Quantcast
U.S. & World

Gay marriage: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, avoids decision on Proposition 8

Comments

Return To Article
  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 28, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    @wrz --

    "the right to marry whomever they choose"

    Nope.

    1. polygamy -- polygamy creates concrete dangers to citizens. Public safety has always been a valid legal argument for limiting personal freedoms.
    -- For details, look up the 2011 case in Canada, which easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban, even though they've had gay marriage for years now.

    2. adult incest (adult siblings, adult parent/children) -- it's illegal in every state, again because of public safety. Not only is there the question of undue influence/coercion amongst close relatives, but also the risk of genetic defects in offspring is very high (roughly 30-40%).
    -- For details, look up any of SEVERAL recent court cases, in both state and Federal courts, which have very clearly and uniformly declared that homosexuality rulings do NOT apply to incest.

    3. child incest/pedophilia/bestiality -- children and animals are incapable of giving informed consent. Therefore, they can't sign marriage contracts. Informed consent is a bedrock principle of all our contract laws. It can't be removed.

    4. In contrast, gay marriages **don't** convey any special risk to public safety.

    The courts can easily distinguish between these different practices -- even if you can't.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    June 27, 2013 7:31 p.m.

    "Marriage" has always occurred outside of religions, as well as within them.
    "Legal Marriage" is a contract between 2 people and the State, which MAY be executed by a religious officiant, and MAY be considered a part of the 2 peoples' religions.

    The small number of Gays wanting to marry will hurt or change no one.
    Churches organized blocking of marriage equality MAINLY because they are concerned that their own members or children will want their church to marry them in the future.
    Anyone suggesting that "gays will be suing the X church to marry them" needs to read up on the subject of paranoia and the subject of false accusations

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    June 27, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    @Allen:
    "I would like to hear rational reasons why government is involved with marriage at all."

    The government has a say in marriage because there are certain cases where the government thinks, in it's infinite wisdom, marriages should be denied... such as close relatives, polygamists, human/pet, children, etc. Why the government would deny civil rights to these groups and not the aberrant gay marriage is an enigma. Everyone should have the right to marry whomever they choose without government interference... such as has now been granted homosexuals.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    June 27, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    @amazondoc

    Thanks for your comments!

    "Today, government is involved with marriage because marriage conveys hundreds and hundreds of legal and financial benefits to married couples."

    And in so doing, government is showing discrimination against singles. Much better, I think, for government to convey those benefits via civil unions, without concern whether people are married or not, and not get involved in the emotional problems of defining marriage.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    June 27, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    Are our decisions good or bad? Right, or wrong?

    To know without the use of an opinion. Answer this question:

    Is our country flourishing, and prosperous,--or is it decaying?

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 27, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    @Allen --

    "why government is involved with marriage at all."

    The first officially recorded marriages in Western civilization took place in the ancient Roman society -- and they were CIVIL marriages, not religious ones.

    In history, government has been just as involved in marriage as religion has. Marriage wasn't even considered a sacrament by the Christian church until the Middle Ages -- and churches only took over recording marriages from the government when the government became too weak to do so. In Jesus' own time, marriage was a private event that didn't require special civil OR religious ceremonies to accomplish.

    Today, government is involved with marriage because marriage conveys hundreds and hundreds of legal and financial benefits to married couples.

    @very concerned --

    "I have a hard time believing in a god who would send us to earth, prohibit us from a certain behavior, and then make it impossible to resist that behavior."

    Many Christians and Jews SUPPORT gay marriage. Many Christian and Jewish denominations are happy to perform gay weddings.

    They 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.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    June 27, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    Having governments at any level regulate marriage is as illogical as having governments at any level regulate baptism.

    Government = social unions
    Social groups = marriage

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    Government = social unions
    Social groups = marriage

    "We need less hysteria, and more rational thought."

    I would like to hear rational reasons why government is involved with marriage at all.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    As I've said in the past, homosexuality should be defined by mainly a behavior. I can see how one can have same-sex attraction, but I do not believe it is desirable nor uncontrollable. I have a hard time believing in a god who would send us to earth, prohibit us from a certain behavior, and then make it impossible to resist that behavior.

    Having read the 14th amendment, I sincerely doubt those who wrote it could have imagined it to cover homosexuality.

  • wwookie Payson, UT
    June 27, 2013 7:29 a.m.

    Christian 25-8, then I assume you are also against equal rights for women since biologically they cannot be the same?

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    June 27, 2013 6:56 a.m.

    Ah, to be alive during a time when the bonds of religious oppression are loosened. There is more to do and IMVHO it will get done. What a great secular and democratic republic we live in.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    June 26, 2013 11:40 p.m.

    In a free, and prosperous society, laws, and rulings are made on moral values.

    Is this Supreme Court ruling based on moral values?

    Take away moral values, and laws become corrupted, and chokes a civilization.

    Our people have become confused, and argumentative with defining the word "moral", and our country is decaying, because of it.

    It becomes our duty to speak out when rulings become warped. If not for speaking out, we'd still be a part of England.

  • wwookie Payson, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:16 p.m.

    Not to re-hash old discussions, but the seemngly.silly idea that gay activists want special treatment is based on history.
    The fourteenth ammendment was cited regularly by champions of gay rights. Look at the history of the fourteenth ammendment and the civil rights battles that led to results such as affirmative action.

    Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea that those professing to only want equal rights actually want to be treated equally. Once that is achieved, they lose their agenda and will have to create a new agenda. Need to be clear- This is specific to activists, not the gay community.

    Doma decision was really a victory for justice and rights of states to define marriage as the see fit,

    The prop 8 non-decision was disgraceful as California is the one state that doesn't have this right.

  • Open Mind Taylorsville, UT
    June 26, 2013 5:29 p.m.

    We saw this coming. I'm ok with equal rights for gays, except calling it marriage. Christians believing that gay marriage is ordained of God needs to refer to the Bible. It's a hard subject because it involves such high emotions, but God doesn't change his feelings on the matter.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    June 26, 2013 5:24 p.m.

    ClarkHippo:

    Some people believe this about civil rights, and some think it will snow in Texas tomorrow.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    June 26, 2013 4:42 p.m.

    What really comes next is the demand for government funded research to allow same-sex couples have their own children that are really genetically both the parents' children, and state funded in vetro for same-sex female couples, and state paid surrogates for same-sex male couples in the mean time.

    After all, same-sex couples will never be equal to heterosexual couples until they are able to bear children in these unions.

  • BYUtah Fan Herriman, UT
    June 26, 2013 3:37 p.m.

    @aislander

    No the curse still stands. No litigant is forced to file in state court if there is a federal question. Any challenge on equal protection grounds would be considered a federal question. Any law can be questioned on equal protection grounds. Therefore, jurisdiction would lie in the federal district court and standing to defend would not exist. Hence, default judgement for the plaintiff.

  • vageorge Pound, VA
    June 26, 2013 3:35 p.m.

    I do hope this Supreme court and the Obama administration realize that they are pushing the U S into the same category as Sodom and Gomorrah. Remember the Biblical historical results. There is always a price to pay for sin

  • michaelarchangel grass valley, CA
    June 26, 2013 3:31 p.m.

    to avoid federalism as most seem to need, good thing there are 50 states....to assume everyone in the usa should be protected equally under the law one must accept the fact that there are at least two camps of thought....a stand against conflicts both: an automatic unequality of one,,,,thus unlawful. one would be guilty of unequal unlawful to all parties......the law is a personal, social, spiritual thing.....as much as hetero people have accused same sex people for whatever reason, they still have their way, say and ability to be.....the secret is to be confident in the final energy of each individual....why would any person withhold, stop, create harm for another...this....my friends...is the only law that will be judged.....all other man made laws are for the folly of mankind seeking the opposite of live.....E V I L.

  • lightdee Highland, UT
    June 26, 2013 3:30 p.m.

    It's a sad commentary about how far gone our society/culture is when we have forgotten the real purpose of marriage. I see no comments about it on this or any other discussion boards - gays and supporters think it's all about liberty and so-called equality. So-called gay marriage just puts us futher out into the weeds.

  • aislander Anderson Island, WA
    June 26, 2013 2:49 p.m.

    @ ClarkHippo:

    I have extensive experience in discrimination law. Your questions sound like slippery slope red-herrings. Please believe that gay people want only what they say they want...equality, nothing more, nothing less. I would hope that you do not have a problem with gay citizens having equal treatment under civil law. Until such time as gay people are actually granted something that actually substantiates your fears, celebrate that we are getting closer to the equal treatment under civil law that our constitution promises to all citizens.

    Rest assured, no church will ever be required to marry anyone when they do not wish to do so. Our separation of church and state is strong and actually being strengthened by these same sex developments. Consider that until my state approved same sex marriage, my Christian church, which supports gay marriage was unable to perform them. Now it can. Thus, from our perspective, our religious liberty was restricted until the ability to marry same sex couples was granted. But any churches that disapprove of gay marriages certainly don't have to perform them. And don't be fooled by examples outside the USA...they don't have the same constitution!

  • aislander Anderson Island, WA
    June 26, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    @BYUtah Fan:

    Actually you're not quite correct on the "curse". The Calif State Supreme Court DID grant standing, so citizen groups can qualify to defend state law, but only up through the State Supreme Court. The US Supreme court has never granted standing to citizens to defend a state law before the SCOTUS, and wasn't about to start now.

  • Nuschler SAN MARCOS, CA
    June 26, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    @ CHS 85

    Excellent observation.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 26, 2013 2:15 p.m.

    @Clark --

    "#1 - How soon before gay and lesbian couples start suing churches, demanding to be married in places like a Catholic Cathedral or LDS temple?"
    -- Just as soon as non-Catholics or non-LDS members start sueing to be married in those same places.

    "#2 - How soon before it becomes a "hate crime" to simply say, "I disagree with the gay lifestyle?""
    -- Just as soon as it becomes a hate crime to simply say "I disagree with the Republican lifestyle".

    "#3 - How soon before social workers and adoption agencies, fearful of being labeled "homophobic" start giving special (not equal, but special) consideration to gays and lesbians wanting to adopt or be foster parents?"
    -- the National Association of Social Workers already SUPPORTS gay marriage, so there is not much chance of them being homophobic on a widespread level.

    We need less hysteria, and more rational thought. Cmon, people, this is NOT the end of the world.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    June 26, 2013 1:36 p.m.

    @Nuschler

    I didn't realize Barack Obama was on the Supreme Court.

  • BYUtah Fan Herriman, UT
    June 26, 2013 1:36 p.m.

    Before I begin this comment, I should say that I am very conservative. However, I am convinced that the court got the DOMA ruling correct while being very cowardly on the Prop 8 question. DOMA is a federal law that essentially trumps State law. Marriage is one area where state law has always held sway and should continue to. While I might agree with the general intent of the law, the federal government has no business sticking its nose into traditionally state jurisdiction. On Prop 8 the court ducked the issue. They have also cursed California in a way that I believe few have recognized. The court, by ruling that private citizen groups cannot defend a initiative that was passed by the people, has handed the California state government a veto over any state initiative. The state government need merely refuse to defend the law and any challenge to it will succeed since no one else has the standing to defend it. That puts all initiatives at the whim of the party in power. So, gay Californians, while this might be a short term victory, it might very well come back to bite you.

  • Nuschler SAN MARCOS, CA
    June 26, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." Barack Obama Nov 1, 2008

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    June 26, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    I would like to ask some questions.

    #1 - How soon before gay and lesbian couples start suing churches, demanding to be married in places like a Catholic Cathedral or LDS temple?

    #2 - How soon before it becomes a "hate crime" to simply say, "I disagree with the gay lifestyle?"

    #3 - How soon before social workers and adoption agencies, fearful of being labeled "homophobic" start giving special (not equal, but special) consideration to gays and lesbians wanting to adopt or be foster parents?

    Gays, lesbians and their supporters are wonderful about giving lip service to the word "equality" but equality means being exactly the same as everyone else, and who really wants that when you can be a little bit more? Possibly, a lot more?