Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Too much at stake in same-sex marriage debate

Comments

Return To Article
  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    Some people already have the truth and they will only see what theheiry want to see. Their truth is what is right. These debates are not new. What nerve to refer to cell phones! They worry about children? Obviously, they don't consider the gay child's welfare! I wonder if any of these things were told to Brigham Young. Surely there had to have been concern for the children? Nobody should have to live according to another's degrading beliefs! If children have a problem with this issue, it comes from the hate filled teachings that adults give them?
    I grew up around many children and watched them. They all knew I was gay and my partner was also there. Oh, and a gay brother and his partner. None of my nephews or neices are gay. Some married in the temple. There are many like me. Iv you want the truth, there is a lot of it! One sure thing is that we will not accept another's stupid truth that something is wrong with us. No more!

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    April 2, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    @Christian 24-7 --

    "Well no wonder you feel justified to discriminate against all religious Americans. "

    You have not actually shown that **anyone** is discriminating against "all religious Americans".

    Heck, how is it even **possible** for supporters of gay marriages to discriminate against "all" religious Americans, when many religious Americans SUPPORT gay marriages??

    There are three extremely important points to remember here:

    1. Religion is not a homogeneous entity, either worldwide or within the United States. Religious people will disagree on many important issues.

    2. Our country is not a theocracy. We are a **constitutional democracy**, which means that majority rule is tempered at all times by adherence to the Constitution.

    3. Disagreement and limitations on freedoms are very different things than discrimination. The Constitution protects the freedom of equal protection; it does NOT protect the freedom to discriminate.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    April 2, 2013 2:24 p.m.

    The premise of this opinion piece is fallacious.

    It states:

    "Two social scientists who persist in studying the issue, nonetheless, are Leon Kass of the University of Chicago and Harvey Mansfield of Harvard. They have found the research so far, "… radically inconclusive."

    "Inconclusive" = no evidence supporting one or the other "side" of the debate, or the evidence is equally contradictory.

    It also means that there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that same-sex marriages "harm" children. That leaves the "null hypothesis" of "no harmful effect" as the hypothesis we must accept.

    But the important legal point is this: We DO have a great deal of research showing the "harmful effects" of single parenting, divorce, domestic violence, low-income families, unemployment, birth defects, and on and on. But we still allow people in these situations to participate in marriages.

    The question of whether or not same sex marriage causes harm to children is a question of FITNESS, and the assumption of this article is that same sex couples are UNFIT to be (good) parents - simply because they are of the same sex! - and, therefore they should not have legal marriages.

    This is patently absurd.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    April 2, 2013 1:49 p.m.

    @Contrarius

    Wow! One religious guy did something wrong.

    Well no wonder you feel justified to discriminate against all religious Americans.

    My previous posts are dead on!

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    April 1, 2013 5:11 p.m.

    @Christian 24-7 --

    "Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same-sex marriages and a rash of lawsuits followed."

    Private businesses have not been legally allowed to discriminate since the days of the lunch counter sit-ins, more than 50 years ago. There's nothing new about that.

    As for lawsuits related to religion -- are you referring to the case against Scott Lively? He's the "pastor" who helped to promote anti-gay legislation in Uganda that punishes homosexuals with prison terms up to 14 years. He has also called homosexuals the "guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities" -- even though homosexuals died in concentration camps right along with the Jews. He sounds like a great guy.

    As for Catholic church adoptions -- in part, those centers are in trouble because they **receive state funding**. Any organization that accepts state or federal funds is not legally allowed to discriminate. Again, there's nothing new about that. And in addition, adoptions are **legal proceedings** -- thus obviously involving the government -- and, once again, proceedings which involve government can not legally discriminate.

    People can discriminate all they want within their own religion -- but they can NOT expect the government to go along with that discrimination.

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    April 1, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    If God defines marrage, and we can't chane it, am I automatically married to my Brother's widow? (Deut 25:5-10)

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    April 1, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same-sex marriages and a rash of lawsuits followed. Other states have had the same problem.

    That is why most states considering same-sex marriages now include wording to stay off these lawsuits by including exemptions for religious organizations to determine whether or not they will perform the marriages. But that does not protect facility owners who are exercising MEMBERS a religion which prohibits same-sex marriage.

    In Vermont, a couple was sued for refusing to host a same-sex ceremony at their inn. They were fined $30000, and were prohibited from hosting any weddings at their inn.

    The Catholic Church had to close their adoptions center in Mass, or violate their religious beliefs. They chose to close.

    Churches everywhere have been threatened with losing their tax exempt status if they don't perform same sex marriage, like that undoes all the charitable work they do.

    Your refusal to consider and acknowledge the ramifications to those exercising traditional religious beliefs shows how prejudiced you are against the religious. There are valid concerns about religious freedom, freedoms which you totally minimize and disregard. PC? maybe, but still bigotry.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    DesNews: "...It would be wrong to assume this is merely because the child needs just two people, of any gender, in a parental role. Fathers and mothers, men and women, provide unique role models and nurturing capabilities from which children develop into healthy, balanced adults."

    The gist of the piece is that children do best with a male and female parent. This is hardly disputable, but current family law does little to ensure this outcome. Anyone who can master a rather simple process can become a parent, whether or not married, and divorce is widely available.

    Perhaps the DesNews editorial board would be more comfortable with same-sex marriage if the couples signed an affadavit pledging not to have children. Since there are no "accidents" with same-sex couples (as opposed to hetero couples), such a pledge would be easy to enforce. It is would not be unprecedented. Utah law already requires first cousin couples to be nonreproductive as a condition of marriage.

    BTW, the "traditional" nuclear family is a fairly recent phenomenon. Multigenerational households are the norm historically. Why doesn't the DesNews push for grandparents in the home helping to raise the kids? It worked for the Waltons.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    April 1, 2013 6:16 a.m.

    @Christian 24-7 --

    "Yes, so all ZERO children born to same sex couples will have a stable family. "

    Many gay couples raise children, just as many straight infertile couples do. Do these children deserve family stability less than any other children? Should these children be punished just because some people don't like their parents?

    "At what cost? "

    At no cost to you whatsoever. Nobody is forcing **you** to have a gay marriage.

    "Rampant discrimination and litigation against religions which believe homosexuality is a sin"

    Rampant? Where is all this "rampant" discrimination and litigation occurring? Please point out some specific examples. Thanks in advance!

    "You are furthering that hate with your prejudice."

    I'm sorry, did you just call *me* prejudiced? Who am I being prejudiced against, in your view? What leads you to believe so?

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    March 31, 2013 11:02 p.m.

    Contrarius

    "Marriage encourages family stability."

    Yes, so all ZERO children born to same sex couples will have a stable family.

    The lunacy makes its own point.

    At what cost?

    Rampant discrimination and litigation against religions which believe homosexuality is a sin and pastors who refuse to marry same sex couples, and practicing members who don't dance the exact required dance to please the protected class i.e. total violation of 1st amendment free exercise of religion.

    That is a high price to pay to make stable families for the ZERO children these couples will bear.

    (Yes some homosexual couples have children from other relationships, but that means THEY already decided that 'family stability' for their children was unnecessary)

    Prejudice means pre-judging IOW judging someone to have a set of characteristics, based on one known characteristic.

    I would think that after the cruel victimization some homosexual people have endured, which I decry as wrong and sinful, they would be more tolerant of others. But instead they are becoming the perpetrators of hate on the religious people. You are furthering that hate with your prejudice.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 31, 2013 7:34 p.m.

    My earlier post seems to have been lost. Trying again --

    @Christian 24-7 --

    "Are you prejudiced against those who injure others?"

    No. By definition, "prejudice" means to pre-judge. IOW, it means to feel animus against somebody even though you have no rational reason to do so.

    We have plenty of rational reasons for disliking criminals. Therefore, disliking them is not prejudice.

    Homosexuals are not criminals. Furthermore, they do not harm anyone by what they choose to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms; and nobody has yet shown any evidence of concrete harm to society caused by homosexuality. Therefore, feeling animus towards homosexuals **is** prejudice.

    "There is no compelling reason for public endorsement of same sex relationships with the label of marriage."

    Of course there is.

    Marriage encourages family stability.

    Family stability is an important factor in raising children. It is also an important factor in creating economic and societal stability. These are Good Things.

    It is in the interest of our government to help foster family stability. Therefore it is in the interest of our government to recognize gay marriages.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    March 31, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    HS Fan
    There is no compelling reason for public endorsement of same sex relationships with the label of marriage.
    LDS4
    There was no compelling reason for removing “Whites Only” drinking fountains in the South. Blacks had equal access to the same clear and clean water as the Whites since both classes of drinking fountains were mounted right next to each other. Prop. 8 supporters have tried and tried to justify the distinction but always fail. Equality under the law is the compelling reason for granting them marriage.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    March 30, 2013 10:14 p.m.

    HS Fan
    Salt Lake City, UT
    "Do you hear predijuce in your voice?"

    Are you prejudiced against those who injure others? How about those who kill others? Or who steal in any form? What about those who rape others? Those who vandalize? Maybe we should make special laws protecting gang members from being discriminated against in hiring or renting? Being in a gang isn't illegal, so those members should have their rights protected, right?

    You are prejudice too. It is not about who is prejudiced and who isn't, because everyone is prejudiced.

    The disagreement is which activities should be discriminated against, which ones should be left to choice with neither public endorsement nor prohibition, and which ones should be endorsed.

    There is no compelling reason for public endorsement of same sex relationships with the label of marriage. Choosing such a relationship is, as it should be, each person's choice, but there is no need for the public to endorse those relationships.

  • Bcdaurelle Logan/Cache, UT
    March 30, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    I hope it's within the bounds of the 'civil dialogue' policy for me to point out how disingenuous this article's reasoning is. I have long gotten used to the fact that some people will always be uncomfortable with same-sex parenting, but to couch an arguement against same-sex marriage in terms of how it might affect raising children, and especially to do so using such cherry-picked interpretation of sociological data, is simply irresponsible and deceptive.

    To elaborate: the supposed 'radically inconclusive' nature of data on parenting by same-sex couples is in fact a large body of evidence pointing to the idea that it has NO negative affect as a varriable. The fact that there are inconsistencies, flaws and holes in some studies is an inescapable fact of social science; this is why we use multiple methods, trials and populations to produec robust data, which might still suggest a conclusion despite flaws in individual studies. This is the case in the study of same-sex parenting. There is NO robust evidence suggesting that a male/female parent set is the preferable arrangement.

  • tgurd Gonzales, LA
    March 30, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    How many of you remember Dr Spock noted child care dr? after 20 yrs of cranking out the whats and shoulds of how to raise a child, he comes back and says I was wrong. I believe gays having children that are adopted will be the same answer.1 says well a single mother raising children is worse than if 2 married gay people would raise them, really ? 1st what are those children going to see? 2 men or 2 women kissing and doing what ever else,what will that teach them about what the normal life style would be? What really is disturbing about all of this is the moral majority sit back and allow once again the minority to put their wants above what we want, and please don't give me that garabage about most people agree to gay marriage, you can take all of the polls you want and I can assure you those polls are rigged because if you are a proponet of gay marriage you would hardly ask people that you may suspect that would be against it. Oh and more than likely it was a telephone survey, hmmmmm I sure that would be honest

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    March 30, 2013 1:21 a.m.

    No one of consequence is suggesting punishing or arresting gay people for marrying each other. Thus, that issue is mute.

    Gay couples do however, miss out on a list of privileges afforded to heterosexual married couples. But so do long-time best friends, long-time roommates, and other unmarried couples in strong relationships. The only intelligent course of action therefore, would be to remove all these government-supported privileges from government-supported marriage and instead make every applicable right or privilege available to any couple in any relationship. Thusly, the issue of equal rights would be mute. Legalized gay marriage need not occur to attain these rights.

    The only issue left therefore, is to legalize gay-marriage in order for America to proclaim that the moral beliefs and sexual behavior of gay couples are endorsed by the government over the moral beliefs of other Americans. Nothing could be more contrary to America’s constitutional principles.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    March 29, 2013 9:11 p.m.

    @ Flashback: Gibbons believed the decline and fall of the Roman Empire was due to decreased civility among citizens, outsourcing defense to mercenaries, an unwillingness by men to perform manual labor, and an over-reliance on the Christian God and the belief of life after death.

    What is in there to challenge the beliefs of Liberals - closed-minded or otherwise? I can see why it would challenge Conservatives, but I see nothing that disagrees with any Liberal post on this thread.

    If you have something specific in mind, please do share....

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 29, 2013 8:54 p.m.

    If you can find it, a thorough reading of the historical book by Edward Gibbon, "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" would open a lot of your eyes. I found all six volumns in my college library. Most of you, except the close minded (liberals), would change your mind on this subject.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 29, 2013 6:42 p.m.

    Re:Sginsberg

    Amen

    Conservatives and liberals could find common ground on improving the lives of children and strengthening families. For example, improving the educational system, encouraging delaying sex and increasing the availability of contraceptives could help reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and single, destitute women trying to raise children on their own. I too have seen dysfunctional and abusive home situations creating damaged children who then become dysfunctional adults. Children need unconditional love, economically, physically and emotionally stable environments. The more we support families who want to create such an environment the better for our society. Same-sex marriage is not the threat. Promiscuity, abuse and poverty are the destabiliziing forces in our society.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 29, 2013 5:22 p.m.

    @MapleDon;

    Should we just repeal the First Amendment then and have a state/national religion? (Your religion may not win the contest to determine which one will be the great and powerful).

    The reason that God is irrelevant in this debate is because we are a secular society and we have freedom to worship whomsoever we wish, whether it is your god or any other. Additionally, since you can't even prove that "god" ever said even one single word, you are building your castle on quicksand.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 29, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    So after four pages of comments it looks like the conservative argument against gay marriage goes like this..gay couples do not have the constitutional and legal right to marry because God said so and the Heritage Foundatin says if and when they have children the children would be harmed..some how. I'm disapointed because I expected all the Scalia inspired scholars to come up with some creative constitutional argument..oh wait there isn't one.

  • DeniseC Woods Cross, UT
    March 29, 2013 4:56 p.m.

    How does me having any type of rights associated with gay marriage, lead to husbands not feeling obligated to their wives and children? In this country, we already have the huge problem with divorce and fathers not providing for their families. How do you blame same-sex marriage for this? I am a newborn ICU nurse, I see more babies being born out of wedlock than ever before. Please explain to me how my marriage will lead to more? If a father feels "optional", how does that have anything to do with the fact that I am raising my children in a two mommy household? Really? Is it because we are doing a better job than he could have? I already believe that most people do not value and respect their marriage which is why the divorce rate in this country is so high. It's not how Traditional marriage is defined.
    Same-sex couples are raising children and that will never change regardless of whether their families are protected or not. You can believe that it is wrong, that is your right, but you can't deny me my human rights.

  • pmccombs Orem, UT
    March 29, 2013 3:56 p.m.

    So, the modern family is increasingly an abstraction. It exists on paper more than in the home, because it spends more time outside of the home than in it. Family _used to be_ the fundamental unit of society when the economy was family-based.

    I hardly need to point out the sorry state of marriage today. Now the gays want marriage, and suddenly this thing we've been trampling underfoot all these decades becomes a sacred cow that needs urgent protection. Look, it has our footprints all over it, but now that homosexuals are interested in it, well that just makes it cheap!

    Family and marriage today mean nothing close to what they meant "traditionally," and that is a fact. We've been dragging the institutions through the swamp for so long that we hardly know what he have anymore, and the funniest thing I've read today is this foolishness that says, "wait a minute, let's think about this before we redefine it." I'm sorry, marriage has been redefined. It's already cheapened. And since it's already an unrecognizable commodity, where is the justice in withholding it from anyone?

    Wanna protect marriage and family? Go home.

  • Sginsberg Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 3:53 p.m.

    If we truly cared about the children we would stop limiting their raising to heterosexual couples. As a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, I worked with children who had been victims
    of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse. Every one of these clients had been the natural or adoptive child of a two person, heterosexual couple. Every child who was victimized was living in either a biological, adoptive or foster care situation with heterosexual parents. If we are limiting the healthy raising of our children to a man and a woman then we eliminate all the healthy single, and LGBT single or partnered couples who have skills, love, and the ability to raise a healthy family.
    Children need love, limits, role models and respect. They need to be seen as valuable human beings. They need guidance. They need a supportive family, however that family is made up.
    As to your point of "redefining" marriage; whose definition of marriage is being used as the main definition? Polygamy? Polyandry? Serial Marriage? A person who has been married in the Mormon Temple?

  • Becki Reece Magna, UT
    March 29, 2013 3:06 p.m.

    Most of the couples that are same sex, do not have accidental children, they have planned or adopted children. They would not be getting married because they accidentally conceived a child, and leaving that child as a child of divorce. I am not saying that same sex marriages would not end in divorce, just that they would not become marriages to make a traditional family that usually does not work.

    Personally on this debate, I would rather see a child planned for and brought into a home, that really has decided they want a child and are ready for the child, and wants to make the best life possible for them. Than a couple of 17 year olds being forced to marry, because they are bringing a child into the world neither of them is ready for, and that child having a family that is setup to fail from the beginning.

    I would love to of had that type of thoughtfulness put into my very existence.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    March 29, 2013 2:50 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal

    "To those of you espousing and dragging "God" to the establishment of our Laws."

    Are you saying God should be disregarded? His laws are pretty easy to find. What's wrong with them? His objective seems to be our happiness and, from what I've seen so far of His "laws", they seem to work.

    "What makes you ANY different than the other religous extremeists we are fighting against on the other side of the world?"

    We don't kill those who don't believe the same as we do.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me you have a problem with God and His "rules". I suggest warming up to Him. He's awesome. I warn you, though, he's not open-minded about behavior.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 29, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    Every Gay or Lesbian person I have ever known came from a traditional heterosexual family.

    So,
    Saying gay couples will only have and can only raise gay children,
    is like saying
    straight couples will only have and can only raise straight children.

    It's just not true.

    What makes or breaks a child is STABILITY in the home.

    I never saw or heard what my parents were doing in their bedroom.
    Sad, if the rest of you did.

  • Mlawrence Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 2:38 p.m.

    Marriage equality has nothing to do with children.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    March 29, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    I'm not sure why this desperate rear-guard action against something that is happening, will continue to happen, and has as yet no discernable negative consequences. Why all this hand-wringing?

  • Becki Reece Magna, UT
    March 29, 2013 2:28 p.m.

    There is no doubt that gay people are raising children at this point. And will continue to do so. Speaking from my own experience, my parents got married because they were going to have a child, as many people do, sometimes this works, most times it does not. As I read the current story in the headlines about Ethan Stacy and his Mother and Stepfather, I really wish the only thing that poor little boy would have had to worry about was if his same sex parents could get married, instead of them getting married to protect themselves from testifying against each other.Most of the couples that are same sex, do not have accidental children, they have planned or adopted children. They would not be getting married because they accidentally conceived a child, and leaving that child as a child of divorce. I am not saying that same sex marriages would not end in divorce, just that they would not become marriages to make a traditional family that usually does not work.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 29, 2013 2:30 p.m.

    Neanderthal
    Pheonix, AZ
    1:11 p.m. March 29, 2013

    Halleluiah! Same sex marriage is coming. Then, after that, approval of polygamy and other marriage combinations. The leader of the FLDS will be released from jail and be able to rejoin his family (including all his wives and kids). And he will likely sue and surely win for wrongful arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment. Could mean millions in damages for him and his family. Good luck.

    1:11 p.m. March 29, 2013

    ======

    Warren Jeffs in is jail for Child Rape.
    I can't name a single person in jail right now for polygamy between consenting adults.

    Besides - The FLDS avoid legal prosectution by not having "legal" plural marriages.

    They don't recognize "man's laws", only "God's Laws"

    Not too far from the other uber-far-right-wing commentors posting today.

    BTW - I'm glad you are celebrating equality for all citizens.

  • Becki Reece Magna, UT
    March 29, 2013 2:28 p.m.

    Because of the many reasons for diverse people to hide who they are, and raise their children outside what is the perceived normal family, no data is around to support either side of this debate. For instances such as these I tend to rely on what I know. My parents had me when they were 17, they married and divorced 3 years later, and I ended up in foster care for 8 years. I never really got to know my Father, I had more interactions with him when I was in my 30’s before he died. I hear divorce rates are up to 50% now. As I think of my close friends growing up, most of them had single parent households, their parents were divorced. So from my experience and statistics, I can come to the conclusion, that single parent households are becoming very normal.

  • Mlawrence Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 2:28 p.m.

    Marriage equality has nothing to do with children. Nothing at all. There are thousands of Gay families with children in Utah today. Gay people have children because they want children not because they are married. Marriage equality will not change this. Marriage equality will not change the number of gay families that have children. This is a straw man argument. Marriage discrimination must end simply because those families do not have the protections and benefits that married families have and that is discrimination. Our families are being harmed. It is very important to know, that we do not intend to be married to have children. We do not intend to have children because we are married. We will not get married to have children. Let's get to the bottom of the real argument. What are you really opposed to?

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    March 29, 2013 2:11 p.m.

    re: Neanderthal

    Jeffs isn't in prison for having multiple wives. He's in prison for forcing underage girls into marriages with him and for abuse issues. Gay marriage only opens the floodgates for marriage between consenting adults. Animals, children, and inanimate objects will not be able to give their legal consent.

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    March 29, 2013 1:51 p.m.

    Children of Gay parents? An oxymoron if there ever was one. Except for one "Divine" birth, there has never been a child born (or created) without a male and an female element joined together.
    Traditional marriage has always accepted that fact. Children born out of wedlock or by artificial insemination do not change it. NO, Gay marriage is all about sexual preference and little else since all other benefits of marriage are available through other civil means.

  • onlinewren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    March 29, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    "What you're left with is a pell-mell rush to alter drastically society's most fundamental institution, without anyone knowing what the consequences of that change would be."

    No, what you "have left" is a question of constitutionality. There is absolutely no other question in this argument; please stop acting as if there is.

  • Neanderthal Pheonix, AZ
    March 29, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    Halleluiah! Same sex marriage is coming. Then, after that, approval of polygamy and other marriage combinations. The leader of the FLDS will be released from jail and be able to rejoin his family (including all his wives and kids). And he will likely sue and surely win for wrongful arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment. Could mean millions in damages for him and his family. Good luck.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    March 29, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    "Those who refuse to listen to the Prophets on this matter, from Moses to St. Paul to Thomas Monson, are rejecting God's teachings on marriage and the family. If you want to call these men "extremists," go ahead. Personally, I believe the "extremists" are those who are challenging thousands of years of Christian teachings and societal common sense."
    ------------------------
    Oh the irony to point to an LDS prophet to support your claims for "traditional marriage", defined as between one man and one woman for thousands of years. Christian teachings have had no consensus whatsoever on the definition of marriage. At times it's been polygamy, at other times its allowed for having both a wife and mistresses. Some have argued, pointing to Christ and his apostles, that celibacy is proper, at least for the clergy.

    The LDS Church once preached that polygamy was correct. That was later changed, by inspiration from God, to be only inclusive of a single wife. God has changed his mind in the past to respond to changing circumstances. Why not now?

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    March 29, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    I dropped my membership in the APA because their a fanatics for gay marriage. They lobby hard for the gay movement using membership and government money.

  • Martha Hales Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    I'm pretty sure that inclusive results would indicate that there's no significant difference between children raised by same-sex parents vs. those raised by heterosexual parents; so it's a bit disingenuous to act like there's a problem here.

    The big problem from the perspective of children raised by same-sex parents is the stress that comes from issues like not being able to have both parents be their legal parent or from having their families treated as not legitimate.

    Can you imagine what it would be like to be raised in a situation where if something happened to your one legal parent, you could be taken from the only other parent you have ever known and maybe never see them again? If you really care about the welfare of these children, you will support solutions that give them the security they need.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    March 29, 2013 12:49 p.m.

    Pops said: "From the perspective of the state, marriage is about children and little else. It isn't about love or sexual attraction - those never came up when my wife and I got our marriage license."

    Now that's about the saddest thing I've read here today.

    ...and you couldn't be more wrong, as children are not required to maintain a valid marriage.

  • Jon W. Murray, UT
    March 29, 2013 12:41 p.m.

    @LDSLiberal,
    I think just about every LDS Temple marriage ceremony I've been to, the sealer says something about the covenant being between three parties- husband, wife, and God.

    The Church, through its official publications and speeches of its leaders, is constantly teaching that the purpose of marriage is to form families - a husband, a wife, and where possible, children.

    So what you don't understand, apparently, is the religion to which you profess (in your screen name) to belong.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    March 29, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    Those of you commenting on "God" says (Mike, Red, JT, etc.)

    1) Why should the US government promote your god, your version of religion over any other? Do we not have a First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion without government interference? Why should the government promote your version over mine?

    Please answer.

    This editorial is fantasy and fiction from beginning to end. Without one shred of evidence, they promote discrimination against those who believe differently. And, then they have the nerve to say "we just can't see the future consequences..." Guess what, until you actually START something, you'll NEVER find out what is in store. Never.

    How long do GLBT Americans have to wait for equality under the law? How long is long enough? Eh, editorial writers? Please answer that question next time you write an anti-equality editorial.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    March 29, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    Children truly are the pawns in the rush to remake society. Every child deserves to be raised in a loving home with a mother and a father both present and committed to the family.

    From the perspective of the state, marriage is about children and little else. It isn't about love or sexual attraction - those never came up when my wife and I got our marriage license. The quid pro quo of the marriage contract should be reserved for those who may actually produce children, not for those who might contrive other means to subject innocent children to some strange social experiment. And to the degree that present laws do not focus on the objective of protecting children, they ought to be changed or strengthened.

    Should same-sex couples be allowed to cohabit and to make legal arrangements to share their property and the like? Certainly - it's their right. But since no benefit accrues to the state from those relationships, the state should assume a position of neutrality on that subject. The unintended consequences of feel-good laws not based on reason require such a position.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    March 29, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    This artificially trumped-up grudge match between "family/children" in one corner and "gay marriage" in the other is a false dichotomy. Here's just a few reasons why --

    1. When gay couples do raise children, they are not stealing them from happy heterosexual homes. These children don't HAVE "mother/father" units to be raised by. Whether or not they "deserve" to have mother/father homes is irrelevant -- those homes simply aren't available, no matter WHAT the children deserve.

    2. Many children born to *straight* couples grow up without mother/father pairings. Do we really want to outlaw divorce? Ban single motherhood? Eliminate artificial insemination? Criminalize adoption? ALL of those things leave kids without the full set of biological parents.

    3. In several Scandinavian countries where gay "registered partnerships" have existed for the 20 years or so, marriage rates INCREASED and divorce rates DECREASED.

    4. Many groups of child-development-experts -- including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, AND the Academy of Family Practitioners -- have endorsed gay marriage. They recognize that marriage, gay or straight, HELPS families -- and that stable loving homes are what kids need, regardless of parents' gender.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 29, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    Also --

    If God makes "marriages",
    why does a man, in a black robe, representing the "Government",
    become the only one who can dissolve a "marriage"?

    Are you religous zealots admitting that a lone "man" or the "Government" is able to UNDO what only God and religion can do?

    Better think long and hard before responding to that one...

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 29, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    I find the fault of the same sex marriage dilemma, resting solely upon the religious people and their desire to control the minds of others.

    Marriage between consenting adults is simply an agreement, a promise and a business contract. It has no religious significance other than other than the imaginary attributes that are not supposed to be imposed upon others against their will. Government should be involved only as necessary to protect the individuals from harm and to enforce the agreement.

    The coupling of marriage with childbearing is unnecessary and should not have been done. Children do not have the same rights as adults and parents can exercise dictatorial control over them as if they were owned private property. What rights children do have can be and are protected by the government.

    Government should allow marriage between adults as desired. Government should not allow childrearing except as approved by our society as the desired norm of society.

  • AJohnson Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    J Thompson -- surely you're aware that marriage has already been redefined multiple times?

    You're posting from Springville, so I presume you're LDS? Surely you're aware that the early LDS church practiced polygamy, and taught that it was God's law and an essential practice. The mere fact that polygamy is no longer practiced by the LDS church is proof of the fact that marriage has been redefined. Not to mention all the other ways marriage has changed throughout the centuries.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    The government should get out totally of marriage business. How much revenue on those licenses? Then, each persons can contract with religion they chose to do the marriage and the divorce and custody issues etc. Anyone that wanted could go totally religious in all aspects of the marriage without imposing their religion through government.

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    March 29, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    "Redefining marriage would also diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and their biological children and for men and women to marry before having children."

    Does this make any sense to anybody? A lesbian couple lives down the street from me. If they were allowed to formalize their commitment to each other through marriage, do you *really* think I’d somehow feel less "social pressure" to stay with my wife?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 29, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    As hypothetical situation I've used...

    If something tragic were to happen to me -- .

    Would I rather my children be raised by

    a) a wife being a single parent
    b) my wife being re-married
    b.1) even if it was to another woman

    I would chose b, even if it included b.1

    Why?
    Because,
    I have my children's best interest in mind,
    and I'm not slave to some hyper-moral Police force, who have political axe to grind.

    I know how hard it is to raise a family,
    and I know my kids would be better off if my wife wasn't trying to do it alone.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    @BrentBot
    "In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived."

    No states or nations that have legalized same-sex marriage have undergone any sort of noticeable decline the past decade. If you're referring to 1000 year old societies, I would note that basically none of those are even around anyway regardless of what they did with morality and that you cannot give me a single example of a society that collapsed due to some change in sexual morality.

    @Mike Richards
    "A common rant is that God does not exist, or that he has no authority over the individual, or that one can choose which laws to obey and which to ignore."

    The argument is that the Constitution does not allow for making laws based on religious arguments.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    Utah allows single gay people to adopt but not gay couples, how stupid is that in the context of your argument against same-sex marriage being about the needs of children?

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    March 29, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    "[same-sex marriage] would deny, as a matter of policy, the ideal that children need a mother and a father." What a strange thing to say.

    If we scoured all of social science for the "ideal" characteristics of a family, what would we find? It's conceivable that social science could determine that the *ideal* situation for children entails not only the number of parents (two) and the sex of the parents (opposite), but also the happiness of the parents (happy), the age at which they get marked (between the ages of 25 and 30), the family's religion (protestant), their race (white or oriental), income level (upper-middle class), number of kids (between 2 and 4), where they live (Mid-West), etc.

    If the purpose of marriage is to endorse the ideal manner in which kids ought to be raised, then everybody who doesn’t meet every aspect of being ideal should be denied access to marriage. If the purpose of marriage is something else, the claim that having a father and a mother is ideal is irrelevant.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    "Redefining marriage would also diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and their biological children and for men and women to marry before having children. It would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter once it had redefined marriage to make fathers optional."

    LDS4
    Since when is the purpose of the law to send messages? laws protect rights and punish harm. Does the author REALLY believe that men will, en masse, abandon kids and marriage simply because government affords equal rights to gays? Seriously?

    Sure, all things being equal, kids do better with a mom and a dad, but denying gays marriage will NOT keep gays from adopting or using artificial means to have children. We need to look at how denying marriage rights to same-sex families affects THESE kids. Affording their parents marriage will increase family stability, as it does in traditional marriages, and will offer them legal protections like child support, insurance, probate rights, etc… How many stay at home LDS moms would give up her and her children’s rights frm marriage simply be "roommates” instead, as gay families are considered?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    'Analysis: The Prop 8 Plaintiffs Debunk the 'Responsible Procreation' Argument for Good' – By Jacob Combs – Huffington Post – 03/01/13

    ...writing that there is an "undeniable biological reality that opposite-sex unions--and only such unions--can produce children."  The "animating purpose of marriage," they went on to say, is to "steer potentially procreative conduct into stable and enduring family units."
    The proponents of Prop 8 are correct in pointing out the "undeniable biological reality" that the sexual union of same-sex couples cannot naturally produce children.  But at the risk of stating the obvious, gay and lesbian couples are not the only unions incapable of procreation.'

    This is my favorite part of the article...

    'To put it simply, Prop 8 does not encourage responsible procreation, and even if it did, the manner in which it attempts to do so would still constitute an equal protection violation.'

    Even the Supreme court put it simply...

    'So should we deny marriage to those over 55 years old...?'

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 10:06 a.m.

    Pediatric Group Supports Same-Sex Marriage – Time magazine – 03/21/13

    The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says it’s “in the best interests” of the children.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    "In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents. They show no increased incidence of psychiatric disorders, are just as popular at school and have just as many friends. While girls raised by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely to have more sexual partners, and boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than those raised by heterosexual mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from gender confusion nor to identify themselves as gay."

    'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10

    - AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    March 29, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    To Truthseeker.. Which was your mother? Who was your father? Or, doesn't it matter?

    As I see the big debate, it isn't about children, it is about status and benefits. Property rights can be handled by contract or Will, Power of Attorney, or other legal means other than marriage. Status is a nebulous thing that means little in the scheme of things so it may be assumed that it is all about "acceptance" of a sexual life style of an un-natural sort.
    In the case of divorce, which individual in this gay marriage would be given custody of whatever (if any) children were involved? If the natural mother was one of them, would she be given priority? Could the father step in at this point and exercise parental right to custody?
    Frankly, I feel the whole matter is one the gay community should solve within its own boundaries.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    March 29, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    I agree with LDS Liberal.

    The same people who claim that Muslims are trying to bring sharia law to America, want a version of christian/sharia law enforced on all Americans.

    God doesn't appear to speak for God. A lot of men claim to have spoken with him and are told different things all the time. As soon as all religions can come to a consensus on what God says, I'll agree with you, until then, We the people can decide, who among us are worthy of equal treatment under the law.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    March 29, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    @ J Thompson: I have some concerns about bringing back polygamy - the type of marriage promoted in the Bible: obviously, we don't need to worry about divorce, since that isn't allowed by the Bible, but how would you suggest we handle inherentances and survivor benefits? And who ultimately gets to make medical decisions? And if there are 3 brothers, and one dies, can his wives be split between the remaining 2 brothers or does one of them get them all?

    And what about religions who interpret the Bible differently or those who have Gods other than the Christian one?

  • Bloodhound Provo, UT
    March 29, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    Those who refuse to listen to the Prophets on this matter, from Moses to St. Paul to Thomas Monson, are rejecting God's teachings on marriage and the family. If you want to call these men "extremists," go ahead. Personally, I believe the "extremists" are those who are challenging thousands of years of Christian teachings and societal common sense.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 29, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    I have a gay brother.
    I've watched the reactions of the members of my family.

    Some, like myself, love my brother unconditionally.
    Others - who claim to be more righteous, spititual, more CHRISTIAN -- have become some of the most vile, bitter, hate filled people I have EVER known.

    I'm watching the fall of the Latter-Day Nephites happening before my very eyes...

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 29, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, could you explain that a little bit to me, just because I did not pick this up in your briefs.
    What harm you see happening and when and how and — what — what harm to the institution of marriage or to opposite-sex couples, how does this cause and effect work?
    MR. COOPER: Once again, I — I would reiterate that we don’t believe that’s the correct legal question before the Court, and that the correct question is whether or not redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would advance the interests of marriage as a -­

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, then are — are you conceding the point that there is no harm or denigration to traditional opposite-sex marriage couples? So you’re conceding that.
    MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, no. I’m not conceding that.
    JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, but, then it — then it seems to me that you should have to address Justice Kagan’s question.

    Mr. Cooper never presents evidence of harm.

    Sorokin did not write about same-sex marriage.. He did write about detrimental effects of promiscuity and the demise of nuclear families.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 29, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    What I can't understand is those who use "parenting", "procreation", or "sex" as the defining purpose of "marriage".

    "Marriage" is a committment, a promise, made between people.
    One to another.
    As far as I'm concerned - it doesn't even need God or the Government to be considered valid.
    But from a "Legal" stand-point - like any Business arrangement, contracts need to be signed, and records kept.

    Most gay/lesbian couples I know already have children - from previous heterosexual marriages.
    So how does one account for that?

    Most children's heterosexual parents aren't even "married", so that is a moot arguement.

    The beauty of America is WE make the laws.
    I say - make it legal.
    If it turns out bad, we can always change it.
    If it turns out good, we'd ask ourselves why we didn't do it sooner.

    BTW - To those of you espousing and dragging "God" to the establishment of our Laws.
    What makes you ANY different than the other religous extremeists we are fighting against on the other side of the world?
    So us all a favor, and take a look in the mirror.
    Hypocrites.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    KJB1:
    [Seriously, guys, when you've lost Bill O'Reilly...]

    And Rush Limbaugh:
    "And to which the opponents say, "Well, the country's changing and you better get with it and understand it because this genie's not getting put back in the bottle." And I think that's right. I don't care what this court does with this particular ruling, Proposition 8. I think the inertia is clearly moving in the direction that there is going to be gay marriage at some point nationwide."

    And of course, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 29, 2013 9:25 a.m.

    In order to spin the 'welfare of children' argument, you have to ignore the fact that heterosexual marriage doesn't exactly promote this welfare, either. And the heritage foundation isn't exactly an impartial source. And we are not an enemy of god. She told me so.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    March 29, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    Glossing over whether we have a Creator or whether we are free to make our own laws without regard to any "self-existent" law is a huge mistake. Those who shout loudest are those who are telling us that they have the right to define family. By what authority do they make that statement? Who appointed them the guardian of "definitions"? Who gave them the right to create "marriage" according to their own desires?

    If God is our Creator, and if God has already defined "marriage", then those who want to change that definition, are pretending to speak for God without his consent.

    If God ordained that marriage should consist of a father and a mother and that children born into that family should be taught that definition, then those who would change that definition are trying to change God's doctrine about marriage and about family.

    Before rushing to redefine "marriage", perhaps those who want to change that definition can give one unselfish reason for redefining "marriage" and "family". Where is their long-term proof that their alternate lifestyle helps anyone in society except themselves? Where is their proof that children and society will not suffer?

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    March 29, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    "The compelling argument is on the side of the homosexuals. That is where the compelling argument is. 'We're Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else.' That's a compelling argument, and to deny that you've got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn't been able to do anything but thump the Bible."
    -Bill O'Reilly

    Seriously, guys, when you've lost Bill O'Reilly...

  • Red Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    God has already made his laws. Why are we trifling with His words.

    The Natural Man is an enemy to God.

    Learn to control your desires. Be accountable. Live a life of Honor!

    Words to live by.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    March 29, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    Perhaps Sorokin would be a valid authority if he had written in today’s times. Sorokin’s book FRC cites was published in 1956, and the sociologist died in 1968. Sorokin never had time to analyze modern societies that have legalized same-sex marriage.

    What is it with ex-soviet writing that so attracts conservatives?
    He also believed we had reached the height of technological advances around the same time, 75 years ago.

    Mike, this has nothing to do with God, it has to do with religious beliefs and acceptance by the public of your beliefs system over others.

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    Legal or not? Society has already redined your definition of marriage. Eventually, politicans and the courts catch up with society. Religons can define marriage as between a man and a woman but society has redifined it between two people. Americans value fairness and equality for all. To exclude a gay couple choosing to be legally married the same righs as a heterosexual couple is predjucial. Either you stand on the side of equality and fairness or you stand on the side of prejudice and inquality. Ask yourself who are you and then listen to how you defend your views? Do you hear predijuce in your voice?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 29, 2013 7:55 a.m.

    'Much has been written. Reading between the lines gives great insight into the thought process of those who post.

    A common rant is that God does not exist, or that he has no authority over the individual, or that one can choose which laws to obey and which to ignore.' Come on Mike you're just making stuff up again. I don't think I've ever seen anyone on this post say God doesn't exsist even from the few atheists who may post here. Virtually all but a couple of the "liberals" here profess LDS membership. Secondly what does that have to do with whether gays should be allowed to marry?

    Speaking of children "Have they no worth to those who would rush into re-defining "family"? So now something other than a mother a father and children isn't a family..wow, talk about a slippery slope going in the opposite direction.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 29, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    Yes, it is foolish to change the most fundamental unit of society just because there is a clamor for change.

    Much has been written. Reading between the lines gives great insight into the thought process of those who post.

    A common rant is that God does not exist, or that he has no authority over the individual, or that one can choose which laws to obey and which to ignore. Some would even have us think that man is the most intelligent form of life in the Universe. Either God exists, and we are his creation, with responsibility towards him and the laws that he has decreed, or we are self-existent. I choose to believe that we are far to "dumb" to be self-existent.

    Another rant is that same-sex relations outside of marriage is no "worse" than any other "extra" marriage sex. In other words, "because others can't control themselves, why should I?"

    But, most importantly, children will be affected. Are they to be pawns? Are they to be sacrificed? Have they no worth to those who would rush into re-defining "family"? How shortsighted is that?

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    March 29, 2013 7:08 a.m.

    I, as a single person in the state of Utah, can legally adopt a child. How then do I immediately become an unfit parent in the eyes of the state if I am living in a loving, committed, supportive, relationship with another person of my same gender?

    Gay parents are some of the best parents I know because gay parenthood is planned parenthood. There are no "unwanted" pregnancies. No oopsie babies. Every child parented by a same-sex couple is worked hard for to bring into their family.

    Gay marriage PROTECTS children already being raised by these couples. If you really, truly cared about the children, you would protect ALL of their families. Not just the ones headed my heterosexual parents.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 6:49 a.m.

    We should be concerned with the continued thriving of our Western Civilization. Marriage has reflected 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, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology department, 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 culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    March 29, 2013 6:31 a.m.

    "Redefining marriage would also diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and their biological children and for men and women to marry before having children."

    Too late--that started happening long before the gay-marriage debate. I could argue that the laws forbidding same-sex marriage actually have caused some men and women to postpone marriage until it is legal for their same-sex friends, brothers, sisters, and neighbors to marry the man or woman they love. Sure, you could call it political posturing, but there are many who publicly stated that to be their reason for not marrying.

    I would like to challenge the Deseret News Editorial Board to step out of their comfortable offices and see what is really happening in our communities. I would love to see them meet with the homeless youth who have been kicked out of their homes because of their sexual orientation--talk about parents who put their children first--and visit the volunteers at the local Pride Centers.

    I think you may wind up having a change of heart. Oh, and I recommend you all pray about it, too. Really pray for understanding.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    March 29, 2013 6:23 a.m.

    "Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers."

    How would that happen? The majority of children in single-parent homes do not come from families with same-sex parents. They come from heterosexual couples who, quite frankly,never were in a committed, marriage relationship or couple who have gone through divorce. This problem was not caused by same-sex couples who want the same legal rights of marriage that everyone else enjoys.

    "It would deny, as a matter of policy, the ideal that children need a mother and a father."

    I see very few people who argue that a mother and father is not the ideal situation for children. Most people agree with that concept. That, however, is not a valid reason to ban same-sex couples from marrying.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 6:18 a.m.

    This editorial can't cite any objective peer reviewed research that shows a negative consequence from same sex parents, because there are none.

    It flippantly dismisses as "politically correct" genuine scholarship that finds no difference in the quality of parenting between committed same-sex couples and committed heterosexual couples.

    Your writer resorts to quoting the hyper-conservative and increasingly doctrinaire Heritage Foundation for anything resembling an argument against equal rights for same-sex couples.

    The Deseret News is on the wrong side of this debate as surely as it would have been if it had attempted to defend bans on inter-racial marriages and racial equality fifty years ago.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    March 29, 2013 5:45 a.m.

    " It would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter once it had redefined marriage to make fathers optional."

    Amen to that. I have seen a lot of poverty created by out of wedlock births.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    March 29, 2013 5:17 a.m.

    The Deseret news argument doesn't hold water. If they are worried about the traditional family and marriage then why do they not advocate laws making it illegal for heterosexuals to have children unless they are married or make it illegal for single parents to have children.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    March 29, 2013 2:29 a.m.

    Since prohibiting same-sex marriage does not prohibit same-sex parenting, much of this editorial is moot.

    If you truly have the best interest of children at heart, you would allow their parents to be married, regardless of their genders.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 29, 2013 1:12 a.m.

    Good evening Mr. Chairman, my name is Zach Wahls. I’m a sixth-generation Iowan and an engineering student at the University of Iowa, and I was raised by two women.

    Being a student at the University of Iowa, the topic of same sex marriage comes up quite frequently in class discussions. The question always comes down to, “Can gays even raise kids?” ....I was raised by a gay couple, and I’m doing pretty well.” I score in the 99th percentile on the ACT. I’m an Eagle Scout. I own and operate my own small business. If I was your son, Mr. Chairman, I believe I’d make you very proud. I’m not so different from any of your children. My family really isn’t so different from yours.

    But not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple. And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero impact on the content of my character."

    (On 1/13/2011 Wahls address to the Iowa House Judiciary Committee)

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    March 29, 2013 12:23 a.m.

    Justice Alito's comments are cogent. We are looking at redirecting an pivotal institution that has been around for millenia based on a decade's worth of scant experience. It is worth more than a pause to think it through clearly.