Skip to content
UVU REVIEW
Menu
  • Home
  • News
    • Campus Government
    • Events
    • Politics
    • Crime/Title IX
    • Business
  • Lifestyle
    • Health & Wellness
    • Valley Life
    • Wellness for Wolverines
    • Eating on Campus
    • Professors
    • Student Blog
  • Arts & Culture
    • Music
    • The Cultured Wolverine
  • Sports
    • Baseball
    • Basketball
      • Basketball
      • Basketball
    • Cross Country
      • Cross Country - Men's
      • Cross Country - Women's
    • Golf
      • Golf - Men's
      • Golf - Women's
    • Soccer
      • Soccer - Men's
      • Soccer - Women's
    • Track & Field
      • Track & Field - Men's
      • Track & Field - Women's
    • Wrestling
    • Wolverine Sports
  • Podcast
    • Wellness for Wolverines
    • The Cultured Wolverine
    • Wolverine Sports
    • Pro Talks
  • Youtube
    • Wolverine Weekly
    • We are Wolverines
    • Matchpoint
  • Games
    • Wordle
    • Crossword
    • Sudoku
    • Tetris
    • 2048
    • Flappy Bird

Search


About Us Advertise Contact Work For Us

Search UVU Review

About Us Advertise Contact Work For Us
SIGN UP LOG IN
Featured

LGBTs await SCOTUS DOMA decision

By Collin Lawrence
|
5 min read
Apr 8, 2013, 3:00 AM MST |
Last Updated Apr 7, 4:39 PM MST

The conservative right against the liberal left once again. “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” Matthew 7:1.

The score is most likely 4 – 4. All tied up. It seems to always come down to the final vote. This is the American way. Never agreeing on anything. Always fighting, never compromising. At least this isn’t left up to Congress who seems to just let things expire, fall off cliffs and commandeer the reigns of reason.

The Defense of Marriage Act and California Proposition 8 have both been discussed at some length by the Supreme Court of the Unites States. They are one of very few court systems that challenges lawyers to make logical arguments while avoiding the tripping hazards of a loose tongue.

Screen Shot 2013-04-07 at 5.38.53 PMStates have rights afforded by the Constitution. They have managed themselves seemingly well but have had many of their own right usurped by legislative and financial purse strings of the federal government. The task at hand for the SCOTUS is to protect the American citizens from themselves. Or others that have been denied the unalienable rights of all Americans.

So what if one state wants to honor your religiously recognized marriage approved by the court license and contractually binding union. Doesn’t this official obligation to represent each other in all binding contracts just act as a facade of the Power of Attorney? Move out of a state if you don’t like the regulations. Find a place where you can drive a junker of a car and pollute the environment or move to the one with the highest regulated clean air emission standards but still has the dirtiest air. There is no law prohibiting you from crossing the border between states.

Recognizing LGBT individuals is not a skill we teach our children, so I am quickly startled by people who define people with these labels. The real problem is this instant judgment. Any scenario requiring the notification of next of kin or medical emergency needing the legal guardian of a child or spouse can become an insurmountable hurdle. This is especially true if you have a legal union in one state but the state you’re currently in does not recognize it.

Reciprocity used to be a wonderful thing protected by the Constitution. Now we have a court system that dictates what can and can’t be delegated to the states. Upholding the Articles and Amendments is their job. The right to marry the person I love is not regulated. The recognized legal bond I enter into with that person has some hurdles but can be accomplished in certain places. The difference is the extra privileges that come with choosing a member of the opposite gender. There are far more if that path is chosen.

If the SCOTUS strikes down the DOMA, it could open the legal benefits coffers to those previously excluded. Many things would change.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis … for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them?”

On the other side of the bench sits the chief justice. His view on the issue is very different. “The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.

He is defending marriage. I’m a big fan of religious marriage. I just don’t think the government needs to protect marriage. Churches have gotten pretty good at protecting their beliefs and traditions. Does another minority have to march on Washington to drink from the same fountain or enjoy the right to fill out the same paperwork at the county courthouse?

“You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet?” asked Justice Samuel Alito.

Yes, yes we do.

At some point, our representatives, judges and executive officers must stop projecting how difficult things may be by choosing to be inactive because it’s too difficult to deal with the result and just do what is best. “Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead,” said Admiral David Farragut.

The effects of any decision are far reaching. Adoption agencies run by religions would see a change in funding from the federal government. The list stretches endlessly on to the subject of tax shelters. I other words, LGBT people would have rights too. What is the world coming to? Equality I hope.

Justice Anthony Kennedy has only one of nine votes. The SCOTUS is a one-man-band waiting for him to play the song. DOMA defines marriage as, “Between a man and a woman.” Maybe marriage is between a man and a woman. Maybe what needs revision is not the name we give the religious matrimony, but the legal bond between two equal partners.

The arguments are too numerous. The federal government passed a law in 1996 that just isn’t good enough in 2013. Issues of discrimination, individual power of the states, federal interpretation of the 10th Amendment and religious freedom are just a few.

My opinion, if worthy of your ears, lets get a new constitutional amendment. It’s down to the final vote. Final score 5 – 4 Whigs defeat robes.

Collin Lawrence More by Collin Lawrence
Previous Sports Losing streak continues in Provo
Next Opinions Racing by or Step-by-step
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Login
Notify of
guest

guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Popular Reads

  • 1
    women on a smartphone
    Productive smartphone apps you didn’t know you neededApril 8, 2026
  • 2
    post game tartleton state UVU Wolverines
    PostGame Show Jan 29, 2026 | MatchPoint | UVU ReviewMarch 10, 2026
  • 3
    The Utah State Capital on a clear blue day.
    Will Utah’s new congressional map affect UVU?March 16, 2026
  • 4
    Wolverine Weekly | Season 2 Episode 3March 18, 2026
  • 5
    Saturn and other planets depicted on a stained class panel.
    Iftar dinner at UVU: An enlightening experience and celebration of Islamic cultureMarch 30, 2026
UVU REVIEW

Sections

  • News
  • Arts & Culture
  • Sports
  • Lifestyle

Games

  • Wordle
  • 2048
  • Sudoku
  • Flappy Bird
  • Tetris
  • Crossword

Shows

  • Wolverine Weekly
  • We are Wolverines
  • UVU Sports
  • The Cultured Wolverine
  • Wellness for Wolverines
  • Pro Talks

Company

  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • About Us
  • Staff Application

Follow Us

Your Privacy Choices Terms of Service Privacy Policy Disclaimer
UVU REVIEW

Sections

  • News
  • Arts & Culture
  • Sports
  • Lifestyle

Games

  • Wordle
  • 2048
  • Sudoku
  • Flappy Bird
  • Tetris
  • Crossword

Shows

  • Wolverine Weekly
  • We are Wolverines
  • UVU Sports
  • The Cultured Wolverine

Company

  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • About Us
  • Staff Application
Your Privacy Choices Terms of Service Privacy Policy Disclaimer

2026 © The UVU Review 2026 | All Rights Reserved

© 2026 The UVU Review 2026 | All Rights Reserved

UVU REVIEW
Cookie Acknowledgement

The UVU Review uses cookies to improve site performance and analyze traffic. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies.

Ad Blockers and Incognito windows may affect some features.

For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and/or Terms and Conditions

 

Thank you for supporting Independent Student Journalism!

Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
  • Manage options
  • Manage services
  • Manage {vendor_count} vendors
  • Read more about these purposes
View preferences
  • {title}
  • {title}
  • {title}
wpDiscuz