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: Brexit and the U.K.'s new...
- In our opinion: US v. Texas and immigration...
- On Second Thought: Departugal, Italeave and...
- In our opinion: California considering bold...
- John Florez: If elephants can dance so can...
- Letter: Come together
- Letter: Reducing teacher load
- Charles Krauthammer: Hillaryism: Tired...
- Letter: Shooter's motives 39
- Letter: Carbon emissions fee 30
- In our opinion: California considering... 29
- In our opinion: US v. Texas and... 22
- My view: Taxpayers should call foul on... 19
- Letter: Panhandlers in Sandy 19
- In our opinion: Brexit and the U.K.'s... 18
- Charles Krauthammer: Hillaryism: Tired... 17