DOMA ruling brings back echoes of Roe v. Wade

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Anthracite Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    Another difference between Windsor and Roe v. Wade is that abortion can kill a child in the womb, while striking down DOMA will ensure that more children have health benefits, including prenatal care.

    That's something pro-life people can get behind, no?

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    July 1, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    Gallagher: "And every baby is equally entitled to the love and care of the man and woman who made him or her."

    And yet the court ruling has absolutely no effect on this. If you sincerely want to ensure that children are raised with both a mother and father, the biggest and most effective policy initiative one could take is to go after divorce, not gay marriage. Gay marriage would affect at most 1-2% of children. Divorce affects half.

    Gay marriage opponents argue that gay couples should not be allowed to marry because they cannot issue children. They cannot logically argue both this and that same sex marriage should be prohibited because the resulting children will not have male and female parents. They have to pick one or the other. Both arguments cannot simultaneously be valid.

    Gallagher fails to explain how infertile straight couples who have children via adoption, donors, or surrogacy are different from gay couples who have children by the same means. Those children will not have access to the "love and care of the man and woman who made him or her," either. Aren't they entitled to that in her world?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    July 1, 2013 8:17 a.m.

    @Sey: "Government should never have injected itself into the marriage business in the first place." I disagree. A man and a woman marry. They will probably have children. The woman stops working to care for the children, so now they only have one income. They raise children and the children grow up being productive citizens (they pay taxes to fund social security when we are old). This is a social good. Why not give them lower tax rates? Can the husband get health insurace for himself, his wife and his children? Not just him. If the husband or the wife dies can the other partner, who was part of the relationship, get the inheritance to continue to care for the children or to pass it down to the children?

    Otherwise, the father never marries the wife because marriage no longer means anything. So then the mother works 60 hours a week, the kids are tended by the TV, they are slow readers, they join a gang, they don't make money when we are all retired.

    And it is the Democrats who don't like this. We need a new kind of liberalism in America.

  • CB Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    QuercusQate: Thank you for the heads up, meaning there are more than one that suffers from
    this malady.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    June 30, 2013 2:34 p.m.

    The Supreme Court didn't select Bush over the will of the people Bush won more electoral votes Gore's campaign just wanted to make sure votes in Florida were counted until he had more than Bush. Thing is what right does a judge have to overrule the will of the people?

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    June 30, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    @ CB

    You may have your justices confused; are you aware that Kennedy ruled with the minority on the Obamacare decision?

  • CB Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    Seems Justice Kennedy has developed a 'god syndrome' or else something was found on his
    telephone or computer that has lead him down the Obama path. One has to wonder with his
    previous ruling on Obamacare, and his obsession to make believe he is a supporter of the constitution in this absurd ruling.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    June 30, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    Government should never have injected itself into the marriage business in the first place. Then the strange practice of employer-sponsored health benefits only compounds the error. So-called "correctives" have entrenched and made permanent all that is bad about all these bad decisions. And here we are, in deep and going deeper with no way out.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    June 30, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    "that standard of deviation from "tradition" has never been applied to the many laws enacted by Congress that have affirmed new, leftist values."

    DOMA's **own legal counsel** agreed that DOMA was based on animus.

    Justice Kagan: "...I'm going to quote FROM THE [U.S.] HOUSE REPORT here -- is that 'Congress decided to reflect and honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.' Is that what happened in 1996?"

    Paul Clement (defending DOMA): "Does the House Report say that? Of course, the House Report says that. And if that's enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute."

    More from the House Report:

    Chairman Hyde: "most people do not approve of homosexual conduct...and they express their disapprobation through the law." 142 Cong. Rec. H7501 (July 12, 1996)

    You just can't overthrow equal protection based on animus. That's Constitutional reality.

    "the unions of two men or two women have inherent differences from unions of a man and a woman."

    The most significant difference is that gay couples will never have unwanted children. Will never add to the number of abortions in this country. Will never have "oops" pregnancies.

    You should be CELEBRATING that fact.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 30, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    "Justice was not blind at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It was deaf — deaf to the will of the people of California and the nation."


    Where was this sort of conservative out cry when the Supreme Court "Selected" GW Bush over the "will of the people".

    Selective reasoning is dishonest, manipulative, and lacks integrity.