Senate panel tables same-sex adoption bill


Return To Article
  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Feb. 10, 2011 8:30 p.m.

    These are babies that are allready born and put up for adoption. The adoption agenecy will choose the best home available.

    Have you in your "stable religious god fearing household" signed up to adopt? Or are you leaving those babies for unstable foster care and what you think are "marginal" families to adopt?

    You realize that gay people can arrange to have thier own kids anyway....

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2011 7:53 a.m.

    Demosthenes: "Whether by choice or biology, homosexuals have been opted out of the child-rearing game. Therefore, adoption makes no sense."

    LDS: The same is true for heterosexuals. Many infertile couples (biology) can't have kids and adopt. Many couples (and singles) choose to adopt rather than face the ramifications of pregnancy.

    Many straight parents aren't ideal and many would be worse for kids than being raised in a loving same-sex home. Here's a solution -

    Let's make a point system. The couple with the highest point score get's the child. If the couple will have one parent be a stay-at-home parent, add 20 points. If they smoke, minus 1pt./cigarette. If the couple has college degrees, add 10 points each. minus 20 for high school drop outs. etc...

    Base the point totals on studies and if gay parents really are a negative, then let the points reflect that, but still let them adopt a child if the heterosexual couples wanting the child score even worse. Don't reject a perfect family/couple whose only flaw, if it is a flaw, for being gay, in favor of heterosexuals who are objectively worse.

  • kemitc Nashville, TN
    Feb. 9, 2011 8:26 a.m.

    @cambodia girl 1. Yes, children should be adopted into male/female married households.

    Glad your working with orphans in Cambodia. I think that shows a lot of about who you are.
    But it is ridiculous to say that children should be adopted to male/female married households because unfortunately here in the US they are not the ones adopting. And the ones who do adopt are looking for perfect children. The single people and the gay community are willing to take any child including the ones with aids to give them a home. And yes I am single and adopted my daughter at the time of her birth, not knowing what her health or genetic make up would be because I didn't care, I just loved her before she was born.

  • cambodia girl Phnom Penh, Cambodia
    Feb. 9, 2011 1:07 a.m.

    To my critic - Charlie from CA

    I will answer your questions:

    1. Yes, children should be adopted into male/female married households. Did I say that 100,000 + children should be taken from the home where they are living in single and same sex household?NO!
    But don't add to the problem.

    2. Yes, I am married.

    3. I have often thought that adopting children into my loving family would be of benefit to both myself, my family and to the child. Right now, I am providing loving care for many here in Cambodia.

    4. Yes, Cambodia has many children who have disrupted by selfish adults who care more about their own lives and not about what their child needs.

    5. If you knew me, you would never think I was prejudice. You have no idea how I am such an advocate for children.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Feb. 8, 2011 6:04 p.m.

    re - dankintz | 1:08 p.m
    "homosexuality is defined by sexual intercourse.."

    so two women that live together cannot have "intercourse". does that mean they are not gay? two guys always hang out together and love reach other but never actually have "intercourse" they just do other "things". they are not gay?

    intercourse is one of the LEAST things that defines gays. you should know that. (and no, I'm not gay)

    re - Utes21 | 1:26 p.m
    "You just mocked my comments on the other page about miracles? You didnt even ask what I experienced personally and came up with comments mocking me and what I believe in"

    I didn't mock your beliefs. I mocked your use of the word "miracle". Yes, there are things that seem "miraculous", but that is WAY different than a religious person saying they witnessed a miracle.

    so what miracle did you witness?

    "The thing I dont understand about the homosexual community is the anger they hold against religion and churches."

    and the thing they hold against you is that you simply won't accept that homosexuality is a normal natural thing. unusual? sure. but then maybe you would even call it "miraculous"...

  • Question Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 8, 2011 4:40 p.m.

    Does the lady in the picture not see the emotional trauma she is causing the kid in her arms???

    Leave her home! Or is she a prop needed for the drama?

    The lady is obviously very upset. Leave your kids home. This is not something they need to see.

    I don't know which side of the issue she's on, but bringing the kid to use as a prob is not the right thing to do (for the kid).

  • Utes21 Salt Lake City, ut
    Feb. 8, 2011 3:01 p.m.

    My kind sir what do you mean? Just because I am member of the Church and hetrosexual I attack gay people? Thats sound like a poor assumption to me. Anyone who is a member of the church attacking and persecuting another one of Gods children will be held accountable for his actions, either in this life or the next, and trust me that person is not follower of Christ and no friend of mine.
    Many people I work with are homosexual and are my friends. I dont judge them for what they choose to do with their lives nor do they mine. We can agree to disagree but that would get us nowhere. They are wonderful people who deserve my respect and kindness. I dont look at what people choose to be, but I look at people as our Heavenly Fathers Children and how much love he has for all of us. Again you cant choose your skin color, your heredity and traits, who your parents are. You can choose your sexual preference. Until hardcore facts are presented on this subject that your born gay it will always remain a life choice. With your choices live life be happy.

  • kemitc Nashville, TN
    Feb. 8, 2011 1:54 p.m.

    @dankintz True love is defined by God and God defines heterosexuality. And too, homosexuality cannot be defined by marriage.

    Scripture and verse. I didn't ind this anywhere in the KJV of the Bible.

    Utes21 One more thing what is your opninon with the childs sexual preference when he comes to that age? Would you let him or her choose to be hetrosexual or homosexual? The decision is not the parents to make. It is what is determined by what the person's general makeup is. Who in their mind would choose to be homosexual and be attacked by your kind on a daily basis.

  • Utes21 Salt Lake City, ut
    Feb. 8, 2011 1:26 p.m.

    I meant I dont condone your beliefs, but I dont accept that you dont condone mine. You just mocked my comments on the other page about miracles? You didnt even ask what I experienced personally and came up with comments mocking me and what I believe in. Yes these things may seem like normal or foolish to people like you but they are sacred beliefs to millions of others. I am not against same sex marriage but I am against hate and predjudice against anyone. The thing I dont understand about the homosexual community is the anger they hold against religion and churches. Religion has always had its values and beliefs yet you blame them for most of your problems, and what I saw with the blacklash from their community was not acceptable. LDS members have the ability to choose what to believe in and so does does everyone else. You cant force them to believe you, our Church doesnt force you not to be gay. Why do you even care what religion thinks in the first place. Live your live you are free to do whatever you like with it. Enjoy life and let your hatred go.

  • dankintz Grand Junction, CO
    Feb. 8, 2011 1:08 p.m.

    Respectfully to our brothers and sisters struggling with homosexuality, homosexuality is defined by sexual intercourse, period. It is defined by nothing else. It cannot be defined by children. It cannot defined by true love. True love is defined by God and God defines heterosexuality. And too, homosexuality cannot be defined by marriage. God defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is defined BY sexual intercourse, an act. May the love and mercy of God shine like a rainbow on those struggling with sexual perversion (i.e., addiction, etc.).

    Homosexuality is defined by sex. Heterosexuality is defined by God.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Feb. 8, 2011 12:50 p.m.

    re - Utes21 | 11:41 a.m

    no and yes
    no, not abusive. good roman catholic parents.

    and no, but I find religion's assumptions about God to be ridiculous. obviously a guy didn't build a boat for all the animals, God didn't rip a rib out of anyone, etc etc... then there's the whole 10 commandments, with the first 3 simply about God. You really think God wouold waste the first 3 on Himself?

    and yes, it is up to each person to decide how they want to be, and who they want to be with. I would hope the child would be heterosexual, as it makes for a much easier less ridiculed life, but it is up to each individual. same with if they wanted to be mormon. I would hope not since no one likes to be made fun of, but it's up to each individual...

    so answer a question for me... what do you mean by "I dont condone you"? that seems like a strange statement. do you mean you don't "condone" my beliefs? if so, that's ok. I don't "condone" yours either...

  • Demosthenes Rexburg, ID
    Feb. 8, 2011 12:46 p.m.

    Whether by choice or biology, homosexuals have been opted out of the child-rearing game. Therefore, adoption makes no sense.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 8, 2011 12:15 p.m.

    sorry that was suppose to be held up as admissible by the courts in reference to the professional organization I sited, I have to admit that it was a pretty humorous mistake however.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 8, 2011 11:50 a.m.

    The "data" you quote by the family research counsel (a conservative Chirstian think tank) has been discredited and thrown out of the courts several times as inadmissable due to their failure to follow even the most basic principals of research. If you want real data try actually going to credible research done by professionals in the field of human behavior and childhood development ( and held up as inadmissable by the courts several times) such as the American Pediatrics Society, the American Psychological Association or the National Association of Social Workers. Quoting a conservative Christian think tank does nothing to prove your point it only show the lengths some are willing to go to inorder to distort the truth (nice Christian values by the way).

  • Utes21 Salt Lake City, ut
    Feb. 8, 2011 11:41 a.m.

    @ charlie
    I am curious were you an orphan or were you raised by a Mother and Father? Are you gay? Were you in a abusive home? Do you let your hate of religion and anything LDS control you?
    I dont condone you or same sex adoption. In fact I agree with your stance letting children be adopted into loving homes no matter if its traditional or same sex as long as they raise that child to the best of their ability. I do disagree with all your hate you and many others vent at Religion. One more thing what is your opninon with the childs sexual preference when he comes to that age? Would you let him or her choose to be hetrosexual or homosexual? I am curious on your answer and please be honest.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Feb. 8, 2011 11:01 a.m.

    re - NP | 7:28 p.m. Feb. 7
    "Anyway you left-wing, anti-God, anti-family folks want to twist, turn & justify it, the truth remains: Children do better in a loving home with a Father and a Mother."

    ??? no one has EVER said they didn't. but perfect scenarios are few and far between in the real world.

    so no matter how you right-wing religious fanatics still stuck in the 1950s want to twist, turn, and justify it, the truth remains: children would rather have two loving parents of the same sex than no parents at all.

    don't you get it? have you ever been an orphan? do you have ANY idea what that is like? to feel like no one cares about you, shuffled from abusive foster home to abusive foster home?

    would it be nice if all orphans were adopted by heterosexual couples who stayed together forever? sure. but most couples don't stay together forever, and heterosexual couples are less likely to adopt because they can have their own kids!!

    you need to stop looking at the world through rose colored glasses and see that anything that will help orphans is a good thing.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Feb. 8, 2011 10:52 a.m.

    re - cambodia girl | 5:15 p.m - Phnom Penh, Cambodia
    "Once the same-sex community can rewire the "laws of nature" where same-sex partners can conceive is when the governmental law should allow same-sex couples to adopt."

    ok, girl. so lets just let married male/female couples adopt. so now we have 100,000+ children from single and same sex households that need a home. are you going to adopt them? are you even married? what do you suggest we do with all these kids you just took from loving households and put into the system?

    are you going to take them? and isn't your country full of kids in need of adoption?

    you need to stop looking at the family unit and start looking for anyone that will provide a loving home for a child.

    worry more about the kids and less about the marital status or sex of the parents. anyone that will provide a clean, loving, and abuse-free home to a child should be able to care for a child. only that way will all kids find a supportive and loving home.

    your prejudices are harming children. can you see that?

  • Johnny Triumph American Fork, UT
    Feb. 8, 2011 10:07 a.m.

    "These judgmental comments from my so-called fellow "saints" make me sad. Since when did you all get so knowledgeable about what goes on in the hearts and minds of those people you deplore so much?"

    It's a shame that we don't all heed the word of God and love everyone, you're right. However, we CANNOT ignore some of the words of God. Some of those words:
    "We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children."
    And "The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

    We would all do well to heed these words and do all in our power to protect the family unit, not degrade it as society attempts to do so often today.

  • Rynn Las Vegas, NV
    Feb. 8, 2011 8:44 a.m.

    Some people get so carried away with studies and statistics that it makes them lose their humanity.

  • kemitc Nashville, TN
    Feb. 8, 2011 8:23 a.m.

    BrentBot the data you are quoting does not come from a reliable source. The Family Research Institute uses religious propaganda in their research. If you want to use statics then use the correct information by true Physiologist and Physiotherapists and not information from Religious Fanatics who have formed a group and constantly change their names. All the information The Family Research Institute has ever issues has always been one sided with bias.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 8, 2011 5:47 a.m.

    one major problem with this bill is it treats children as chattle, extending the "right" to "own" them beyond their parents.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2011 3:52 a.m.

    Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

    Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the cultures acceptance of homosexuality.

    When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2011 3:44 a.m.

    Twenty nine percent of the adult children of
    homosexual parents had been specifically subjected
    to sexual molestation by that homosexual
    parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult
    children of heterosexual parents. Having a
    homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the
    risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about
    50." "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 772

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2011 3:38 a.m.

    Children of homosexuals reported that their
    childhoods were more difficult than the childhoods
    of children of heterosexuals. In nine percent of homosexual-parented families, children mentioned having one or more problems or concerns.

    Of the 213 "score problems," 94 percent were attributed to the homosexual parent(s). Among appellate cases, the courts attributed 97 percent of the "harms" to children to the homosexual parent. (Narratives from 52 homosexually-
    parented families and files from 40 appeals court cases involving custody disputes between homosexual and heterosexual parents.)

    "Children of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties," Psychological Reports 90, 1 (2002): 71-82.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 11:47 p.m.

    These judgmental comments from my so-called fellow "saints" make me sad. Since when did you all get so knowledgeable about what goes on in the hearts and minds of those people you deplore so much?

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 9:59 p.m.

    This is a Trojan Horse.

    As soon as such a law is passed, the courts will immediately rule that if a child has two parents, the laws cannot block those parents from being married.

    This bill is simply a back-door approach to overturning Utah law regarding marriage, as it sneaks same-sex marriage into the state.

    Thank goodness cool heads at the state legislature prevailed and tabled this Trojan.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Feb. 7, 2011 9:56 p.m.

    To Sorry...

    No I don't agree. But that's beside the point. What IS the point of this proposed bill? If all the rights of the same gender "parent-like friend" of the child's real parent can be met without more legislation, I'm all for it. The fewer government bills to muddy the waters and confuse us, the better!

  • Tustin Boy Tustin, CA
    Feb. 7, 2011 9:53 p.m.

    It is amazing that you think the young lady should get married to a straight guy. I will tell you, that as a gay man, I was married to a straight woman. The marriage failed. Gay and straight together do not make a happy home, so how is a child better off in a home like that?

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 8:49 p.m.

    so then you agree that the ban on same sex couples is just ridiculous? The government is already far to involved in banning gay couples from getting married so maybe they need to just stop interfering with gay couples right to marry.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Feb. 7, 2011 8:30 p.m.

    Someone explain to me why this doesn't work: Natural mother of beloved child names dear live-in friend (who acts parental toward child, too) as guardian in case natural mother dies before chld is 18. Then dear live-in parental acting friend writes child into her will- giving child all earthly belongings when she dies. Why doesn't that cover it? Why does the child need to be legally adopted?

    Assuming same gender marriage is out of the question- which it is in Utah, how does the bill define whether the couple is committed and loving? By their sexual involvement? Do we really want to go there? Do we want that written into the bill? Two non sexual friends can love each other and live together. Like someone else mentioned, three women might all live together and feel "parental" towards the child. So which one would get to adopt? How are they - the ones supposedly enforcing this new law going to understand what the relationship really is without delving into the whle thing too far(how much do we want the government to know anyway), and just how committed the live-in "friend" is to the child?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 7:26 p.m.

    "You're not LDS...that, or you're not even converted to your own religion. Kind of like that user I've seen on this board: lds4gaymarriage.

    Please stop claiming you're a member of a certain religion when you obviously don't abide by or understand its doctrine. "

    Thank you for reminding me why this (*points to self*) LDS member is inactive... I don't go to church to be judged based on political views. Even LDS leadership is fine with people opposing prop 8. "LDS members should feel free to disagree on the issue without fear of sanction." -Elder Whitney Clayton of the Seventy.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 7, 2011 7:18 p.m.

    Two men or two women love each other and desire to provide a family to one or more children.The children may be from previous relationships , adopted, etc. What is wrong with that?
    A real case: I met this healthy and full of energy 13 year old student. He came from Russia to a childless marriage in Florida when he was 10. After few months his new parents gave him back because they realized that he was not what they expected. The adoption agency was confronted with sending the child back to Russia or quickly finding other suitable parents. This gay couple in a different state was also applying to adopt a child, they were notified of the case and move forward with the adoption. Three years later this boy tells everybody he has two fathers. The boy seems happy, certainly is very secure of himself and well adjusted. This is a true story and one I'm sure is not unique in the results around the country and the world.
    Children need love, protection and guidance. Can two men provide that, YES. Can two women provide that, YES. Can a heterosexual couple provide that YES.
    What is the difference?

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 6:48 p.m.

    what's funny is your argument has no evidence that the fall of rome had anything to do with homosexuality. rome also in braced many conservative ideals about wealth, power and religion. but what is really funny is that you actually think your lone of reasoning has not been tried and failed thousands of times on these threads. All you are doing is proving George's point that you have nothing new or relevant to add to the debate and that is why you are losing the fight.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 6:40 p.m.

    "When ancient Rome became "advanced" and "inclusive" of such relationships, it soon thereafter fell. "

    Rome fell because it grew too large to control (stretched too thin) and most of their population were slaves (who would probably be just fine with the empire being overthrown. Homosexuality had nothing to do with it.

  • kemitc Nashville, TN
    Feb. 7, 2011 6:26 p.m.

    In reading comments I wonder if some of these people really read the article or just read their personal views in to the article. This bill was not for roommates. Roommates share a dwelling bills and that id it. They do not share an emotional or loving bond with one another or a child. This is for loving couples who are in a same sex, loving committed relationship and wanting to protect the child(ren) they love. If something happens with the bio or legal parent than a will does not make a difference. In a state like UT it would also consider the states opinion, aunts, uncles, grandparents, or vindictive know it all neighbor and in the case if a parent was LDS the church. I am appalled of the stones being thrown. I am LDS and would support this law nationally. If you are unwilling to allow them to marry civil, Church or temple, then this is the only way they can protect their family. Keep throwing stones at others, but remember we as a Church have some nasty secrets in our beginning also beginning with our founder and first prophet..

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 5:54 p.m.

    To mcbillay:
    Please check your statistics. Very few same sex relationships last anywhere close to 20+ years. Yes, there are a lot of divorces in traditional marriages. Nevertheless, traditional relationships between a man and a women are shown to be much more stable and secure in multiple ways. It's not degrading. It's simply a fact.

    To George:
    There have been some very advanced and intellegent societies in the history of our world. None who were deemed lasting have ever accepted same sex marriages or condoned such relationships. When ancient Rome became "advanced" and "inclusive" of such relationships, it soon thereafter fell.
    It's interesting that some people think we are now so much more advanced and superior to any other society in the entire history of the world by now becoming more accepting and "inclusive" of what the vast majority of societies in all of world history considered aberations and deviations of nature. Being more technologically advanced doesn't automatically make us more culturally and morally superior. In fact, far from it! With that in mind, which argument is it that is actually on the wrong side of history?

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 5:52 p.m.


    Does it really matter how many years you have been a roommate? Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. And if politicians weren't trying to cull votes from people who want to change the definition of marriage, it always will be between a man and a woman. Two (or more) men, or two (or more) women in the same dwelling, who are not blood relatives, constitute roommates. Always have. Always will.

    @ atl134:

    "you aren't allowing gay people to marry."

    You are correct. Neither me nor the God of Nature, who gave all men their inalienable rights according to the Declaration of Independence, allows for gay people to marry. Only politicians begging for votes would do this.


    "A secular society as ours in the United States..."

    Sorry. Our society is not secular. Just because the Constitution doesn't allow any single religion to be established for everyone does not mean that this nation is not a religious society. Have you ever heard of our national motto, "In God We Trust?" Or part of our Pledge of Allegiance to our flag, "One nation, under God?"

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Feb. 7, 2011 5:26 p.m.

    If unmarried cohabitating couples can adopt, then why not all sorts of other relationships? What if three roommates who love each other and are committed to each other, want to legally adopt a child? The issue is more than just a feel good, politically corrrect, apparently simple cure for what might apprear to some to be unfair and inconventient for some people. The long term social consequences for moving in this direction must be addressed or the social chaos that follows will make the todays problems seem insignificant.

  • Jiggle Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 5:24 p.m.


    Did you read the article? The article says: The bill would have allowed a child to be adopted by their parent's cohabiting non-spouse, who has developed a "parental relationship" with the child, as long as the child has only ONE legal parent. The father's aren't being ignored at all nor is anybody taking a child away from their father. Many fathers simply are not in their child's life by choice making it possible for another person who WANTS to be the child's parent to legally be able to do so! Not all children end up with 2 heterosexual parents! I think a two parent household is good even if those two parents are the same sex. They can help, support, and love the child or children and one another just like if grandma and daughter were doing it because the father bailed out. It really is no different!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 5:23 p.m.

    How is it logically consistent for a state to allow single people to adopt but to not allow a second person to be added in this way? If you care so much about kids being with two married parents of opposite genders then why do you allow single people to adopt anyway?

  • Where's Stockton ??? Bowling Green, OH
    Feb. 7, 2011 5:17 p.m.

    Someone is definitely not looking out for the welfare of children these days. Definitely isn't Romero...that's for sure.

  • cambodia girl Phnom Penh, Cambodia
    Feb. 7, 2011 5:15 p.m.

    Basic Law of Nature 101
    A child will never be born unless an egg from a Woman is fertilized by the sperm from a MAN. Once the same-sex community can rewire the "laws of nature" where same-sex partners can conceive is when the governmental law should allow same-sex couples to adopt. It seems to me that the basic laws of nature are totally being ignored.

    What will you tell the child after the child learns that it took a MAN or a WOMAN to create them? Just wondering.

    Shame on those who want to change the laws of nature and force something un-natural upon society. They have made their choice to have a relationship with someone of the same-sex. And please don't say "I didn't have a choice." Because you did and you do.

    And one more question, Why aren't the co-habitating heterosexual couples getting married? I don't understand why they would want to have legal rights to a child when they are unwilling to marry their partner.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 5:12 p.m.

    "Thank heaven the bill was tabled, which should encourage the new mother quoted in the story to marry a spouse and provide a stable family for the child she loves. "

    That's all well and good except you aren't allowing gay people to marry.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 7, 2011 4:58 p.m.

    @Rosebyanyothername and those is of a like mind
    The part we dont get is the fact that you do not seem to see that you are on the wrong side of history and the mountain of research that supports our cause. We will not go away and we will secure the rights of the LGBT people and all oppressed people, its that simple. The research has been documented over and over again in the courts and on thousands of threads just like this one. As people become educated about this and other issues of oppression you are losing your power to control others lives. At this point you can choice to remain ignorant of the facts and be on the wrong side of history or you can do the research and find the facts then choose to be on the right side of history or not its really up to you at this point. I frankly feel no need to convince you one way or the other.

  • pikap1868 Layton, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 4:48 p.m.

    @friedeggonAZstreets- because wills can be contested...

  • friedeggonAZstreets Pembroke, NC
    Feb. 7, 2011 4:40 p.m.

    If they are so concerned for the children after they die; then why not make a will?

  • Jiggle Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 3:55 p.m.

    Culture change is difficult for many to understand. The things which have always been with every society, and always will be: Murder, Theft, Corruption, Scandal, Rape-etc. (you name it - it's probably been done before by someone at some time) There is no "downward spiral"...it just goes around in a circle. The doomsayers have always been around saying society is in a downward spiral yet society in general has not collapsed. Yes, there are challenges and the challenge we now face is not to go backward, but to go forward. All cultures are inherently predisposed to change and, at the same time, to resist change. Culture loss is an inevitable result of old cultural patterns being replaced by new ones. Within a society, processes that result in the resistance to change include habit and the integration of culture traits. Habitual behavior provides emotional security in a threatening world of change. Change makes society keep up with the times, values and laws change based on current needs. An effective, culturally diverse society is one whose culture is inclusive of all of the varying groups. Exclusion and discrimination is what will spiral society downward; not inclusion. Religion often promotes exclusion_and_discrimination.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Feb. 7, 2011 3:48 p.m.


    The single parent of a child (assuming the other natural parent has no legal rights to the child. ie deceased or perhaps waived their rights at the child's birth) needs to appoint a legal guardian for their child in case of untimely death. That could be the child's aunt/uncle or grandparents or a close friend. There is no need to throw the baby our with the bathwater, or in other words assume the child will be "given" to the government in a free floating scenario like you described. All the protection the child needs according to the natural parent's wishes are already in place. This bill isn't necessary! It will only confuse and undermine the protection of the child.

  • Kathy. Provo, Ut
    Feb. 7, 2011 3:04 p.m.

    I didn't read anything about the real parent in this situation.
    Seems to me all rights for the real parent should be established not a surrogate. All the co-parenting belongs to the real father of this child.

    This bill seems to be about taking away the parental rights of the real father and changing the law to make it happen.
    Each child has a real mother and a real father and their s rights should be preserved and not given to another.

    There has never been a child born to a same gender couple no matter how much hype there is. In order to give them parental rights they must be taken away from the real parent.
    It is this "I own the child and the father has no rights" that really bothers me.

  • three11stu Saratoga Springs, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 3:04 p.m.

    the rock:
    As a member of the LDS Church, you should know that those who don't have the chance to hear the gospel in this life will get their chance in the next.
    Nice try though to try and support your argument.

  • Rosebyanyothername Home Town USA, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 3:02 p.m.

    It is quite clear that parents who adopt their spouses children are legally married to begin, and the law does not prohibit such cases.

    So why a push for "partners" to adopt the other partner's child if no married. It does not make any sense. It sounds like a back door ploy to make the partners legally joined in same sex unions--when is enough enough. What part of NO do same sex-marriage relationships attempts not understand?

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Feb. 7, 2011 2:42 p.m.

    As a member of the LDS church I believe that same sex retationship are forbidden. I also believe that we all lived in heaven, with God,before we were born.

    I can just picture our loving Heavenly Father escorting one of his precisious spirity children down to earth and trying to explain to each child why they are being born into different kinds of families.

    After explaining to my children hundreds and thousands of times that they were going to be born to parents who totally disregard His laws and as a result they would have virtually zero opportunity to gain eternal salvation, I might be just a bit testy.

    No wonder destruction of those who are ripe in iniquity is certain.

    I hope the law makers in Utah treat this with the kindness it deserves.

  • FargoUT Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 2:40 p.m.

    @Johnny, then you would support a bill banning divorce, correct? Nothing disintegrates the family unit more than divorce does, not even supposed "immoral" same-sex couples.

  • Johnny Triumph American Fork, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 2:25 p.m.

    Society's downward spiral will continue as long as government sanctioned immorality pervades. We cannot allow the disintigration of the family unit to continue and to be perceived differently by good-meaning yet off-base attacks on that family unit. The thought may be well meaning but it is still just another attack on the family.

  • washcomom Beaverton, OR
    Feb. 7, 2011 2:18 p.m.

    People who don't get their ways of the "progressive movement" tend to cry "discrimination" when literally the way of life that it has been established for thousands of years is being discriminated against.

    If someone is a guardian over a child, that child can inherit - if the last will and testament of the guardian makes it so. Just because you are a parent doesn't mean you are a guardian over that child. Guardians actually have more pull over needs of a child than parents do. It's a fact of law.

  • three11stu Saratoga Springs, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 2:04 p.m.

    Problem is, she has a spouse, she is just not able to marry her.
    I wonder how many people would be okay if their spouse passed away, and from that moment on, your kids were taken from you, since, we all know, kids are better with a man AND a wife as the parents. So, sorry single parents, your rights only go as far as having both of you together. Once one of you goes away, the state will come and take them and give them to a couple, not a single parent.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 7, 2011 1:57 p.m.

    @ sjgf 12:57
    My friend, unfortunately this forum does not allow us to expand into too much detail. However, I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with you, Roommates do not necessarily constitute a family. That why is so very important that consenting, responsible adults are allowed to enter into a civil contract, call it civil union, call it marriage, call it whatever you want. But a contract that allows people regardless their sex, race, religion, to form a civil unity that protect the children of the
    nucleus. A secular society as ours in the United States, should provide the same protection to all children, adopted or otherwise. Parents should be allowed to join under the law and receive the same benefits as traditional marriage, no more no less.

    The history of the United States is filled with discrimination cases, Mentally disabled,African Americans, Chinese,women, Mormons, Hispanics, Gays, to name a few. I agree that sometimes, some people may cry "Wolf", but I think our history forces us not to dismiss those claims very easily.

  • Jiggle Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 1:55 p.m.


    Conservatives tend to have a structural definition of the ideal family as one man married to one woman with children.

    Progressives tend to have an operational definition of the ideal family. This is usually a couple who form a committed, stable, and loving relationship with one another and can do the same for any children they may have. They are not just roommates and often would PREFER to be married.

    I find the conservative definition to be ignorant. Mainly because I know that a married man and woman may be miserable or they may abuse or neglect their children. The structure of their family does not inherently make them a good family.

    The progressive definition makes sense. A family that is attached to each other by bonds of trust and love is likely to be secure and can provide a great home for children.

    It is for that reason that I think step, adoptive, same sex, mixed, extended, etc. families can be just as good or better than the "traditional" nuclear family that conservatives advocate as ideal. All families have their own unique challenges, but to assume they are always inherently inferior to the "traditional" ideal, seems very misguiided.

  • RoadBiker Orem, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 1:47 p.m.

    I'm a Kleptomaniac. I want to change the laws so that everyone will accept me for who I am and give me all the rights that anyone else has. I shouldn't be criticized. I was born this way and I can't help it. It's just the way I am.

  • Eddie Syracuse, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 1:09 p.m.

    Discrimination is cried everytime anything goes against someone who want everyone to see it their way. Let's just all face it, there is discrimination in nature. That's why guys can't have babies and women don't have the upper body strength of men. Everywhere we go we run into discrimination. "I want it my way and if I don't get it, I am going to scream and shout until I get what I want."
    sjgf is right above! roommates do not constitute a family. All this would do is create more problems and more confusing laws that leave all of us dazed and confused and the courts full of nonsense cases.

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 12:57 p.m.


    You are certainly correct in the thought that children deserve the security and stability of a family.

    Unfortunately, roommates do not constitute a family. This bill would allow a roommate, rather than a parent, to become a parent.

    Thank heaven the bill was tabled, which should encourage the new mother quoted in the story to marry a spouse and provide a stable family for the child she loves.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington DC, MD
    Feb. 7, 2011 12:16 p.m.

    Better than the barbarism of abortion.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 7, 2011 12:05 p.m.

    Once in a while the Salt Lake City and Utah community do something that fills my heart with joy. What a wonderful gift to give children the security and stability of a family. I sincerely pray that Senator Ross Romero's bill passes with a 100% of all votes in the Senate.
    Family should come first and this is a step in the right direction. Congratulations Utah!

  • ute alumni Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 7, 2011 11:58 a.m.

    I assume then that cohabitating heterosexuals are okay to adopt also?