Comments about ‘Majority of Utahns oppose gay marriage, but attitudes shift toward civil unions, BYU poll finds’

Return to article »

Utah attitudes on gay marriage shift significantly

Published: Monday, July 9 2012 10:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Bronx, NY

the ability to have children "biologically has never been a requirement of marriage, for someone so keen on the law I would think you already know that. As for nature homosexuality exist throughout all nature not just humans.

As to who children go with in case of divorce you are trying to make it far more complicated then it has to be. the child goes to the parent that is best suited to care for the child. really not that hard to figure out.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@n In This Case: And my non-custodial parent lost their biological child to the custodial parent.

Surrogacy, in-vitro fertilization, adoption - the situation you are talking about is not that different and is really nothing new.

Why is it more confusing to determine the best parent when they are both the same gender than it is when they are different genders?

Even without marriage, custody of children often falls to the Court to decide. Are you arguing that in the situation you posit it will be easier to determine which woman gets to raise the child if the two women are not married to each other than it will be if they are married? When couples with children - married or unmarried - break up, they usually get a court order determining custody and child support. Two men, two women, or a man and a woman, custody and support are pretty standard. I am not sure why you think same-sex marriage makes it more confusing.

In This Case
Cottonwood Heights, UT

It makes it more difficult because in the case of same sex relationships, only one parent is the actual biological parent. That will take priority in the decisions of who will have custody of the children involved. In the case of a hetero couple, both parents typically are the biological parents. In the cases of adoption, that is an entirely different part of family law. And if one parent later marries, lets say, a different dad of the child and adopts the child, and then those parents split, the biological parent most likely will always get full custody and maybe even sole custody.

These situations are nothing new, you are right, but they are not nearly as simple as you describe it. Yes, I know this first hand. It doesn't really matter to me what anonymous people commenting on a news article think. Same-sex marriages would complicate family law. NATURE intended for men and women to procreate. I guess if same-sex couples don't want to involve children then it wouldn't be that complicated, but that is not reality. The smart thing would be to look at all angles before making things even more complicated.

Thomas Alex
Colorado Springs, CO


Wrong, all major polls show a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. The 38% came from FOX News. And everyone knows how bias they're.

CNN Poll May 29, 2012

"Do you think marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

54% said yes.

ABC Poll May 17, 2012

"Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?"

53% said yes.

St. George, UT

@InThisCase -first, I'm not attacking you; we disagree, and I'd even say quite civilly.

In light of your reply to me and your earlier comments, I'd recommend you spend more time studying the law. Incest is a criminal offense and the law forbids "consent" in incestuous relationships between adults. That's the end of it; no further inquiry necessary. No legal similarity to homosexuality, period.

As mentioned, the family law evolves and in this case, the words "mother" and "father" are replaced with "parents" in jurisdictions that provide equal marriage. Interestingly, your original comment might be correct regarding polygamy, which notably is the very reason that the argument "polygamy will somehow follow 'gay marriage'" fails. The law across the board is designed on a bipartite monogamous relationship. Introducing additional parties to the framework would be nearly impossible. But gender? Not an issue.

Finally, if you're playing the procreation card, will you please explain why we allow heterosexuals couple to marry who either can't have or don't want children? Homosexuals have always existed and our species continues. Will heterosexuals really stop procreating because gays can now sign a legal contract together? I doubt it.

St. George, UT

@InThisCase- "So my friend, even though she is the egg donor, could lose her own biological child to her partner should they split."

St. George, UT

@InThisCase - "It makes it more difficult because in the case of same sex relationships, only one parent is the actual biological parent. That will take priority in the decisions of who will have custody of the children involved."

But realize that this simply isn't true in jurisdictions that actually provide legal frameworks that actually treat people equally. It doesn't have to be this way. If it is this way in Utah, for example, it is this way because Utah has deliberately refused to provide treatment in law to give homosexual people the same respect that heterosexuals receive. We can't deny a group of people equal protection and then use the effects of that deliberate denial to evidence why they shouldn't receive protection. We throw all of these hurdles that straight people don't face in the way and then we sit back and say, "See? Look how much more dysfunctional and confusing it all is; surely we shouldn't recognize or respect that." We helped make it so and yet we pretend our hands are tied as if they created their own obstacles.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ In This Case: Actual case that has been to Court and has been decided: A man gets his girlfriend pregnant. She does not want the child, he does, she gives it to him and gives up all rights to the child. The man later gets married. His wife legally adopts his child. They divorce. The mother, although not biologically related to the child, is one of the child's two legal parents. The Court determines that the mother is better able to care for the child and awards her custody. The man pays child support and has visitation. Once a child is adopted, biological versus non-biological ceases to matter - both parents are legal parents and that is all the Court cares about.

The only difference between that case and the case you posit is the gender of the involved parents.

When sperm or an egg is donated by a third party and the other part of the equation comes from someone within the relationship, it doesn't matter - even though only one parent is biologically related, both parents are legal.

Same-sex couples are having children with or without marriage. Marriage does not complicate the situation.

Springville, UT

I grew up in the Bay Area of California in the late 1970s. When I was a high school senior, one of the guys in our senior class went to court so he could legally bring his boyfriend as his date to the senior ball. I have also had friends that "came out" and a bisexual boss. I think that people should be treated fairly and not based on their sexual orientation, but what I have found is that people who decide that they are homosexual tend to want everyone to not just accept them but to also accept and embrace their lifestyle choice. Why do they care what others think? Sex has always been a private matter, but it is now a very public matter with implications for public policy. While I can see some benefit to having civil unions for homosexual couples, I personally object to the rewriting of my designation as a mother having to be deleted so that a gay couple can be termed parent 1 and parent 2. I cannot see that adding same sex marriage to our culture does anything for anyone except those who are seeking for a more acceptable label for themselves.

to comment

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