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.
- Can you pass the U.S. citizenship test?
- John Florez: Utah public education is a house...
- In our opinion: How committed are Obama, U.S....
- 19 songs to consider as replacements for the...
- Charles Krauthammer: The jihadi logic
- Catherine Rampell: Have America's public...
- My view: Utah, where do you stand on marriage?
- In our opinion: The Scots have set an example...
- My view: Utah, where do you stand on... 93
- Ralph Hancock: Society cannot... 76
- Letter: Bush dilemma 2.0 37
- George F. Will: Obama needs Congress to... 27
- Richard Davis: Scots — Be brave,... 25
- In our opinion: Accountability,... 25
- My view: Intergenerational poverty the... 19
- Mary Barker: Religion and politics... 17