Comments about ‘Susan Roylance: UFI says same-sex marriage is not inevitable’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Aug. 29 2013 11:45 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT

If the interest is in promoting family life then stop trying to tear down families.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

"We know our movement is doomed, but we really can't bring ourselves to say so."

Huntsville, UT

May I introduce the Sutherland Institute and UFI to the US Constitution; specifically the Equal Protection clause?

It seems they've never read the document.

American Fork, UT

It's not inevitable, but it is a good idea, so let's get on with it.

George F
Salt Lake , UT

To RanchHand: To the best of my knowledge, the US Supreme Court has never upheld same-sex marriage under the Equal Protection Clause.

spring street

From the article, "'The other possibility is that courageous judges, acting on the large body of evidence favoring the concept of marriage as the union of a husband and wife....'"

Except for the fact that no such body of evidence - large or otherwise - exists.

If you have to distort the truth to prove your point, perhaps there is a fundamental flaw in the point you are trying to prove.

All any study has proven is that stability is good for children and that involved parents are better for children.

There is no study that shows that the gender of the parents matters.

(Before you cite the Regnerus Study, keep in mind that the problems he found were in unstable households (divorced parents who had never remarried) and very few of the participants in his study actually lived in a home where there were two same-sex parents - occasionally, the parent that had a same-sex relationship was the non-custodial parent so the child never lived with them at all. Regnerus himself has stated that his study should not be used to determine the validity of same-sex marriage or parenting.)

Salt Lake City, UT

@spring street
And even if it did, one could just use similar averages in studies to justify taking children away from poor or minority households which I would hope nobody is advocating...

mid-state, TN

"to retain a policy that recognizes that children are entitled to be raised by a married mother and father." -- Duncan.

"If I am able to convey a message that softens even one heart towards the benefits and blessings of family life, then I have helped make one home happier" -- Soelberg


When will these people learn?

Gay marriages do NOT steal children from happy stable heterosexual homes. The children being raised by gay couples do not have any happy stable heterosexual homes to go to.

Gay couples are already raising children, with or without marriage. Gay marriage will not change that.

Gay marriage builds families. Anyone who cares about happy stable families should SUPPORT gay marriage.

I am continually flummoxed by the willful blindness of people like these.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

Two observations:

1 - If the anti-equality folks now base their hope on "courageous judges" (read "activist") who "act on the large body of evidence" for denying SSM then, I'm sorry to report, but SSM is inevitable. If that truly is the best argument from opponents of equality, it is only a matter of time, even in Orem.

2 - Until opponents of equality can unequivocally point to specific evidence indicating that SSM has a net negative affect on families then they cannot call themselves defenders of the family. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Indeed, as noted by Justice Kennedy in the Prop 8 case, there are roughly 40,000 children in CA whose parents were denied full citizenship and legal protections under the then-effective ban on SSM. So, if we're actually keeping score, that would be 40,000 specific instances of the UFI et al being anti-family just in one state Multiply that across the nation and there is only basis to label these people anti-family; their overt goal is to deny certain families the right to exist, there is no other way to describe them.

Salt Lake City, UT

When he makes one family happier! Do any of you know the kind of pain you inflict on a gay person beginning with their childhood? I remember my Dad holding my hand. I was a child and I can't remember exactly what sparked the thought, but i knew I was different! For years I have longed for spiritual talks with members of the Church, but because of their belief in who I am, they turn away or they tune me out! When we try and tell people that we are not what they say we are, we are accused of attacking the Church or person we disagree with. We are not animals. We are aware of ourselves and God! Family! Would one of you please tell me when I haven't been a part of a family! I will tell you when! It is when you don't want us there! We have always been a part of the family. So many years of pain that never had to be but because others have to know more, they inflict the pain. Thank God I wasn't born into some of these families! My parents love their gay children!

Huntsville, UT

@George F;

Article 4 -
Section 2 -

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

Amendment 14 -

"... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Could you please indicate where it says: "unless the citizen is a homosexual"? I'm having difficulty finding that clause.

the truth
Holladay, UT


All the amendment talks about is equal protection, meaning a law created must apply to all or it is protection to all.

Which law is not being applied to you? Please state the specific law.

More importantly, why do you want the government involved in your marriage, and by extension your bedroom?

Would not be better to get the government out of the marriage business altogether? What business is it of theirs is it the first place?

Get them out and you and/or your church can do what ever they please, now that is true freedom unlike more government involvement and entanglement.

If a law is created the gives benefit to married people over single people and vice versa, then that law should be ruled unconstitutional.

Salt Lake City, UT

I'm a BIG fan of diversity and recognize the benefits of having the diverse parentage of both a father (male) and mother (female) perspective in a child's life.

That is the optimal environment for nourishing people both spiritually and socially, but, sadly, not the one in which many children are raised.

Despite the fact that we'll probably never achieve the ideal of having every child raised by loving mothers and fathers, like many other ideals, it's something we should always strive for.


While not every couple has children, every child has a Mom and a Dad. Same-sex marriage automatically “divorces” children from one of their natural parents.

In addition, same-sex marriage has only been legal in the entire world since 2001, and in the U.S. since 2004. In social science terms, that’s pretty new. So new that there hasn’t been enough time to show how it affects children in the long run. On the other hand, decades of research show that children do best with a married Father and Mother in the home.

spring street

@ Kei: Not every child has a mother and a father - some children have donors. Nadya Suleman's kids for example.

What you present is a false dichotomy - no child being raised by same-sex parents is in a situation where it is same-sex parents or heterosexual parents.

The question is married parents or unmarried parents. Even without same-sex marriage, children are being raised by same-sex parents. Why deny those children the stability of married parents?


Children need emotionally, physically, and economically stable homes. They need a nurturing environment and consistency.

Same sex marriage has been legal in MA for nearly 10 yrs now. How are things going?

Huntsville, UT

@the truth;

There are over 1100 legal benefits associated with legal marriage. Those "protections" are the ones referenced. If the law provides benefits to opposite-sex couples it MUST provide the same benefits to same-sex couples. That is "equal protection" (and you know that very well).

Does getting a marriage license allow the government into your bedroom? If not, why would it allow them into ours? Your reasoning is faulty in that regard.

I'd prefer the government regulate marriage rather than religion. There are just too many differences amongst relgious groups to manage the issue properly.


"The perfect is the enemy of the good".


Same-sex marriages have been around for millenia. Please review some real history (Native American, Chinese, Italian, Greek, among others). Provide references for your "decades of research"; most honest research indicates that you are wrong.

George F
Salt Lake , UT

To Ranch Hand : Sorry, your narrow interpretation of the US Constitution doesn't work for me. Please show me where the US Supreme Court has upheld same-sex marriages under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

I keep running into news articles or encountering people who grew up without either their mother or father and they were angry that they had didn't have that parent. Most recently, I read about someone who went up the Orinooco river to an indian tribe living in the jungle to find his mother who was from that tribe. If, we as a society, stop saying children have the right to a mother and a father, we have to be prepared for the fallout.

We can legally redefine marriage and then pretend that two men or two women who marry are the same as a husband and a wife. That is a delusion.

If it doesn't walk like a duck and if it doesn't quack like a duck, then it isn't a duck.

Bountiful, UT

Would somebody please explain to me how allowing homosexuals to marry would in anyway be a threat to my hetro sexual marriage.

to comment

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