Comments about ‘My view: Adjusting the definition of marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, May 29 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

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

Buchanan: "I am not sure that any marriage is considered a 'civil right.'"

Your uncertainty can be resolved by studying the 1967 US Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, in which the court ruled that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival..."

If you were denied the option to marry the person whom you loved and wanted to spend the rest of your life with on the basis of a popular but wholly irrational bigotry, while everyone else around you freely exercised that option, I suspect that you'd pretty quickly come to the conclusion that you'd been denied an important civil right.

Buchanan: "we must not be surprised when we see many innocent people (notably the children of society) suffer when the protections are gone.

The reality is that there is absolutely zero credible evidence that same sex marriage damages anyone, including children. Read the U.S. District Court Decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger for these facts. They're all there in black and white.

End the irrational bigotry. Treat everyone, including gays, fairly.

Huntsville, UT

"It is a privilege and is in place to benefit society with specific goals to care for individuals under its umbrella of protection."

Amendment 14:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

Gays and Lesbians are "family" too. This article was nothing but a "slippery slope" argument that fails on every level.

Young couples, though they may have to wait a year or two, will eventually be able to marry.

Mentally disabled people are still allowed to marry.

The word "marriage" has never been exclusively "one man/one woman"; and in times past has included same-sex couples.

There is no valid, legal justification to discriminate against same-sex familes.

Brother Chuck Schroeder
A Tropical Paradise USA, FL

HOLD ON HERE, "I am also not speaking about anything but the "TRUE" institution and definition of marriage. Discrimination and persecution based on a person's chosen lifestyle is abhorrent". Remember Vice President Quayle and the Murphy Brown Speech?. Right now the failure of our families is hurting America deeply. When families fall, society falls. The anarchy and lack of structure in our inner cities are testament to how quickly civilization falls apart when the family foundation cracks. It doesn't help matters when prime time TV has Murphy Brown a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid, professional woman mocking the importance of a father, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another "lifestyle choice." The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

Other then this, nothing else will do on planet Earth.

My truthful views.

Grantsville, UT

@ "Blue": "The reality is that there is absolutely zero credible evidence . . . , including children."

Before all the the angry nay-sayers' comments, . . . research some basic child-development studies on the influence a Male Daddy has on his young daughter's social stability. It is sad that I even have to define Daddy correctly by adding the additional definition of "Male" in front of it.

In a downtown park, I recently walked past two women with a little girl in a stroller. I just happened to overhear one woman speaking to the child, and referring to the other woman as "Daddy". I was so sad for that little girl.

To teach an innocent little child such an "alternative lifestyle" lie, is an indictment of the entire gay rights movement. Who is going to help that innocent little girl understand that she is being raised in a misguided and counterfeit "family"?

Little girls need to have a male daddy from whom they will learn; . . . and yes, even fall in love with, . . . and a butch female is nothing more than a confused counterfeit. That little girl is going to pay the price. What about her rights?

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Marriage” is simply a word. It is not “a time-honored institution that exists for the protection of family and society in general”.

Also I do not agree with all the any of the special meanings assigned to it, nor do I believe it is a civil right.

I once believed it was the simple joining, or bringing together, two entities. I don’t remember if was in wood working, plumbing, sheet metal or electrical, but I wont press it.

I support the right of adult, American citizens to be and do as they please so long as they don’t infringe on the rights and freedoms of others.

Children are captive slaves of their parents. Even though they are almost totally at the mercy of their parents, they are American citizens and deserve the basic protections afforded other Americans. Such as life and the opportunity to become normal adults.

It is the duty, right, authority, and job of society to see that children have those rights. As defined by our society as a whole. Children are a separate issue from adult behavior with other adults.

Huntsville, UT


Frankly, I think you're lying. Every lesbian couple that I know who have children (more lesbian couples have children than male gay couples, in my experience) - both women are called "mommy", neither one is called "daddy". Sorry, but I don't think you saw any such thing.


Opposition to bigotry isn't intolerance of the bigot, it is intolerance of the bigoted behavior (love the bigot, hate the bigotry).

Bullying at it's worst; let's see, how about voting away the Civil Rights of your fellow American Citizens. Now there is some real bullying!

Jon W.
Murray, UT

If marriage is a civil right, whom should my 29-year-old single heterosexual daughter sue in order to have her right enforced? She wants to be married, same as every one else. The Supreme Court, for all its power and wisdom, is part of the government, and rights do not come from the government. We "are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

RanchHand, I've kept abreast of this discussion as well just about anyone, and I've never heard anyone else argue that "in times past" marriage "has included same-sex couples" except for one hard-right columnist who claimed that the Canaanite civilization dabbled in same-sex marriage just before God commanded the Israelites to completely eliminate them from the face of the earth. Please cite your sources for this statement, for my enlightenment.

I agree with the gist of this article that the argument is about definitions, not rights. If anyone can find one jurisdiction in the whole USA that has ever denied a homosexual man a license to marry a woman who would accept his proposal, I will concede that his marriage rights have been denied.

Salt Lake City, UT

"Who is going to help that innocent little girl understand that she is being raised in a misguided and counterfeit "family"?"

Whoever literally says those things about her parents just because of their gender... is a bigot.

"Little girls need to have a male daddy from whom they will learn; . . . and yes, even fall in love with,"

Heh, what are you, a southerner?

Salt Lake City, UT

Traditional marriage. Like polygamy? about 100 years ago that was traditional marriage for the majority religion in this state, Heck we have a presidential race where the leading candidates both have polygamist grandfathers. Not to mention Abraham and his 3 wives. Ask the Romans and Greeks. You got married but were "weird" if you didn't have a 17 year old boy on the side. In the 50's interracial marriage was opposed because "traditional" marriage was between the same race only. Some cultures never even married, people just moved in together. So what exactly is traditional about the current version of marriage?

Deep Space 9, Ut

I think the liberals missed the intent of the letter.

The point is if you redefine marriage from the current DOM law, you have to allow all other definitions. If you say that if two people, regardless of gender, are in love and want to enter into a marriage contract then you must also allow for marriages that include multiple people under the same argument. After all, is it "fair" for 2 gay men to marry and deny marriage to 1 man and 4 women if they all love eachother?

Despite what Gay activists say, the best situation for children is to have a mother and father (male and female rolemodels).

See "Protecting marriage to protect children" in the LA Times and "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage" in The Tech, Volume 124, Number 5

Tooele, UT

Re: "Your uncertainty can be resolved by studying . . . Loving v. Virginia, in which the court ruled that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival..."

That was not the ruling of the Court.

Rather, the case was decided upon 14th Amendment principles of equal protection under the law, not denial of some other constitutional right, such as a right to marry.

The actual ruling is much more narrow -- "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."

The rest of Justice Warren's unnecessarily bombastic comments are what is referred to as "obiter dicta" -- his incidental expression of opinion, not essential to the decision and not establishing precedent.

Huntsville, UT

@Jon W;

Please research the "history of marriage".

Look into Ancient China, India, Native Americans, etc.

There's even potential evidence that early Christians practiced same-sex marriages and had the rites/vows for such marriages (I haven't researched this one myself, so I only have the articles I've read about it to go on).

Your definition of marriage being "one man/one woman" is a recent construct.

Salt Lake City, Utah

If those who oppose same-sex marriage wish to be taken seriously, it would help if they didn't start the discussion with lies.

The only people who can honestly claim that marriage is only between a man and a woman and has been for 5000 years are those who do not believe in the Bible, history, or the existence of civilizations outside of the current US culture.

Anyone who believes in the Bible, history, or the existence of civilizations other than our own knows the truth - they know that polygamy, bigamy, and adultery (concubines anyone?) have always existed and have been very important parts of many societies. They know that, until very recently - less than 100 years - the only thing marriage has ever had to do with children was mark paternity for inheritance rights and the continuation of the "family name." They know that there was a time when close relatives married and the children born in those relationships were not healthy - mentally or physically. They know that there is a reason why children are not treated as adults.

You want to discuss your opposition to same-sex marriage? Great! But let's have an honest discussion.

Bronx, NY

Its not that the "liberals" do not understand the letters writers premise it is that it is the same false argument that has been made hundreds of times before. Unlike gay marriage all the forms of marriage the letter writer brings up have a known harm (including the way polygamy is currently practiced). What I find humorous is that both you and the DN try to hold this person up as anything more then just another lay person with an opinion. This man has no authority in the field of human behavior or sociology. What is even more humorous is you do the exact same thing with your two references, the people you reference have no expertise in the field and only offer their opinions. You may not like the science offered by the professionals in the fields that actually study human behavior but the facts are the facts. and opinion pieces by lay people does not disqualify those facts.

Salt Lake City, UT

"The point is if you redefine marriage from the current DOM law, you have to allow all other definitions. "

Not true. We've always been able to tweak marriage rules to ban bigamy, allow interracial marriage, change the age one can marry, got rid of the marriage laws that considered women closer to property. All you have to do is write the law so that it limits it to certain things. After all, allowing interracial marriage didn't make everything else legal so why would a change that allowed gay marriage be different?

Salt Lake City, UT

EPJ: "...research some basic child-development studies on the influence a Male Daddy has on his young daughter's social stability."

Cite that research. Be specific. Those arguments were examined minutely in Perry v. Schwarzenegger and found to be utterly without merit. It was the examination of the "same sex marriage is bad for children" argument that resulted in the now famous observation, "The witness stand is a lonely place to tell a lie."

Redshirt: "See "Protecting marriage to protect children" in the LA Times..." Are you kidding? An opinion piece devoid of research, written by an anti-gay rights advocate, is of zero use here.

Re the opinion piece from "The Tech," I ask again, are you kidding? It, too, offers zero research evidence about the impact of same-sex marriage on children, but does argue, bizarrely, that couples seeking state recognition of their marriage must first prove to the state that their marriage serves a state interest.

Face it, the only arguments against gay couples exercising their right to marry are rooted in ancient religious bigotries.

Does that sting? Since when is reality obligated to spare your feelings?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I define marriage as Love and committment, by sharing common goals and interests.

Sad to see those most focused on saving "marriage", define it completely and soley on the definition of Sex.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ Jon W.: "If marriage is a civil right, whom should my 29-year-old single heterosexual daughter sue in order to have her right enforced?"

Freedom of Religion is a civil right - I have yet to find a church I want to attend, who do I get to sue? Voting is a civil right - do I get to sue if I don't want to vote because I don't like the candidates? Can my daughter sue because she doesn't read the paper?

I like your contradictions - in your first sentence you want to deny that marriage is a civil right because there is no one for your daughter to sue. Immediately after that, within the same paragraph, you claim that rights are not given by the government. (Which kind of answers your question about your daughter suing.) Then, in your last sentence, you state that if a gay man were denied a license to marry a woman, you would agree his rights had been violated - but your previous argument is that there is not a right to be married because there is no one for your daughter to sue over her inability to find someone to marry....

Bronx, NY

speaking out against bigotry is not bigotry, you are not a victim you are an aggressor. Your right to speak out has not been infringed in any way, you have posted literally hundreds of post on this subject, others have used their free speech to speak out against your lies which has in no way stopped you from repeating them over and over. What you seek to do on the other hand is take away others access to marriage through the force of law. I am sorry if your feelings get hurt when people speak out against your lies but you are not a victim.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

You nailed it LDS Liberal.
Sex takes up a very small percentage of a total relationship.
Why is sex the focus of religious folks instead of love.

to comment

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