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.
- Jay Evensen: Is Provo really an impoverished...
- In our opinion: Avoid blurring the line...
- Everything you need to know about the...
- Letter: Protected lands
- My view: Holistic approach to wild horses...
- Richard Davis: Legislators— Model the...
- Join the discussion: Why is young adult...
- Letter: Utah's birthright
- Robert Bennett: Contrary to Krugman,... 60
- Letter: Learn the Constitution 52
- In our opinion: Explaining editorial... 44
- Letter: Utah's birthright 44
- In our opinion: Avoid blurring the line... 42
- Join the discussion: Why is young adult... 39
- Michael Gerson: Rand Paul's bogus outreach 34
- John Florez: Corporate or public... 31