Supreme Court lets stand Texas ruling on gay spouse benefits

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 5, 2017 9:47 a.m.

    @NoNames: I rarely agree with you on about anything, including your two posts in this thread. That said, I respect and appreciate your gentle tone and the effort you take to craft a reasoned, articulate argument. In a forum that often devolves to flaming, anyone who elevates the level of discussion and generally seeks to find commonalities amongst opposing sides should be commended.

    NoNames: "...whereas Obergefell relied on penumbra and went contrary to national trends."

    I'll have to take issue with you here. Prior to Obergefell, several states had legalized same-sex marriage or recognized civil unions, as had several local jurisdictions. The trajectory of expanding LGBT civil rights in this country was unmistakable, starting with nondiscrimination policies in housing and employment, hate crimes protections, Don't Ask/Don't Tell (which was an improvement over the earlier Don't Even Be), the subsequent repeal of DA/DT, the Lawrence v. Texas decision, etc., and continuing on to marriage equality. There was clear trend towards increasing LGBT equality in the decades before Obergefell. There was little momentum in the other direction (Prop 8, Amendment 3).

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2017 6:50 p.m.

    Hutterite - American Fork, UT

    One of the reasons Republicans keep wining here in Utah is because we still believe in the old fashioned family values.

    I guess it was just one of those things that Kathie Allen didn't understand when she ran for office in Utah's 3rd Congressional District.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Dec. 4, 2017 6:43 p.m.

    @Rifleman:

    I can't tell if you comment is serious or sarcasm. I doubt I know more about the constitution than do trained lawyers.

    But unlike at least 5 members of the court, I do believe the constitution should be applied as written and intended in every single case. That is true whether it leads to outcomes I really like or to outcomes that I might otherwise oppose. I reject any notion of a "living document" that means only what 5 justices want it to mean today. That is no constitution at all. That is just a super legislature cloaking its whims in language lifted from old parchment. When times change and change in the constitution is needed, we ought to use the amendment process to make a clear change with obvious national consensus.

    The single most frequent mistake the federal courts make is to inject themselves and the federal government into areas where no authority was ever intended to be delegated. The next most frequent mistake is to issue rulings based far too heavily on the socio/political/economic impacts of the ruling.

    Federalism would eliminate most of the political discontent in this nation. Vote with our feet to live where the culture suits us.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2017 4:48 p.m.

    NoNamesAccepted - St. George, UT

    Always nice to hear from someone who knows more about the US Constitution than the members of the US Supreme Court.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Dec. 4, 2017 3:31 p.m.

    I disagree with Supreme Court on Obergefell. As the court ruled in the federal DOMA case, marriage is an issue that the constitution leaves to the States.

    The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were clearly intended to grant full and equal rights to black slaves and former slaves and thus established legal racial equality. The SCOTUS's inter-racial marriage ruling in Love v Virginia was on solid constitutional footing and followed national trends whereas Obergefell relied on penumbra and went contrary to national trends.

    Federalism is a great solution for alcohol, drugs, prostitution, gambling, land use, and marriage.

    That said, under Obergefell I don't see how legally married homosexual couples can be denied government benefits granted to heterosexual married couples.

    Sadly, since the homosexuals have pushed the wedding cake/photogray issue, infringing both religious liberties and freedom of speech, attempting to compel speech from the unwilling, there will be on-going blowback.

    Both sides need to stop being spiteful to the other. Don't discriminate in general services; Respect the right of creative talent to decline events that offend them.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 4, 2017 12:38 p.m.

    There's no victory in this. A spouse is a spouse. It's no skin off the hide of the uptight conservatives for them to share benefits. This is just spiteful.