, but many many religious people disagree with you. Many Christians and Jews SUPPORT gay marriage. Many Christian and Jewish denominations are ALREADY happy to perform gay marriages.

These people have no trouble reconciling their religious beliefs with support for gay rights. And guess what -- their religious beliefs are every bit as valid as yours are.

@george of the jungle --

"To me, it sounds like, we just got a word from their sponsors."

Yup. "These decisions sponsored by the US Constitution and the Right to Equal Treatment Under the Law."

:-)

Rikitikitavi
Cardston, Alberta

The high court can say and do as it chooses. Nonetheless, sin is still sin.

to comment

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