Comments about ‘In our opinion: Take heart and stand for traditional marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, May 20 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT

I appreciate the recognition that Obama still thinks it should be left to the states. I find it interesting though that an editorial titled in part "stand for traditional marriage" never really gave reasons to stand for it. Plus it's kinda relative, I support marriage between a man and a woman, heck I want to have one of those myself someday. Nobody's voting on banning mixed-gender marriage though so it's not hard to stand for since nobody is standing against it. Yes I know what is being meant... okay so there's got to be a reason to be against same-sex marriage, and it has to be a constitutional reason too since religious reasons for laws are unconstitutional (that's why sharia law is unconstitutional).

Farmington, UT

Very well put, Deseret News. Unfortunately, there are few in the media with the courage to stand up for traditional marriage and for the family. The family is, in fact, the fundamental unit of society. Upon it rests everything else that is good and wholesome. In order to be conceived we each required a mother and a father. Nature decreed it thus. Who are we then to change the natural order of things, to deprive a child who has no choice in the matter to be raised without either a mother or a father?

Sneaky Jimmy
Bay Area, CA

A better direction for anyone that has a heart would be to support love and commitment where ever it exists. This editorial sounds like something from Little Rock AK in the '60's. Somehow I just can't understand how someone else's happiness will diminish mine.


There are going to be LOTS of "events" and "happenings"
before this next election. I wouldn't put too much stock
in anything either candidate decides to support in the
next 6 months. That "event" was to rally support from the
left-wing of the Democratic party for Obama for 2012.
Next week, it will be Seniors being targeted for a big
campaign. The following week, it will be something else.
And Romney will be giving luncheons all throughout the
Deep South trying to rally support from the non-denominational
born-again christians. It is all part of the campaign process.


Thanks for the valid points and we will continue to stand for traditional marriage as being the union of a man and a woman. To me anything other than that IS other, and should not be called or treated the same. If some want to act in other ways that is their choice, but I wish they wouldn't continue to try to impose such a distortion on the rest of us by using the force of laws, to include them when it is biologically impossible for such a union to multiply.
In reading of nations like Japan now are selling more adult diapers than baby ones and the crisis coming of not enough new generation to even just replace their parents it is eye opening. Then like in China or other countries who have restricted births of girls, by using abortion, what will happen in that generation to their population?
How important the laws of nature ( God ) are to the welfare of the planet! It seems some want to protect "nature", save owls and lizards etc but can't seem to care about saving our own species ?
Some cry over stranded whales but what about adopting abandoned downs babies?

Somewhere in Time, UT

Obama made this announcement purely for political reasons just as he was leaving for a big fundraiser in California in which many of his big bundlers are gay. They were putting heavy pressure on him to come out and he did.

At the same time, his announcement didn't take one step toward implementing anything. It was only a statement. He hasn't done one thing for gay marriage. This move was NOT courageous or sensitive. It was purely political.

Salt Lake City, UT

It is telling that this editorial offered no evidence supporting the denial of this basic civil right except through a vague appeal to religious authority and popular prejudice.

This is not surprising - the opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing other than religious tradition to rely on - all rational, testable claims in support of their opposition fail badly under legal scrutiny.

My heterosexual marriage is neither diminished nor threatened by a same-sex couple celebrating their love and mutual commitment by getting married. Neither is yours.

Civil right aren't things you vote on. That's why they're called "rights."

A Scientist
Provo, UT

Like all the other editorials, court cases, and other arguments against marriage equality, this editorial completely fails to make the case. There is no compelling argument for denying marriage equality for same sex couples.

Indeed, this editorial presents a false choice. Being in favor of traditional marriage does not require one to be against same sex marriage, nor vice versa.

As a person who has enjoyed the blessings of "traditional marriage" for several decades, I support and believe in traditional marriage. But I also support same sex marriage for those who love in a different way than I do. Legalizing same sex marriage does not weaken traditional marriage, it only extends the blessings of marriage commitment to others who do not currently enjoy those blessings.

How is that a threat to my marriage?

It is not.

Kearns, UT

I just can't go along with this one. I know good, valuable people that this affects, and I believe in my heart that it's not a choice. This position seems cruel and unChristian.


What you failed to mention about the North Carolina vote is that the voters who did turn out are not representative of the population. A number of polls show the majority of Americans are OK with gay marriage, while those opposed are rapidly becoming a minority. It's just that many of those who do not actively oppose gay marriage were not motivated enough to show up for the vote. And don't get too proud; the North Carolina initiative also restricted same-sex civil unions, which most voters did not realize before casting their vote. A well-informed demographic, yes?

Unlike abortion, acceptance of gay marriage has been a very rapid shift, and one that social conservatives will likely lose in the future, just like the Civil Rights movement. So prepare thyself, the world is changing around you.

BTW, I've yet to hear any argument that convinces me that civil marriages between members of the same sex in any way diminishes traditional marriage. Nothing but illogical slippery-slope arguments and unfounded religious regurgitations.

St George, Utah

The editorial is somewhat naive. The closer same-sex marriage gets to being a fundamental civil right the closer it will become to being constitutionally protected. At that point the states and the voters will lose the ability to define marriage
and the judges will decide. An amendment to the Constitution is highly unlikely.

Bountiful, UT

Admittedly same sex marriage is a weird idea. But take heart? Please explain why
anyone needs to. Please explain how if gays are allowed to marry how anyone's
Traditional marriage would be at risk.

Magna, UT

What this article fails to mention (and other Robert George based editorials) is the support for marriage equality in the Research Triangle and urban areas of North Carolina, and the now almost cliche voting differences between older and younger voters. Marriage equality for gays and lesbians has support from the young, educated and urban demographics, while the older, rural demographic voted against it. This split suggests an inevitable change over time.

Perhaps that is why anti-gay marriage advocates like Mr. George and conservative editorials like this one, ignore how few "traditional" marriages and intact families actually exist. Rather than tackle the HUGE problems impacting traditional marriage like divorce, financial insecurity, and so on, they just focus on denying civil marriage protections to a politically vulnerable minority group.

To quote Doug from the Pixar movie "Up".....Squirrel!

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

Same sex marriage is no threat to traditional "one man one women" marriage. But, if same sex marriage is denied either by legislation or by popular vote, there is unequal treatment under the law, a clear violation of constitutional principles.

Let's be honest, opposition to same sex marriage is largely rooted in the notion that homosexual conduct is sin, and that condoning same sex marriage promotes sinful activity. There is also the question of where it all ends - an important issue in this state's culture. If the law allows same sex marriages, how long will it be before someone raises the issue of legalizing polygamous relationships? And,who might not want that can of worms opened?

Radically Moderate

Thank you for highlighting the President's Moderate tone. Unfortunately, far to many people, especially on the pro-gay marriage side, even make an attempt to understand the real and valid concerns of the people on the other side of the argument. Compromise is only possible when understanding and compassion are present.

Centerville, UT

Setting religious arguments aside, I think there are good secular reason for not changing the definition of marriage.
1. I think it's important that we continue to incentivize traditional 1 man - 1 woman marriage. Plenty of studies have shown that this is the optimal environment for raising our future taxpaying citizens (children). We also incentivize people to purchase homes, high mileage cars, or energy efficient improvements on our homes. It doesn't mean that society abhors those that chose not to do those things, it just means that society wants to incentivize behavior that is in the best interest of society as a whole.
2. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, altering the definition of marriage would create a legal "slippery slope" that would provide legal footing to force society to begin incentivizing other marital permutations such as incestuous relationships, polygamy, poliarmory, beastiality, and eventually (once the "age of consent" is lowered in the law books) pedophilia. I believe that those who say this wouldn't happen are naive.

I for one say - please don't tamper with the definition of marriage.

Salt Lake valley, UT

I believe in marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman. I don't, though, support governmental regulation of marriage. Two people can't be married without government approval. A person can't perform a marriage without government approval. Marriage is a social contract, and I believe the definition of marriage should be left to social groups. It doesn't bother me that the definition of marriage might vary from one social group to another social group. I believe that social groups should be free to define marriage however they want, and people considering joining a social group can consider that group's definition of marriage when they contemplate whether they should join that group or not.

Government does, I believe, have a concern about civil rights of people, and I think that civil unions, or similar agreements, are a valid way for government to provide for civil rights.


How about we take heart and stand for fairness, love and happiness?

My marriage will never be threatened because two men get married. I love and trust my husband, and he loves and trusts me. Nothing in our life or marriage will change because two men or two women got married. Nothing.

Old Wanderer
Smithfield, UT

How does same-sex marriage affect my hetero-sexual marriage? It dosn't affect my marriage, but it affects me in other ways. If same-sex marriages are allowed then my bishop/minister must perform these marriages just as he performs traditional marriages. If our churches are used for traditional marriages and receptions then they must be opened to celebration of same-sex marriages.

Same-sex marriages will, if allowed, alter some of our traditiona and even our places of worship.

as we have been told many times, "hate the sin, but love the sinner".

Cherilyn Eagar
Holladay, UT

For those who believe that legalizing SSM has no impact on supporters of marriage between a man and a woman, let me cite two examples in two separate posts:

First: Catholic Charities has closed its adoption services because the law is a "no discrimination" law, meaning it was required to abandon its religious tenet to place children for adoption in SSM homes, which it refused to do.

This is a religious liberty issue. That SSM will affect YOUR marriage is entirely a red herring argument.

To be continued...

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments