Comments about ‘In our opinion: Too much at stake in same-sex marriage debate’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, March 29 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

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.


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)


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.

Sandy, UT

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.

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

" 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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Kearns, UT

"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.

Kearns, UT

"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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

South Jordan, UT

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.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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?

salt lake city, utah

'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.

HS Fan
Salt Lake City, UT

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?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Eugene, OR

"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...

J Thompson

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?

American Fork, UT

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

[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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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.

to comment

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