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.
- In our opinion: National security and the...
- My view: hippies, 2 Hell's Angels, one...
- Jay Evensen: On Second Thought: The 1 percent...
- Is it time for our first woman president?
- Ralph Hancock: The anti-establishment delusion
- Robert J. Samuelson: The false charms of...
- Radon, the unrecognized killer
- My view: Online purchases are not tax-free
- Is it time for our first woman president? 55
- In our opinion: National security and... 53
- Robert J. Samuelson: The false charms... 30
- Letter: Hillary and FOIA 18
- Letter: No labels in 2016? 17
- In our opinion: The lesson of... 17
- Arthur Cyr: US presidential politics... 13
- Ralph Hancock: The anti-establishment... 13