Quantcast

Comments about ‘Linda & Richard Eyre: The one thing liberals and conservatives agree on’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 19 2013 7:35 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
1aggie
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Progressive pollsters and pundants have never characterized liberals (or conservatives) as anti-family. This is just one more right-wing media lie being exposed. And if you are surprised by the results of this study, then perhaps you should reconsider your information sources.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

Bravo DN for printing an article that focuses and what unites us rather than what divides us.

Still, in one sense I question the wisdom of this due to your large number of conservative readers who have been spoon fed a conflicting narrative for years. The cognitive dissonance this could generate may actually shake loose some of their dental fillings.

Oh well, too late now. And who knows… this could serve as a “dental stimulus plan” so bonus!

Obama10
SYRACUSE, UT

So the one point this misses is the "definition of family and marriage". Generally "enlightened" liberals would support gay marriage and "right-wing radicals" would oppose such an idea. So while you can say both groups support "marriage", the devil in the details would be what is your definition of marriage.

observator
east of the snake river, ID

Why should the "definition of family and marriage" matter? In fact, why does the government require me to register my marriage with it? As CS Lewis pointed out "A marriage is a declaration before God, not some government official." What compelling interest does the government have to require me to register a marriage?

Obama10's question remains unanswered unless we establish the need of government to intrude into private relationships, and if so, which ones.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

Thank you DN and Mr. & Mrs.Eyre for an interesting and objective article.

I did laugh with Tyler D."s comment and agree with 1aggie and Obama 10' comments.

I wil not comment anything else to keep it positive.

SLC gal
Salt Lake City, UT

Wait... liberals actually pro-create? The very thing they like to bash conservatives for doing?

In other news, liberals and conservatives breathe the same air, both bleed when hurt, both belive they have the best interests on the country at heart... good point about how we're not that different.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ Observator

You may like to share your wisdom with societies like China, Cuba, the ex-Soviet Union would have benefited tremendously from your insight.

But, I'm sure they make a cost effective study an concluded that marriage is good for society regardless religion or the lack of.

The Atheist
Provo, UT

"...it is not only 'religious' people who are pro-family...If we are looking for allies in the cause of good parenting and strengthening families, we had better have a 'big tent' and include the broad diversity of people who 'get it'..."

Such as myself and every other atheist I know and associate with...

It is high time to end the demonizing of atheists.

observator
east of the snake river, ID

"I'm sure they make a cost effective study an concluded that marriage is good for society regardless religion or the lack of."

Now we're starting to get to the crux of the issue. I happen to agree that marriage is good for society, but why does government have a compelling interest in registering marriages? And what is a marriage that the government registers, and for what purpose?

I submit that the compelling interest government has in registering marriages is to determine where the next generation of citizens will likely be raised. A government of the people does have an interest in assisting the welfare of the upcoming generation, as they will become the government in their turn. We register marriages for this purpose.

The relationship defined as "marriage", therefore, is one where the potential for creating and raising children exists without the assistance of a third party. While it may be possible in society to have children raised through other relationships, such a situation cannot occur without a 3rd party's assistance... (con't)

observator
east of the snake river, ID

(con't) So, for example, a same-sex couple may be raising a child in society, but that cannot occur without the assistance of an outside party (through adoption, for example). The state already has a mechanism in place for regulating adoption, therefore it does not need to further impose on the couple in question the requirement to register with the government.

While it may be true that not all heterosexual unions will result in children, it would be an overly intrusive move by the state to determine if married couples are having, or are capable of having, children. Therefore, the state does the least intrusive action by simply requiring, or at least encouraging, heterosexual unions to register via the mechanism of a civil marriage.

Should a state find it in the interests of society to register other types of relationships, certainly that is something that can be done. However, reserving the term "marriage" for unions that are, in principle, able to produce offspring without the assistance of a third party would recognize a patently obvious fact.

Society may recognize different relationships as equal under the law, and yet also recognize that such relationships may not be identical.

to comment

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