Comments about ‘Challenge to Utah's same-sex marriage ban’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 4 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Hyrum, UT

BTW: I believe I forgot to include it, but my original comment was meant to be directed to CONTRARIUSIEST.

Comment monitors... Please add this followup comment to my original. Thank you.

Mapleton, UT

As has been pointed out, my earlier comment regarding civil unions in Utah was incorrect. Utah in fact does not allow civil unions. I acknowledge my error.

What was going through my mind was the reasonable stance of the LDS-church-supported 2009 Salt Lake City ordinance which prohibits general housing and employment discrimination while preserving the rights of religious institutions. I am all in favor of such reasonable approaches.

I stand by the rest of my original comment.


Utah will go down kicking and screaming. Emphasis on down.

Huntsville, UT


Do we get to vote on whether you can marry?


I have an "ilk"; Cool!


If your worry is simply children w/o a mommy/daddy combo, you need to outlaw divorce. Preventing gays from marrying will have no effect on that.

@Flashback & DEWCougars;

I wouldn't be married in your Temple if you paid me.


The US Constitution trumps Utah's.


Religion has no patent on marriage. God is irrelevant.


What you wrote is called "bigotry".


The Constitution protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority. You don't want a same-sex marriage, don't have one otherwise MYOB.


Bigotry is also immoral, yet you don't seem to have a problem with that particular sin.


"Equal" treatment is not "special" treatment.

@The Reader;

Your own marriage will not be recognized after death either, regardless what your religion says. There will be nothing.


Many hetero marriages are non-procreative; that's a non-starter. Any "challenges" our children face will be due to dealing with people like you.


It's "accept".


God is irrelevant and doesn't exist anyway.

Provo, UT


First of all I was not arguing whether Procreation was a requirement for marriage. I was arguing the fact that lack of procreation is detrimental to society in general. We are seeing this even in our own country that as the baby boomer generation is aging, the economy is suffering because there are insufficient professionals to fill the spots being vacated by retiring professionals.

Second. if you are going to quote me, make sure that you are quoting me exactly. I never referred to same gender couples adopting children was robbing heterosexual couples of children. So don't go throwing rhetoric around attributing it to me. My argument was that it is detrimental to children because the children are without a mother or father. Even in heterosexual homes children struggle when the father or mother is absent. There are entirely different aspects that a father and mother bring to the table. And to be correct most studies are inconclusive. Here is one study that backs me up. "High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households," by Douglas W. Allen

Huntsville, UT


Allowing us to marry isn't going to change the rate that heterosexual couples reproduce, nor the overall rate of reproduction in the US or the world as a whole. We're already living together and not procreating as it is.

The only "detriment" to the children of same-sex couples is having to deal with bigots who tend to make their lives miserable. BTW, studies conducted and backed by anti-gay groups are hardly unbiased and trustworthy.

mid-state, TN

@Tators --

"you are cherry-picking... "

If you believe so, please feel free to present other bits and pieces of either Constitution or court cases which contradict my factual evidence.

I'm fascinated to see what you can come up with.

"God created and ordained marriage ..."

The earliest recorded marriages were CIVIL marriages -- not religious ones.

And remember -- this isn't a theocracy.

@trueblue87 --

"lack of procreation is detrimental to society in general."

Then outlaw infertile marriages and marriages for people over the age of procreation.

"if you are going to quote me"

I didn't actually quote you on the point you're objecting to, so your complaint has no merit.

"Even in heterosexual homes children struggle when the father or mother is absent."

So outlaw single-parent families.

"Here is one study that backs me up. "High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households," by Douglas W. Allen"

No it doesn't. Allen compared UNmarried gay families to MARRIED straight ones. He used Canadian data that was gathered in 2006, but gay marriage was only legalized in Canada in 2005.

And there's a lot of other problems with that study as well.

Keep trying.

Salt Lake City, UT

Kaladin: "To members of many faiths marriage is more than benefits. Mormons are not to live together or have sexual relationships until married."

That seems like an extraordinary benefit. I was speaking of benefits generally, not just about financial or insurance benefits. Do you think people would still marry if they did not receive the particular benefits of marriage you mention?

trueblue87: "The detriment to society that would come about should same sex marriage be allow is significant." (citing population decline, single-sex parents)

Gay couples already have children without the many documented benefits to the children of having married parents. Allowing SSM will not change the population growth rate, but will improve the lots of those children of gay couples by giving them married parents. Negative outcomes for single-parent children is more likely due to the "single" than to the lack of a father or mother figure. There just isn't enough manpower to carry the load (regardless of the sex of the parent). Two same-sex parents may not (arguably) produce the same outcomes as two opposite sex parents, but two is still better than one.

AZKID: "I acknowledge my error."

Thanks. That rarely happens here.

Hyrum, UT

@ RanchHand:

God is NEVER irrelevant. He more relevant that anything pertaining to this particular argument... or anything else for that matter.
And He truly does exist... whether you believe in Him or not.

What a sad and somewhat empty life someone must lead who can't even acknowledge the existence of their own Creator. Its kind of Him to give you that option. But it's somewhat sad that you chose it.

The whole irony of the situation is that you don't even know how much you don't know.

slc, UT


the same "constitution" that protects individual liberties from the tyranny of the majority? the same liberties that the courts are charged with protecting, that "constitution" written by those "founding fathers"


the same way you are Cherry picking not only the constitution but the bible to support your positions? were exactly does it say that the will of the majority out weights the rights of the individual? were in the bible did it say you get to sit in judgment of others life choices?


if we were talking bout single homosexual people raising children perhaps your studies would have some relevance but we are talking about married couple and the research that has studied same sex couples raising children does not support you claim, but I suspect you already knew this which is why you bring up irrelevant studies instead.


A states amendment to its constitution that violates the federal constitution is hardly "air tight," if it were that simple we would likely still have pockets of segregation if not slavery.

Leesburg, VA

"Jesus said to them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's
Millions of us LGBT people believe as you, that God is never irrelevant in our lives. However, many of us also believe as millions of secular heterosexuals do that we cannot pass laws based on religious dogmas.
The God that endowed us with intelligence and wisdom also bestowed upon us freedom and control over our lives and societies.
What religion should rule in the United States? There are many Christians who believe in SSM, should we follow them? Or should we follow those who oppose SSM?
If we were to follow either one, we would have a civil discrepancy based on the different interpretation that we give to religious concepts.
The N.T. is filled with references that we can use to back up homosexual relationships, the definition of eunuchs being just one example. Yet, people opposed to SSM use the teachings of Paul, who was the only Apostle who never knew Jesus Christ in the flesh. Not only that, Paul explicitly taught O.T. ideas to the church i.e. slavery, women subordination and silence, etc.

Huntsville, UT


Your god is irrelevant because we are not a theocracy; whether or not he's the "creator" is not proven (I couldn't care less anyway).

Your god is relevant to you but your god isn't a valid reason to deny equal treatment in America. Sorry, but that is the truth.

The truly "sad, somewhat empty" life is the one that dwells on the sex lives of other people.

Sugar City, ID

@ Baccuus. You said "I would add; When SSM becomes the norm the sky will not fall and nobody will care." How do you know this? What long term, multigernerational studies can you cite that show you are right. The trouble is that we don't know what the unanticipated consequences will be. And they might be devastating to our society. What we do know that children raised in a home with both biological parents are more likely to grow up to be well adjusted citizens than children who are raised in other environments. Are we willing to risk the welfare of future generations just because you don't think the sky will fall?

Farmington, UT

@ Ranch Hand

Sorry, you are mistaken about God being "made up by men." It's ok if you want to ignore the religious history contained in the Holy Bible, but just because you don't believe it doesn't make it false. I suppose you think the account of the parting of the sea to allow the children of Israel to escape the pursuing army of Pharaoh is a myth, too, even though they have discovered Egyptian chariot wheels, which were manufactured during that period, at the bottom of the sea.

Revile against God all you want. They did the same thing in Sodom. After all, you have the freedom to be as anti- as you wish.

Just don't worry about being "married" to another of the same gender, because it isn't "marriage." You should have all the legal rights of heterosexual couples. If you do, why do you want to be labeled as being "married?" Why is that term so all-important if you enjoy all the legal rights? This is a serious question LGBT's don't want to answer.

slc, UT


Two things first those seeking rights have no obligation to prove their actions are a benefit or even are not a harm to society, secondly and more germane to this argument there are actually longitudinal studies out of NYU and other columbia dating back to the early and mid 1980's that have studied the effects of children raised in same sex households (the most common source of argument by those that oppose SSM) which show that children, Many of whom are now adults with their own children suffered no harm.

spring street

"they have discovered Egyptian chariot wheels," Because of course there could not be any logical reason for their being there that does not include a mythological parting of the waters like say a military ship wreck, geological shifts over time etc?

sodom is were they committed numerous popular sins of the far right such as lack of hospitality to by the sodomites to the stranger, economic crimes, bloodshed. One of the worst was to give money or even gold ingots to beggars, after inscribing their names on them, and then subsequently refusing to sell them food. The unfortunate stranger would end up starving and after his death, the people who gave him the money would reclaim it.

As to the supposed reference to homosexuality. "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." genesis 19.5. It is worth noting that the Hebrew word for know appears over 900 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, only approximately 1% of those references is it clearly used as a euphemism for realizing sexual intimacy.

Salt Lake City, Utah

For those making Constitutional claims:

Article VI, Clause 2: "This Constitution, ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

State Constitutions and laws cannot violate the Federal Constitution.

Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power ... shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ..."
Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, ..."

The Supreme Court gets to decide if a law - federal or state - is Constitutional or if it is unconstitutional. Declaring a law unconstitutional is not the same as creating a new law (legislating) because, if a law is unconstitutional, things go back to what they were before the law was passed - no new laws are created.

Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Just because a right is not listed by name in the US Constitution does not mean it is not an existing right.

mid-state, TN

@toosmartforyou --

"just because you don't believe it doesn't make it false. "

And just because you do believe it doesn't make it true.

" because it isn't "marriage." "

How do gay couples act any differently than any other infertile couples?

"If you do, why do you want to be labeled as being "married?""

Because separate is not equal.

Google the report by the New Jersey Civil Rights Commission, concerning their previous civil partnership laws, for more details on the multiple ways in which partnerships fail to be equal to marriages.

"This is a serious question LGBT's don't want to answer."

Actually, it's already been answered many many times.

@JSB --

"children raised in a home with both biological parents are more likely to grow up to be well adjusted citizens than children who are raised in other environments. "


Children who grow up in stable two-parent homes are more likely to grow up to be well-adjusted citizens. Studies have NEVER shown that the genders of those parents makes any difference.

Remember -- all the professional groups of child development experts in this country SUPPORT gay marriage. There's a reason for that.

Phoenix, AZ

And just because you believe it doesn't make it true; and even though tens of thousands of people believe and support a falsity it is still a falsity: with truth might does not make right.

Salt Lake City, UT

JSB: "What we do know that children raised in a home with both biological parents are more likely to grow up to be well adjusted citizens than children who are raised in other environments."

Yes, having two biological parents is optimal for child welfare. Yet family law in Utah and other states allows for suboptimal families. The state's testimony in the court referred to the "gold standard" of procreation, but Utah law allows for silver, bronze, and even lead standard families. If the gold standard of two biological parents raising their own children determined the law, then there would be no divorce and no single parenthood. But the law is open to other, suboptimal family arrangements. Suboptimal family structures are legal. That horse has left the barn already. The precedent has been made. Optimality in childrearing is no longer a persuasive argument against gay marriage.

to comment

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