Comments about ‘Linda & Richard Eyre: Ironies of the marriage debate’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 14 2014 4:15 p.m. MST

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

Another classic case of failing to call evil, evil. And good, good. Those who look to find common ground with societal trends that run afoul of their religion are probably trying to sell something to the masses. Like books. Abinidi, Paul and others probably would not have been best sellers and able to keep their image alive, but they knew what was right and what was wrong

Good job Eyes. As always, you are artful at staying in the middle ground.

South Jordan, Utah

As to the first point, Utah became the target and focal point for gay marriage when it foolishly adopted Amendment 3. Amendment 3 did not protect heterosexual marriage, it invited a legal challenge to it. Similarly, some legislators want to repeat the mistake. Right now there is no issue regarding whether religions have to perform same sex marriages. They don't. But if Utah amends its constitution to say so, look for a legal challenge probably arguing that such an amendment violates the separation of church and state clause in the first amendment.

Salt Lake City, UT

Eyres: "The lesson is that those who want to keep marriage between one man and one woman ought to work at least as hard at honoring, promoting and celebrating heterosexual marriage as they do fighting same-sex marriage."

How many states have recently passed constitutional amendments or significant legislation prohibiting or significantly restricting divorce? How many voter initiatives have there been, how many dollars have been spent, to prevent single parenthood? Now answer the same questions about banning gay marriage.

If the goal of family policy is to help children have their entitled two parents, then, as the lolcats would say, "U R not doing it right." Heteros make up about 95% of the population and half of hetero marriages fail, leaving children with a single parent. Then there are all the children born to unmarried straight mothers who also have a single parent. OTOH, gays only make up about 5% of the population and most do not have children (about 20-35% do). From a return on investment standpoint, the numbers do not support doing much to fight gay marriage, if protecting children is truly the goal. Besides, banning gay marriage keeps the children of gay couples from getting their entitlement.

Huntsville, UT

I have to ask the Eyres if their first reason for getting married was "the children" or if it was for love of one another?

Salt Lake City, UT

The state made the "Gold Standard" family of married Dad+Mom+Kids the centerpiece of its defense in the Kitchen case. That's the optimal policy mechanism maximize positive outcomes in children’s lives, it argued. But look at what Utah has done, rather than what it says. It has allocated vast public and private resources towards banning SSM while committing comparatively few resources towards promoting the "Gold Standard" it professes to desire. Opposing gay marriage hurts the children of gay couples by denying them the benefits of having married parents and diverts finite resources from strengthening straight marriages, so those kids don’t get the married parent benefits, either. Children lose all around. A rational person looking at that could conclude that "Gold Standard" equals "Lip Service" and seek another motive behind the state’s offensive against SSM. It’s not a big leap to conclude animus towards gays is a factor. And from animus it’s a short leap to equal protection.

So-- the state's campaign against SSM not only hurts the children it professes to love, it also provides fodder to buttress the legal challenges of its opponents. That's irony for you.

The Scientist
Provo, UT


That's not irony. That is the blinders of religious hypocrisy!


Speaking of ironies, did you know that the LDS church, which is a major champion of religious freedom, has actively fought to deny other faiths the ability to have their marriage ceremonies recognized by civil authorities? Many faiths support and sustain marriages between same-sex couples. But the LDS church has fought against these religious institutions. O, the irony!

Here, UT


Don't forget the state's dismal performance in health outcomes for the children of poor heterosexuals; and their dismal funding of education for these same children.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

I Goggled how many people are gay and how many of those people stay together. I learned that it's nothing to be concerned about.So I figure it's about the 15 minuets of fame. Than I thought about the movie called 15 Minuets, The Russian Guy said; I love America, no none is responsible for any thing. Than I thought of a Post that someone wrote. A family is having Responsibility's. How true that is. every one has to have responsibility's to feel like they belong to the family. I see family's and family Reunions end because of the lack of.

Dietrich, ID

@dalefer so the voters in Utah and 30+ other states were foolish for voting to keep marriage between a man and a women like it always has been? And I think the divorce rate is far less than 50 percent if you look at it carefully. I am sure most students as they enter college leave home still living with there Mother and Father. In the case of same gender marriage you are not living with one of your biological parents. So it is not 50% divorce and most of the people have always believed marriage is between a man and a women. Hopefully so called same gender marriage will topple under it's own weight. Evil cannot last too long in the promised land.


"Almost like fighting wars overseas to keep the conflicts from coming to our shores, some felt that if they fought same-sex marriage hard enough in other states, they would never have to face the issue in their own state"

This doesn't make any sense. Maybe if those people had never taken high school civics?

Bluffdale, UT

Lagomorph says "How many states have recently passed constitutional amendments or significant legislation prohibiting or significantly restricting divorce?"

Anti-divorce laws are anti-marriage. In fact, I believe, no-fault divorce in California has done more to damage families than same-sex marriage. Until recently, second-marriages (including LDS) were not recognized by Argentina and were not given any protection by the courts.

A marriage license is a contract backed by the U.S. judicial system. A commitment to pool your resources together for a lifetime plan together. If one partner breaks the contract through abuse, theft, or infidelity, you should have the right to sue for divorce.

Co-habitation commitments (heterosexual, same-sex, or polygamous) do not have the same recourse for the victims of abuse.

John C. C.
Payson, UT

We would never be debating gay marriage if we hadn't first strayed decades ago. Men had begun living a double standard, winking at indiscretions rather than honoring their wives. We foolishly devalued family stability by allowing no-fault divorce. Youth in the '60's made the mistake of confusing lust with love, shouting, "make love, not war." Many claimed, "you can't legislate morality," "victimless crimes," "consenting adults," and "government has no business knowing what goes on in the privacy of my own home." We celebrated selfishness. Public media began to scorn religion as outdated. Irrational fear of population growth justified a host of selfish policy changes from birth control (excluding abstinence) to abortion. Motherhood, a cherished American institution was demeaned in favor of career fulfillment.

We now have few youth who have ever grown up in stable homes, raised by faithful, lifelong birth parents. Even if you don't accept old standards of chastity and virtue as divine commandments the costs of abandoning them are now clear. Promiscuity is socially acceptable, porn floods the media, and prohibitions still enshrined in our Utah Constitution against adultery, fornication and sodomy are practically unenforceable.


Foolishly? Kind of like the United Kingdom "foolishly" stood against Germany in the 1930s and 40s? Sometimes one must "foolishly" fight against something that is wrong. In so doing, one may loose many battles. But in the final analysis, standing for what is right carries with it inherent rewards that are worth the cost. The same-sex marriage issue is a conflict of ideas rather than a military war, but the analogy is apt. Both sides in most conflicts feel that they are right, or justified. That situation does nothing to reveal which side stands on the moral high ground.
Societies are all about balancing the good of the whole against the disparate desires of individuals. Since societies inherently involve interpersonal interactions, the ideal of "live and let live" is constrained. The recent situation in Charleston, WV dramatically illustrates this. To try and pretend otherwise is truly "foolish."


One simply needs to look at the US history of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s to see that the LDS Church (among others) expended a great deal of money and effort defending heterosexual families and children. The same forces of “sexual freedom” that are still at work today were at work then too. The battlefront has simply moved. You have eloquently described some of the fruits of “sexual freedom” trumping society's need for the greater good of the whole. It is ironic that you don’t seem to see this.


I suspect that the loving one another in the way they do and wanting to have children are inseparable from the Eyre’s perspective. From my perspective, your attempt to separate them makes no sense. From my perspective, having sexual relations with someone outside the context of establishing a “traditional” family isn’t love. It is simply self-gratification. There are many ways to express love besides sex. While it is true that not all heterosexual couples will be blessed by children, if a willingness and desire to accept children isn’t part of the package, their love will be incomplete. It isn’t just the actual children that augment love; it is the mindset.


While there is no shortage of profound hypocrisy on the part of individuals on both sides of this issue, the position and actions of the LDS Church regarding the society importance of God’s Law of Chastity, and of families, are completely consistent. It is only by ignoring the Church’s embrace of the complete Law of Chastity that one can imagine hypocrisy. One might vehemently disagree, but there is no hypocrisy in the Church’s position.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Lagomorph – “From a return on investment standpoint, the numbers do not support doing much to fight gay marriage, if protecting children is truly the goal.”

Excellent comments!

Identifying hypocrisy is often the best method for cutting through obfuscation and seeing people’s real motivations. Personally, I have no respect for articles like this – people should have the courage of their convictions, state why they (truly) believe what they believe, and let the political chips fall where they may.

For example, I find oremtigger7’s comment disturbing (assuming he/she meant gays were evil) and think his/her basic sense of human decency has been deranged by religion, but at least I respect his/her courage to be honest – especially since we live in a democracy where our ideas have to compete for legitimacy.

Though it sounds like some on this board would prefer a theocracy…

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Classic examples of the mote v. the beam in one's eye.

Farr West, Utah

Ranch: Not only are you off-topic, you are also dead wrong in suggesting that the LDS Church somehow causes neglect of children. The LDS church is the largest contributor to children's welfare in the state. Not only does the church provide large amounts of food and aide to poor families, it also maintains Primary Children's Hospital which cares for critically ill children.
Even if you want to criticize on the basis of the actions of members, again you are wrong - statistics consistently show that members of the LDS church contribute a much higher than average percentage of their income to charities.
And LDS Family Services helps couples adopt unwanted children and provide good homes for them - for much less than it would cost through other agencies (I am speaking from personal experience on this point).

to comment

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