Quantcast
Utah

Utah defends marriage law against challenge, saying it promotes better parenting

Comments

Return To Article
  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Oct. 25, 2013 5:34 a.m.

    @Badgerbadger 9:08 a.m. Oct. 23, 2013

    Yes! Please quit flaunting your sexuality to the world.

    ------------------

    My husband (of 44 years) and I are in the 65-70 age group, and are heterosexual.

    When we walk down the street holding hands, we are "flaunting" our sexuality.

    When we put a picture of ourselves as a couple on our desks at work, we are 'flaunting" our sexuality at work.

    There are many more examples of the way we "flaunt" our sexuality, but I don't have enough words in this response to set them all out.

    When we talk about what we and are children and our grandchild are going to do, we are "flaunting" our sexuality.

    When we discuss the fact that we have children, we are 'flaunting" the fact that we have had sex.

    There are many more examples of the way we "flaunt" our sexuality, but I don't have enough words in this response to set them all out.

    Gay people and couples should be able to "flaunt" their sexuality in the same ways my husband and I do, without criticism from anyone.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Oct. 25, 2013 5:26 a.m.

    @Kalindra 10:15 p.m. Oct. 23, 2013

    Those are all pertinent, appropriate and effective constitutional provisions for this discussion. There is one more that should be added to your list (dealing with the fact that each state must recognize marriages established in other states):

    Article IV - The States

    Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Oct. 24, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    @ Badgerbadger: So, it is not that you oppose same-sex marriage, per se, it is more that you oppose marriage in general. Of course, you think churches should be able to perform some kind of ceremony for godly recognition of unions with no limits or restrictions placed by government or society - but marriage in general not so much.

    You do realize that requiring wills and medical power of attorney and such - all those benefits the government automatically gives with the purchase and completion of a marriage license (available for around $45 for the license and a couple hundred for the Justice of the Peace) - would cost thousands of dollars, right?

    "I never discuss sex in public." Do you have children? If so, I can tell you the minimum number of times you have had sex and the months in which said activity occurred. I cannot say the same about the same-sex couple down the street. Their children are adopted and as far as I know, they may have never had sex.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Oct. 24, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    @Badgerbadger --

    "I think all death taxes should be eliminated and that everyone should be able to designate who or what gets their belongings when they die."

    There are roughly 1100 legal rights/benefits associated with marriage -- ranging from legal guardianship of children to estate taxes to health insurance. I seriously doubt that you'd really be willing to give up all of them.

    " I never discuss sex in public."

    If you ever say something like "I'm going to church with my wife tomorrow" or ever hold her hand while walking down the street, then you have indeed "discussed" your sexual orientation in public. In fact, I'd bet you've done it many times.

    Gay people should be able to do the same.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 23, 2013 10:15 p.m.

    @ gmlewis: Perhaps you should reread the Constitution.

    Article IV, Section 2: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

    Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Amendment XIV, Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."

    Prior to 1954, the Constitutionality of laws challenged under Equal Protection was based on a "reasonableness" standard. Even under that very weak assessment, which initially allowed segregation, there had to be a reason, beyond animus, for the law. Since 1954, additional levels of scrutiny have been added. State laws cannot violate the Federal Constitution and cannot be based on animus.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Oct. 23, 2013 3:28 p.m.

    @RedWings --

    "This has been supported by study after study. "

    No, it hasn't.

    "Study after study" has supported the fact that children do best in stable, two-parent homes.

    Studies have NEVER supported the claim that the genders or orientations of those parents make any difference.

    "commenters who so worship "science" are so quick to deny it when studies do not support their personal opinion..."

    Good scientists laugh at bad studies. Bad studies deserve to be laughed at and dismissed.

    "What happened to Rome and Greece is happening in Europe and the US.... "

    The falls of Rome and Greece had nothing to do with homosexuality or gay marriage. In fact, Rome didn't fall until a couple of hundred years AFTER gay marriage had been banned there.

    "I am saying that homosexual behavior is a choice."

    I am lefthanded. I could learn to write with my right hand -- but that wouldn't mean that lefthandedness is a choice.

    "Thousands have left homosexual behavior behind "

    Where?? Where are all these supposed ex-gays?

    Even the last president of Exodus International -- the premiere "conversion therapy" organization in the nation -- finally apologized publicly for all the harm his organization had done, remember?

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Oct. 23, 2013 3:21 p.m.

    I don't advocate for the state requiring permission to get married or divorced. I think the state should just plain butt out.

    I think all death taxes should be eliminated and that everyone should be able to designate who or what gets their belongings when they die. They earned it, the state has no right to it.

    Filing for taxes jointly and separately were equalized a couple of decades ago, so it is non-discriminatory. The claiming of dependents is also non-discriminatory.

    I think everyone should be able to designate who is their chosen "next of kin" to make life and death decisions for them. That person need not be kin at all, if a non-related person is the one designated.

    I talk fondly of any of my friends, including those of my same sex, with no repercussions so those in SS relationships can do the same. I never discuss sex in public. It is private. I would appreciate if everyone else would do likewise, both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

    Total fairness, respect, and freedom of religion, without government interference in marriage.

    Still got a problem with it?

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 23, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    gmlewis
    @Kalinda - The stipulations that the state law has to be based on reality with no animus are not in the U. S. Constitution.
    KJK
    The Supreme Court has ruled several times regarding "scrutiny" and groups "similarly situated". Look those terms up. States don't have free reign to do as they wish.

    Badgerbadger
    You will gain nothing by forcing that people endorse your sexual behavior. If you are okay with what you do, fine, and you shouldn't need endorsing.
    KJK
    "endorsing", through marriage, provides legal rights and protections and tax advantages. gays need those things as much as you and your spouse do. Would you be willing to divorce your spouse and live together as roommates? that is what you are asking gay couples to do.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Oct. 23, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    Children need a dad and a mom. This has been supported by study after study. I find it humorous that the same commenters who so worship "science" are so quick to deny it when studies do not support their personal opinion or political belief.

    Homosexuality will not destroy our society by itself. What does destroy societies is rampant selfishness and a denial of the values that make societies great. What happened to Rome and Greece is happening in Europe and the US today.

    And yes, I am saying that homosexual behavior is a choice. As one who has overcome same-sex attraction, and no longer feels attraction for the same sex, I can say that with the conviction of truth. Thousands and thousands have left homosexual behavior behind for a happy and fulfilling heterosexual life. This is the truth that the media and the left work so hard to hide.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Oct. 23, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    @Badgerbadger --

    "Please quit flaunting your sexuality to the world. "

    Every time some guy talks about his girlfriend or his wife, he is "flaunting" his heterosexuality. Every time some woman kisses her boyfriend or her husband in public, every time she holds his hand while they're walking down the street, she is "flaunting" her heterosexuality.

    Why shouldn't a gay man or woman have the right to do the same?

    "You will gain nothing by forcing that people endorse your sexual behavior."

    Nobody cares whether you "endorse" gay marriage or not -- just as nobody cares whether you endorse the consumption of alcohol or R-rated movies or, heck, cars made in Japan.

    What we DO care about is obeying the US Constitution, and especially giving equal rights to ALL US citizens. It doesn't matter whether you like or approve of those citizens -- they deserve the same rights, regardless.

    @gmlewis --

    "states can define marriage according to the will of the people within that state"

    Not if those states violate the US Constitution.

    Multiple SCOTUS courts have affirmed that marriage is a basic civil right and protected by the US Constitution. And the Constitution guarantees equal rights for ALL citizens.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Oct. 23, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    There are a couple of points that pro SSM people have made that anti SSM people can agree on.

    My life is none of your business.

    and

    You do not gain anything with Control Issues.

    How you ask?

    My life is none of your business.
    Yes! Please quit flaunting your sexuality to the world. We don't want to know what you are doing behind closed doors. I don't flaunt what I do in private. Just keep it to yourself and we will get along fine.

    You do not gain anything with Control Issues
    Yes again! You will gain nothing by forcing that people endorse your sexual behavior. If you are okay with what you do, fine, and you shouldn't need endorsing. I can do what I feel is right, and feel just fine about it, even when no one else gives me a thumbs up.

    Could this be the common ground on which we can get along?

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Oct. 23, 2013 6:50 a.m.

    @Kalinda - The stipulations that the state law has to be based on reality with no animus are not in the U. S. Constitution. They could be added by an amendment, but they do not presently reside in the document. Rights and powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are held by the States or individual citizens. Marriage is a legal contract under the laws of each state, and states can define marriage according to the will of the people within that state.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 22, 2013 10:16 p.m.

    @ patriot: Allowing same-sex marriage in no way impacts the relationship in which you choose to raise your children - it merely gives others the same opportunity to make that choice for themselves.

    @ gmlewis: States can define marriage however they like as long as that definition is not a violation of the US Constitution - meaning it is based on reality and not animus. States cannot pass laws that violate the Federal Constitution.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    patriot
    The bottom line is this... do states and the majority of people who live in those states have the right anymore to decide what sort of culture they want to raise their kids in?

    KJK
    That's exactly what the Whites in the South said 50 years ago regarding segregation and deed restrictions. They too wanted "states [to] have the right..to decide what sort of culture they want to raise their kids in."

    Is discrimination based on subjective morality/repulsion a legitimate basis to deny others equal rights? Really?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    The bottom line is this... do states and the majority of people who live in those states have the right anymore to decide what sort of culture they want to raise their kids in? Do the families along the Wasatch Front have the right to decide what kind of family unit they want for their kids to grow up in? The very heart of any culture is the family unit and the progressive left DON'T want parents to have ANY say as to make up of that family unit. The progressive left want the Federal Govt to FORCE states to comply with the godless immoral culture that is socialism. Make no mistake - there is a WAR going on in America and there is no room for compromise. I firmly believe it is the goal of the progressive left to eventually dissolve marriage as well as freedom of religion especially pertaining to Christianity. So parents and young people who will one day be parents - either stand and fight or watch your bill of rights get destroyed. Trying to reason with the progressive left is like striking a deal with the devil - the outcome will always be bad.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Oct. 22, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    I agree that the "full faith and credit" clause opens the Utah law to a challenge that it must accept same-sex marriages from other states where they are legal. However, the U. S. Constitution leaves all other marriage issues to the states, which can define marriage however they like.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 11:54 a.m.

    John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    The issue here is the purpose of marriage. The traditional purpose of marriage is to encourage parenting of children in an intact household. It is defined with that goal in mind. The state should be allowed to impose any definition that legitimately focuses on that goal.

    KJK
    As has been stated, if we link producing kids with marriage, then women over 50 will be banned from marrying as well as any person who has been neutered/sterilized or can't reproduce for any other reason. Fertile couples' marriage licenses could be revoked if they don't produce/adopt a child within 5 years of marriage. This would be in the state's interest.

    That sounds fair. Perhaps we could be compassionate by allowing infertile couples to adopt children as a condition of getting/remaining married. That would be in the state's interest too.

    The above would still not logically prevent same-sex marriage. It would simply require same-sex couples, like other sterile/infertile couples, to adopt kids.

    Where's the problem? The above objectively advances the interests of the state.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 22, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    @ Laura Ann: You mention that you were adopted by your step-dad after he married your mom. You were raised by heterosexual parents and still felt a need to find your biological father. Your argument, as stated, is against adoption in and of itself - nothing you have stated pertains specifically to adoption by same-sex couples or singles.

    The anecdotal evidence you present does not support your hypothesis - and it does nothing to support any argument against same-sedx marriage or adoption by same-sex couples or single parents. In fact, it can be construed as arguing that since there is no difference, there is no reason for a prohibition.

    @ John Pack: The "traditional" purpose of marriage was property transfer and inheritance. It had nothing to do with raising children.

    If marriage were about raising children, there would be no daycare centers, nannies, wet nurses, or boarding schools.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 22, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    @ gmlewis: You are partially right - marriage falls under state law. This allows states to pass laws allowing same-sex marriage. It does not, however, give states the right to pass laws that discriminate against some of their citizens.

    Utah is arguing that there is a reason for prohibiting same-sex marriage - that allowing it would create a harm. Their argument has been used before and has been found to be without merit. With no valid reason to prohibit same-sex marriage, any laws prohibiting it are discriminatory.

    There are many different things states can pass laws about - but those laws must be based on reason and cannot be discriminatory. Laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are not supported by reason and are therefore discriminatory and as such are unconstitutional.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Oct. 22, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    @John Pack --

    "The traditional purpose of marriage..."

    That is not the only "traditional" purpose of marriage -- but please remember that gay marriage encourages parenting of children in intact households just as much as any straight infertile marriage does.

    Marriage serves several purposes. It encourages stable social units, it pools financial resources, AND it encourages the raising of children in stable families.

    Gay couples can fulfill all of these functions just as easily as any other infertile couples can.

    Unless you are willing to ban all infertile marriages, you have no logical or legal legs to stand on when you argue against gay marriage on these grounds. This point was specifically brought up by the SCOTUS justices during the DOMA and Prop 8 hearings.

    "The state should be allowed to impose any definition that legitimately focuses on that goal."

    The state should NEVER be allowed to violate the US Constitution, no matter what its supposed goal is.

    The Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, and Full Faith and Credit Clause all lead to the inevitable conclusion that same-sex marriage will eventually be recognized nationwide.

    Get used to the idea.

  • Robert Johnson Sunland, CA
    Oct. 22, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    This is a ludicrous argument. Parenting has nothing to do with anatomy, having certain bodily organs does not make one a good parent. It has to do with loving, caring and using the right skills to mold a child into a productive and responsible adult.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Oct. 22, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    The issue here is the purpose of marriage. The traditional purpose of marriage is to encourage parenting of children in an intact household. It is defined with that goal in mind. The state should be allowed to impose any definition that legitimately focuses on that goal.

  • Lilly Munster netherlands, 00
    Oct. 22, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    Equality means 1. My life is none of your business. 2. You do not get to impose your biases on others. 3. We have a Constitution, which says "All." 4. You do not gain anything with Control Issues. 5. You are welcome to your "faith." You are NOT allowed to use it as a club.

  • Lilly Munster netherlands, 00
    Oct. 22, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    Utah will lose this legal argument. There is NO way to defend such bigotry and misinformation. Remember please, that these biased and baseless arguments were dragged into each and EVERY court case regarding Equality Marriage, adoption, or any facet of Civil Rights. Every argument against Equality was not only struck down, but deemed to have NO basis in Law, Science, or Statistics. LGBT people, in fact, in spite of the persecution they have suffered, are EXEMPLARY citizens. Do you see Gay Gang Bangers on the Streets of every town in California? Have you ever heard of LGBT people physically and verbally bashing children in schools? On Facebook? NO. Who is shooting up teachers, children, and people in shopping centers? The bullies are straight people, acting out their insecurities and fear.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Oct. 22, 2013 6:57 a.m.

    @the truth --

    "There is more than enough evidence and studies of societal decay and the decay of the traditional family that bears this out."

    Nonsense. Where is your supposed evidence that gay marriage leads to societal decay? Please produce it.

    @coleman51 --

    "traditional marriage can produce children which is also a desirable state interest. "Gay" marriage cannot do so and thus has no state interest involved."

    We allow infertile couples to marry all the time, even when we know they are infertile beforehand.

    Any marriage -- whether fertile OR infertile -- serves state interests by created stable social units and by pooling financial resources. Furthermore, gay couples can procreate in exactly the same ways as any other infertile couples, providing stable homes for children to grow up in.

    In contrast, nobody has been able to show that gay marriages cause any significant harm to anyone. Thus, the state has no interest in PREVENTING such marriages.

    "defining marriage that violates these basic laws of nature"

    Here we go with "nature" again.

    Many many species of natural animals out in nature practice homosexual behaviors.

    It's easy to find out in nature. Therefore it's natural.

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    Oct. 22, 2013 6:18 a.m.

    @The Truth:

    That's your opinion, but not everyone feels the way you do. Fathers who cheat on their wives, molest their own children, beat their wives mocks true marriage and family. Mothers who pop pills to cope mock true marriage and family. That is societal decay and the decay of the traditional family. And the truth is that a lot of this is hidden behind closed doors and is brushed under the carpet. Because on the outside, they are a good, traditional family. There are many same-sex families out there that are kind, loving, and loyal and upstanding citizens.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Oct. 22, 2013 6:16 a.m.

    @FatherOf4 - Loving v Virginia said that you can't put an interracial married couple in jail. That's true. However, if marriage doesn't fall under State laws, why do marriage certificates attest that the marriage was authorized by the laws of the State?

    If a state didn't have the authority to define marriage within its boundaries, then why isn't the ACLU suing states that legalized same sex marriage?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Oct. 21, 2013 11:22 p.m.

    The "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution will doom the Utah law.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Oct. 21, 2013 10:46 p.m.

    I for one am proud of my participation in the fight to help Prop 8 win in California, and I do not regret at all the time, effort, and money I put into it. If Utah needs help defending its right to defend marriage as between a man and a woman, I will be willing to contribute.

    Unlike California, Utah is not likely to find itself in a position of having a governor and attorney general who are unwilling to support the voice of the people in the matter.

    This is not a small or insignificant issue. This goes to the core of human existence.

  • coleman51 Orem, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 7:40 p.m.

    The so-called gay marriage debate is centering around the legality of gay marriage when I believe they entirely miss the mark. I don't believe that any legislative body can define marriage. Marriage is defined by biological factors as well as gender identity factors neither of which is under state control. What I mean is that traditional marriage can produce children which is also a desirable state interest. "Gay" marriage cannot do so and thus has no state interest involved. Traditional marriage can provide appropriate gender identity which is also a desirable state interest. "Gay" marriage does not do this either and again provides no desirable state interest. We, as a people are only fooling ourselves into believing the law made by men should define what constitutes a marriage when in fact marriage is defined by who we are, our very existence as a species, and our identity as male and female. To grant rights to a group of people by defining marriage that violates these basic laws of nature is the height of presumptuousness on our part and beyond foolish.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 7:28 p.m.

    Homosexual marriage mocks true marriage and family.

    It undermines the importance or both a mother and a father.

    That is disastrous to society and its foundation.

    There is more than enough evidence and studies of societal decay and the decay of the traditional family that bears this out.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 6:27 p.m.

    Utah Attorney General's Office (quoted in article): "It will necessarily impact whether Utah or any other state can maintain the principle that children should be reared by a married mother and father whenever possible ... the traditional definition of marriage rationally promotes legitimate state interests in promoting responsible procreation, and in promoting the optimal mode of child rearing, among others."

    Substitute "married parents" for "married mother and father" and you have an inclusive statement that is still accurate. The number of parents matters more than their gender when it comes to promoting positive outcomes. A large portion of gay households have children. Ironically, the state's position guarantees that the children in those families will not have the many documented benefits that accrue to children with married parents. How is that promoting optimal child rearing?

    Furthermore, the state's attorneys must know that Utah law makes the inability to bear children an mandatory precondition for certain marriages. That's hardly a way to foster procreation.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    Children are not a requirement for marriage. Children should not be a reason to prevent marriage.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    @Lane Myer
    "It is ONLY with gay marriages that Utah will not accept the out of state marriages as valid."

    That's the exact situation that was brought up in Ohio's court case.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 4:35 p.m.

    gmlewis

    Houston, TX

    Marriage falls under state law. If some states have the right to legalize same sex marriage, other states have the right to not legalize same sex marriage

    ----------------

    Very true. But the problem arises with Utah not accepting legal marriages from other states.

    For instance, if first cousins marry in a state that allows that and moves to Utah where we do not allow certain first cousins to marry, they are allowed to remain married and Utah recognizes this couple as married. It is ONLY with gay marriages that Utah will not accept the out of state marriages as valid. I think they are going to have a problem defending this practice. It looks like, smells like and probably is discrimination of just gays who are legally married.

    Utah may never perform a gay marriage, but they should allow those married in other states to remain married, especially since the federal government now recognizes that as a legal marriage too.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Oct. 21, 2013 4:11 p.m.

    "Gay couple Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity and lesbian couple Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge filed the lawsuit in March after Salt Lake County denied them marriage licenses. Karen Archer and Kate Call, who were legally married in Iowa, joined the suit because Utah does not recognize their marriage as valid."

    I'd love to give huge pats on the back to these brave couples.

    Keep fighting the good fight, folks!

    The US Constitution -- gotta love it. The Equal Protection clause, the Due Process clause, and of course the Full Faith and Credit clause. They will prevail eventually, even if it takes a few years to get there nationwide.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Oct. 21, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    Conservative in Cedar City,

    You are not alone! There are very many active LDS, like you, who do not buy the absurd, false premise that the prohibition of gay marriage helps anyone. As we know, no child is better off because of Utah's position. It does nothing but harm.

    The problem with your fellow LDS conservatives is that they can't figure out how to reconcile the difference between what they understand rationally, and the State's position on this. But let's bear in mind that the State of Utah is not the LDS Church, and the Church is far more progressive on this issue than is the Utah legislature (which wants to speak for the Church all the time). The Church supported progressive anti-discrimination legislation in Salt Lake City - much to the dismay of many a state legislator, I'm sure.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Oct. 21, 2013 3:44 p.m.

    @Laura Ann
    Layton, UT
    I don't believe that it is a good idea for singles or gay couples to adopt. Why do teenagers and grown up people go looking for their birth parents?

    I am sorry you had that -- but the failure of your straight mom and dad to do what you wanted has no bearing whatever on this question.

    Millions of kids languish un-adopted, all over the World. The Christian thing to do is to find them parents, whenever possible. You would have them wither in orphanages rather than thrive in loving homes, because you transfer your own experience in an incorrect way.

    Moreover, Utah is not an actual theocracy (although many say it is, in effect) -- people who do not believe in churches, or who belong to a non-lds religion, are equal citizens under the Constitution, and must have equal rights, no matter who approves or disapproves.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 3:38 p.m.

    gmlewis,

    Marriage does not fall under state law. Loving v Virginia established that.

  • Conservative Cedar City, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    A few facts about America: Most children are now born to single women. Most heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Same-sex marriage is widely considered acceptable. Same-sex marriage is rapidly becoming legal.

    I am an LDS heterosexual married person with 4 grown children. Admittedly, I have had very little contact with homosexuals, probably like most of you.

    I believe homosexual traits are genetic, and not wrong. I support same-sex marriage, just like heterosexual marriage.

    In my opinion, same-sex marriage between committed spouses is preferrable for raising children than the single-parent stuation.

    I'll be surprised if DN publishes this!

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 3:23 p.m.

    And to think that if we had obeyed scripture and not gotten into the prop.8 fight, none of this would have happened. Our involvement in prop. 8 has accelerated the acceptance of same-sex marriage. ironic ain't it?

  • Fender Bender Saint George, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 3:14 p.m.

    "Traditional marriage encourages responsible child bearing and the best parenting, according to state attorneys defending Utah's definition of marriage."

    I'd like to see the data the state attorneys are using to support this position.

    Given that children raised by white parents are nearly 30% more likely to graduate from high school compared to children raised by black parents, I wonder whether the state attorneys will also consider legally prohibiting marriages that aren't between two white people.

    It seems that would simply be an extension of the same logic they are currently using to "defend" the institution of marriage and "protect" children.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Oct. 21, 2013 3:08 p.m.

    Marriage falls under state law. If some states have the right to legalize same sex marriage, other states have the right to not legalize same sex marriage.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 2:52 p.m.

    This is a frivolous waste of time and state resources.

  • Laura Ann Layton, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 2:46 p.m.

    I don't believe that it is a good idea for singles or gay couples to adopt. Why do teenagers and grown up people go looking for their birth parents? I believe that it is natural because we can feel like a piece of us is missing. How can I say this? Because I am one of those children. My mother remarried and I was adopted by my stepfather whom I love so much, but I still wanted to know what happened to my birth father. He finally made contact with me just before I got married. He still calls me a few times a year and I went to see him a few years back. It was very hard, but it helped me a lot. He told me that he loved me and I was no longer felt abandoned. We don't know what repercussions might appear later on in life when we deny a child a mother and a father in the state of legal marriage, even if they later divorce.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    What a spurious argument. Marriage and parenting are two completely different things. Straight people do not have to have children to get married and Gay people have children through adoption or other means. If this state really believed in family values then they repeal amendment 3. The children of gay parents deserve the same protections as those of straight parents.

    Gay marriage will come to Utah. The only question is how much of our hard earned tax money will be wasted trying to uphold this unconstitutional amendment. I for one would prefer those funds be used for education.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    How can I, as a single person, be deemed to a be completely competent, acceptable parent in the eyes of the state of Utah--and be given the opportunity to legally adopt--but if I am in a loving, committed, stable relationship with someone of the same sex I'm somehow automatically an unfit parent?

    You're grasping at straws Utah.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Oct. 21, 2013 1:39 p.m.

    Aren't these the same arguments used to justify Utah's miscegenation laws of a generation ago? They didn't work then and they won't work now.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 1:32 p.m.

    Of course it does, as we've seen numerous studies show.

    Should we be surprised that when we go against what nature determined was the best scenario that we obtain less than desirable results?

    Nope

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 1:13 p.m.

    Then why does Utah allow single people to adopt? Do they really believe we should be applying statistical averages in this way or do they just find two men or women together gross?