I fully agree with the editorial published in the Deseret News Dec. 21 ("Judicial tyranny"). I have no objection to same-gender partnerships having similar benefits that traditional married couples have. However, I do not believe that the definition of traditional marriage should be changed to fit this additional social concept.
Let the same-gender unions have their own name, and develop the laws, rules, statutes, etc., that provide the status and benefits they seek. Traditional marriage provides a father and mother and children born to that relationship. This has served society well for centuries. Same-gender unions will not have natural children.
Society expects a total commitment and full fidelity between partners in either circumstance. Utah voters went through the normal legislative process to have marriage defined in our state constitution. Any suggested change deserves a full and open review, not just the unilateral action of a single judge.
- Doug Robinson: Making sense of retired...
- Who said it: Reagan or Clinton?
- Janna Darnelle: Redefining marriage hurts...
- 5 reasons Mitt Romney will probably run for...
- Jay Evensen: Forest Service photo rules are...
- John Hoffmire: Save capitalism by focusing on...
- Letter: Enforcing the dress code
- Catherine Rampell: Reasons behind the bad...
- Janna Darnelle: Redefining marriage... 103
- 5 reasons Mitt Romney will probably run... 67
- John Hoffmire: Save capitalism by... 47
- In our opinion: Here's how the Obama... 41
- Drew Clark: Either view of marriage... 39
- A. Scott Anderson: Energy development... 32
- Robert Bennett: Make climate... 30
- Letter: Enforcing the dress code 29