Comments about ‘Supporters of traditional marriage regroup after SCOTUS ruling’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 26 2013 11:15 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

People who claim to support "traditional marriage" should spend their time actually working to STRENGTHEN MARRIAGE.

Stop persecuting people who WANT to get married, and start working to get MORE people interested in creating stable marriage relationships. Fight unmarried cohabitation, fight divorce, spread the word about the benefits of marriage -- don't fight people who ALREADY want to share the benefits of married life.

Salt Lake City, UT

We once believed that men were 100% male and women were 100% female. Of course we now know that is not true. Both physically and chemically there is male and female in all of us. It should come as no surprise that sexual orientation has some variance as in bisexuality and homosexuality. In other words heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality are natural. Can we in good conscience deny the protections of marriage to the latter two. I think not.

Salt Lake City, UT

Push to get gov't out of marriage and have civil unions for everyone with equal rights. That's the only way to possibly avoid inevitably having same-sex marriage nationwide.

Let's face it, people like me will be less willing to compromise later when victory is imminent.

Wilf 55

Those statistics "on behavior stemming from a decline in traditional homes" have to do with divorce, fighting, abuse, neglect, an absent parent, etc. within such homes. What does that have to do with two loving people who want to marry because they are committed to each other?

Ogden, UT

I don't understand these people. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing homosexual secular marriages. It did nothing to diminish traditional secular or religious marriage. This will make up, what, 2% of all marriages? Unless this group is getting hung up on the fact that homosexuals will also get to use the word "marriage", in which case they need to grow up.

This has always been the case, traditional marriage "supporters" try feverishly to demonstrate the harm gay marriage will do to society and always come up short, but they still keep screaming about the decline of the family. Once someone tries to ban or reduce heterosexual marriage and heterosexual marriages aren't imploding at a rate of 50%, then maybe I will take you seriously.

Auckland NZ, 00

I believe it is misleading to call such groups "supporters of traditional marriage". It's not traditional marriage that is targeted by legislation or court decisions like yesterday's. They demand that one particular type of marriage be ensconced in law in such a way that other types of marriage and family are forbidden. If "traditionalists" were out demanding that they be allowed to practice marriage the way they want in the face of legal and economic barriers, I'd be a great supporter, just as I am of proponents of the freedom for gay men and women to practice marriage the way they think best. But this group's desires include preventing millions from enjoying marriage that is conceptualised in terms that don't conform to DOMA-type ideals. I want everyone to have the freedom and rights that these groups want to limit to themselves. They are forbidders of marriages that differ from their private definitions more than they are supporters of the right for men and women to marry in the patterns of a century ago. They want continued state intervention on behalf of their personal religious beliefs. Only in Newspeak are they "supporters of traditional marriage".

Tampa, FL

" 'America has paid a great price for weakening its marriage laws,' Barton said." - My question is, why does marriage need to be in our law to begin with? I'm fairly sure that there is no section or clause of the Constitution which says that our interpersonal relationships (sans the case of abuse, obviously) need to be watched over or levied taxes upon by the government. In order for marriage to not be defined by the ways of the world, it needs to be taken out of the world.

layton, UT

Just how do you "protect" traditional marriage by denying it to others ? Maybe take better care of your own marriage - that's the only marriage you have any business judging


The headline of this article alone shows its bias. The headline really ought to read, "Opponents of gay marriage regroup after SCOTUS ruling." The current headline implies that supporters of traditional marriage are mutually exclusive from supporters of gay marriage. All the gay marriage supporters I know (which are most of the people in my circle of friends) are heterosexuals who also support traditional marriage. I am a "supporter of traditional marriage" and a supporter of gay marriage. Happy marriages where the partners support each other emotionally, physically, and financially should all be supported, irrespective of the genders of the people involved.

Brian Utley
Freedom, IN

There is nothing "traditional" about traditional marriage laws, as you and the folks you are describing define them. Mormons, for instance, in a limited sense know this; yet they somewhat ingenuously stand by this relatively modern definition of marriage within their own society. For thousands of years, in hundreds of different cultures, marriage has been defined in dozens of different ways that have very little relationship to these "traditional" marriages these folks insist on. Sociologists know this; historians know this; genealogists know this---so why not speak the truth on the subject in trying to persuade opinion? (Because that's all it ever has been--opinion. Beyond the many ways that children can be conceived, marriage is about relationships. People coming together in peace in as many ways possible has always been a good thing, not a bad thing.)

Huntsville, UT

The thing that all these folks are forgetting (or are being dishonest about) is that "traditional" marriage isn't going to change just because an LGBT couple can also get married.

Salt Lake City, UT

If these folks were serious about genuinely supporting marriage, affirming the benefit to society from couples making mutual life commitments and wanting to build a life together, then they should have been celebrating yesterday, too.

It's the fact that they viewed yesterday's events as a cause for a "wake" and they brought in the wildly mendacious David Barton ("I'm not really an historian but for fee I'll pretend to be one for you"), that makes me think these folks actually don't care a whit about marriage, they really just want to share their enthusiasm for authoritarian, repressive theocracy.

South Jordan, UT

If you would stop using "strengthening traditional marriage" as a euphemism for "deny gay families legal rights and protections" you would have a lot more supporters of your cause. I am all for strengthening marriage. I am all for strengthening families and reducing deadbeat dads, single mothers who bring abusive boyfriends into the home with their children, etc.

Those are the "attacks" on marriage. Loving, committed, gay and lesbian people who want to legally protect their family are not the attack that is weakening marriage.

Burlington, WY

Just because five black robes don't find marriage "defensible" doesn't mean it isn't.

Just because the word "marriage" is redefined by some in society, doesn't mean it doesn't mean what it means! This duck still walks like a duck.

Of course, words change over time. Unfortunately, "marriage" is headed there. The pattern has been established with other words. We certainly don't think of gay, closet, rainbow or outing the same way we did in the past.

Hang onto the rights to "sealing" and "temple marriage" with all your might because the next attack in this long-term, well thought out agenda won't have so much to do with words, but with religion.


Marriage is instituted between a man and woman for the purposes of procreation in a correct and binding marriage. Homosexual practices defeat why we have male and female couples. I had posted a comment yesterday regarding the SCOTUS decision regarding homosexuals, benefits, and Prop 8 in California. However, someone chose to take offense to what I said and it was not posted.

Basically what I said is that no where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned or benefits for married couples. Congress made a law(s) for the benefit of heterosexual couples to ease their financial burden that they must undertake while they have children. Homosexual believe that they are entitled such benefits and it is unconstitutional.

It is perhaps unfair, but not unconstitutional. It would be nice if people including the high court judges would read the constitution before going off and having a knee jerk reaction.

Now, what the SCOTUS did yesterday in overruling a decision made by voters in California in regards to Prop 8 is unconstitutional. It did not go against any federal law, therefore the court was clearly out of line.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

People opposed to same-sex marriage cannot name one way in which it will affect their man-woman marriage. There is not one way that it has a negative affect.

Vero Beach, FL

Just to echo some sentiments, there is no sense in getting up in arms or wasting energy on this issue, in the end judgement will come from a higher power. In the meanwhile, liberals should not expect us to just "accept" without having opinions, or with heterosexuals taking umbrage with the "gay agenda". It is our freedom to disagree, just as it is your freedom to agree and foster the homosexual agenda.


One does not have to be a opponent of gay marriage to be a supporter of traditional marriage. Using the term 'Supporters of traditional marriage' when you mean 'Opponent of gay marriage' is a misnomer and smacks of George Orwell's Newspeak.

To believe that 'Supporter of Traditional Marriage' automatically means 'Opponent of Gay Marriage' is to believe that in supporting gay marriage you are against traditional marriage. This is patently false. No one is trying to take away anyone's rights to a traditional marriage. No one is saying that any church will be forced to marry gay couples, just as no one can force the Catholic Church to grant a divorce.

Look at movements in history that have predicated their own rights (whether racial, religious, National or gender-based) on the denial of those same rights to others. Invariably these movements are assigned a page in infamy in the backwaters of history.

Vero Beach, FL

Liberal thought police are only happy when we agree totally with the agenda they are fostering. There are folks, like myself, who take umbrage with normalizing this preference. That is the basis of freedom and free speech my liberal friends...in a nutshell...while you do not have to agree with those of us who oppose homosexuality...remember...we ALSO do not have to agree or "accept" you're agenda either.

conservative and proud
Orem, UT

We have our agency, but not the right to choose the consequences of our choices. A lot of people are going to be very unhappy when they stand before our Savior. Laugh now, you'll cry later.

to comment

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