Comments about ‘In our opinion: Faulty gay marriage reasoning’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Oct. 1 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

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

1) Rights are not supposed to be voted on. That's why they are called rights.

2) The voters in California, Connecticut and Iowa that did vote against the rights of the minority are now supporters of gay marriage. Connecticut is one of the most liberal states and support is above 60% now. Same for California as the latest polls suggest.

3) The definitions for marriage has changed. Multiple dictionaries based in England have changed the definition of marriage to keep up with the times, just like they change the definitions to many words over time.

4) Nobody is being "forced" to do anything. The American people are realizing and coming to terms with the truth that there is nothing wrong or bad about gay marriage and therefore opinions are shifting. Over 10 foreign countries have had gay marriage for over 4 years, the Netherlands for 12 and they're reporting a drop in divorce. States here at home report the same.

5) Every man deserves the chance to be a father and husband. Every woman a mother and wife. Your cruel opinion will not change that.

6) Love will always prevail and hate always fails. Disney taught us that, c'mon now.

Eldersburg, MD

This article provides a firm statement to support the notion that gay rights is not civil rights or an equality fight, but a matter of personal choice that should not be imposed upon government organizations, private businesses, and religious institutions as the same type of discrimination as racial, gender, etc.

But, that is exactly what has happened in this country and many others around the world. Suddenly being gay is being equated as a right of birth and so many are rushing to protect as an unalienable human freedom that cannot be refuted. But, where is the Science that emphatically proves people are born gay with no choice in the matter?

Certainly someone could have same sex attraction for a variety of reasons, but does that justify the act of homosexuality and its accompanying lifestyle as a civil rights issue? Too many people act without thinking because they believe the lies that come from many sources. Their hearts are in the right place but they know now what they really support.

Ogden, UT

"Instead, marriage is society’s institution for the creation and nurturing of children."

Under that standard, my husband and I have no right to be married (we have been married 44 years, and are well past the time when we are able to have children). Even if our marriage is still recognized, I would be ineligible to re-marry if my husband died since I am now unable to procreate. Men and women, even of childbearing age who are infertile would be ineligible to marry. That is wrong.

The DesNews got it wrong in this editorial.

mid-state, TN

One word: baloney.

"...an effort to force every state...into accepting the view that it is right and proper for a man to marry a man..."


Nobody expects Mormons to accept that it is either right or proper to drink alcohol -- yet alcohol is legal in all 50 states.

Similarly, nobody is forcing ANYONE to accept that it is either right or proper for someone to marry another person of the same sex. But these folks have a RIGHT to do so, whether or not you believe it's the proper thing for them to do.

"By what reasoning?"

Very simple: equal protection under the law, as provided by our US Constitution.

" A same-sex marriage solemnized in Maryland, for example, will not be recognized under Virginia law."

States will not be allowed to continue ignoring the Full Faith and Credit clause of our US Constitution indefinitely.

" in only four of those states...have the voters themselves assented to the redefinition of marriage. "

Our US and state constitutions protect people against the tyranny of the majority. Those constitutions are doing their job.

"Judge Jacobson’s faulty reasoning is not likely to stand."

Ya wanna make a bet on that?

South Jordan, UT

"The definition of marriage is not a matter of rights or equality for adults. Instead, marriage is society’s institution for the creation and nurturing of children."

haha wow. Talk about faulty reasoning.

Furthermore, your editorial conveniently fails to mention that the decision said that not-performing same-sex marriages is a violation of the New Jersey STATE constitution:

"This unequal treatment requires that New Jersey extend civil marriage to same-sex couples to satisfy equal protection guarantees of the New Jersey Constitution as interpreted by the New Jersey Supreme Court...Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution."

Here, UT

"We, the thirteen members of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission,
unanimously issue this final report, containing a set of recommendations to the
Governor and the Legislature of the State of New Jersey. After eighteen public
meetings, 26 hours of oral testimony and hundreds of pages of written
submission from more than 150 witnesses, this Commission finds that the
separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages
unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children.

This is the same message that racial segregation laws wrongfully sent. Separate
treatment was wrong then and it is just as wrong now.

The Commission is compelled to issue its final report now because of the
overwhelming evidence that civil unions will not be recognized by the general
public as the equivalent of marriage in New Jersey with the passage of time."

New Jersey Commision's report on Civil Unions

Salt Lake City, UT

Editors, you're flogging a dead horse. There is simply no rational, evidence-based , legally defensible reason to make the argument that same-sex couples should be denied the same rights you take for granted.

Here, UT


"Since the Commission issued its February 2008 report, a similar commission in
Vermont has issued a report detailing how the Vermont civil union law – in
effect since July 1, 2000 – still does not provide the legal, medical and economic
equality of marriage. Nearly a decade later, civil union couples in Vermont
report the same obstacles to equality that New Jersey civil union couples face

The Commission has also heard additional evidence that a marriage law in New
Jersey would make a significant difference in providing equality and dignity to
same-sex couples and their children.

Equally important is psychological harm that same-sex couples and their children
endure because they are branded with an inferior label.

Based on research and my years of working with gay people who have
experienced stigma or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, ...second-class citizenship, now institutionalized in some states in the form of civil unions, contributes to increased rates of anxiety, depression and substance-use disorders in marginalized populations.3"

New Jersey Commision's report on Civil Unions

It would appear that the "faulty reasoning" is with the DN Editors

Here, UT


It's time to grow up and learn that you're not the center of the universe any more. If the government grants you benefits for your relationship, it should grant other citizens the same benefits for their relationships.

Trenton, NJ

Two rather blatant bits of misinformation in the article. First, last year the NJ State Legislature DID vote, by significant majorities in both houses, to recognize same-gender marriage; only a veto by Gov. Christie has prevented it from going into effect. Second, Judge Jacobson's decision was NOT predicated on the notion that Windsor requires states to change their marriage laws. It was based on the simple fact that the NJ Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2006 that NJ law had to provide for equal treatment of same-gender couples under the law ... something that the state-instituted Civil Union Review Commission found could not be achieved by civil unions, a reality that has become transparently obvious following Windsor. If states choose not to provide for equal treatment under the law, they don't have to at this point (though I hope that will change) ... but for those who feel constitutionally compelled to ensure equal treatment for same-gender couples, same-gender civil marriage is the only option states have.

The Skeptical Chymist

The Deseret News claims that there is an ongoing effort to force every state and every individual in every state to accept that it is right and proper to have same sex marriages. This is incorrect.

No one could ever hope to effect such a change in attitudes. The ongoing effort is to force the states to recognize that it is wrong and discriminatory to forbid same-sex couples from obtaining the comfort of a legally sanctioned marriage. The majority of the population in one state or all the states may continue to feel that same-sex marriages are wrong, against God's law, or whatever. Those in favor of same-sex marriage don't really care what other people think of them. They just want the right to marry. They are not attempting to force every individual to accept that it is right and proper to allow men to marry men or women to marry women. They simply want the right to marry the person they love.

mid-state, TN

@EternalPerspective --

"But, where is the Science that emphatically proves people are born gay with no choice in the matter? "

1. Where is the science that emphatically proves people are born straight?

2. Where is the science that emphatically proves people are born Mormon?

Do you have to be "born" Mormon in order to deserve equal treatment? Is it okay to discriminate against Mormon converts, who obviously chose their religion?

Did you "choose" to be straight?

"does that justify the act of homosexuality"

Nobody needs to "justify" the act of homosexuality. Homosexual acts don't harm anyone. Therefore, they are none of your business.

"Too many people act without thinking because they believe the lies that come from many sources."

What lies? Please name them.

And please be specific.


If you have to misconstrue the truth to make your point, perhaps there is a problem with the point you are trying to make?

Marriage is not required for the bearing of children, nor is bearing children required for marriage.

Many couples who cannot have children through "natural" means are able to have children through assistive technologies. Many individuals or couples adopt children. Many couples with children divorce and remarry bringing children from one relationship into another.

If marriage is so important to children, than children should not be disadvantaged based on the gender of their parents.

The arguments put forth in this editorial have been examined numerous times and have been found to be wanting. The desire to pick a random reason to disadvantage one group over all other groups while not extending that random reason and disadvantage to other groups is called animus. You cannot disadvantage a group because you do not like them.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

The LDS church takes the correct approach in separating the sin from the sinner. We can and should love everyone. But we should always disapprove and not support sin. No one is forced to commit sin or immoral acts. That is always a choice.

It is not discrimination to not allow gays to marry just as it isn't discrimination to not allow two brothers to marry.

Salt Lake City, UT

Courts have the power to overturn unconstitutional provisions, even if a majority of New Jerseyians opposed same-sex marriage (which is hardly clear).

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

People who believe in the philosophies of man will claim that homosexual sex is a right and that those who believe otherwise should be censored by the government until those who don't accept homosexual sex are "converted". Photographers are being forced to accept samesex sex. They are being sued if they refuse to photograph a "marriage" between two people who believe and practice samesex sex.

Read "The Family: A Proclaimation to the World" and pay strict attention to the 2nd paragraph, which tells us that gender is not something that we choose, but that we are men and women because that is a characteristic of our spirit.

It is not surprising that those who reject Deity have no qualms about rejecting God's definition of marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman.

It is not surprising that judges, who bow to political pressure, or who are themselves involved in samesex sex, would legislate from the bench and try to change society.

Government cannot give out rights. God have given us unalienable rights, none of which allows anyone to change his or her sexual identity because of any kind of "attraction".


Can we not find another dead horse to beat for awhile? Please?

American Fork, UT

Sorry. Gay marriage is fine. Instead of seeking every possible way to derail it, let's get it together and move ahead. We've got important stuff to deal with.

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

I agree with the Deseret News editorial board. The respect that the law provides marriage is because it is procreative -- something that other unions lack. It is society's way to send a message that men should be responsible for their procreative actions. As such, it is a liberal value.

Anyone, straight or gay can marry anyone else provided they are of the opposite gender. If we give marriage benefits to two people in one kind of Non-procreative union simply because they self-identify as being homosexual, then it is discrimination to not give other non-procreative unions (brother-brother, brother-sister, two straight roommates, two best friends from high school, someone and his duck). Their unions should get the same standing under the law or else then they are second class citizens.

Brigham City, UT

An excerpt from the decision:

"The Lewis Court held that the New Jersey Constitution required the State to either grant same-sex couples the right to marry or to create a parallel statutory structure that allows those couples to obtain ALL the same rights and benefits that are available to opposite-sex married couples. The New Jersey Legislature chose the latter option when it adopted the Civil Union Act. Since the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor [...] invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act, several federal agencies have acted to extend marital benefits to same-sex married couples. However, the majority of those agencies have not extended eligibility for those benefits to civil union couples. As a result, New Jersey same-sex couples in civil unions are no longer entitled to all of the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex married couples.... This unequal treatment requires that New Jersey extend civil marriages to same-sex couples to satisfy the equal protection guarantees of the New Jersey Constitution ... Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution."

to comment

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