Published: Monday, Jan. 27 2014 12:00 a.m. MST
This letter provides some good language for the courts to use in their orders -
with a little tweaking: "Expanding the time-honored definition of marriage
to include same-sex unions will do no harm to other unions. No evidence shows
that same-sex unions are different, so both types of unions should enjoy the
same secular benefits."
"It seems reasonable to suppose that a same-sex union is of a different
nature than a traditional marriage,"Actually, to the people
involved, there is NO difference at all. A few hurches are based on marriage and
procreation (lds and catholic, for instance)so some of their members see a
marriage that is not for the purpose of procreation as different. That is not
the business of civil laws, and will never win a court case.People
want to be "married", not spend their lives explaining differences.
Children want parents who are married. Gay siblings deserve to marry their
partner the way straight siblings do. Imagine telling one of your kids he is
unfortunately left out.The entire reason this issue is not a done
deal is that the procreation-based churches created opposition, hurting all Gay
people, because they did not want their own Gay kids to want the marriage that
God put into their hearts.
Mr. Strong,I don't know if you are familiar with Amendment 3
which prevented LGBT from obtaining Civil Unions or SSM. Your letter displays a
lack of knowledge at best or is disingenuous at worst.In my personal
opinion, all the arguments pro and against Same Sex Marriage have been
presented. Now, is the time to wait for the SCOTUS to emit a ruling.The tendency of most developed countries and societies is to move toward
acceptance and equality. Countries with a strong tradition of tribal and
religious rivalries such as Uganda are becoming more antagonistic toward
homosexuality. They seem to need somebody to blame for their self-inflicted
maladies.Mr. Strong, I invite you to wait for the SCOTUS and the
evolution that is taking place across this beautiful land of ours.God Bless!!
Two serious problems with Mr. Strong's argument:First,
Utah's Amendment 3 prohibits state recognition of anything that would grant
secular benefits to same sex couples the way that state-recognized marriage
does.Second, and most significantly, multiple federal courts have
concluded that, like the south's Jim Crow laws of a century ago,
"separate but equal" is in fact _not_ equal, and a violation of the
constitution's Equal Protection language.Antipathy towards
homosexuals is both irrational and harmful, and state-sanctioned antipathy
towards same sex couples fails in court when subjected to legal scrutiny.
It's long-past time for the state of Utah to release its homophobia.
"Why could they not have been satisfied with a category of secular union
that would have offered them the secular benefits they sought? "A marriage is a a marriage is a marriage is a marriage is a marriage....Separate but equal is NOT EQUAL.
"they have tended to overreach."How dare those people want
to be treated just like me.
"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"
The best way to handle this is to have ALL civil relationships (one active
partnership per person consistent with age and sanginuity requirements) be
called something other than marriage -- civil unions or civil partnerships
perhaps -- and, after a couple has registered their civil union/partnership with
the state, they can go to an entity of their choice to participate in a marriage
ceremony if they wish. The "marriage" would have no legal force or
effect -- that would be the purview of the civil partnership, which would convey
all the legal rights and responsibilities now embodied in marriage. People
could accept or reject the "marriage" as they chose as long as they
recognize the legal civil union/partnership exists. Problem solved.
mcbillayWest Jordan, UT12:14 a.m. Jan. 27, 2014======== Agreed!(wish I had 10 stars to give you)That is precisely why Amendment 3 was struck down.Had Civil Unions or
Domestic Partnerships been allowed - traditional Marriage COULD have ben
salvaged.But in their over zealous over reach, they stomped
and trampled ANY allowance of access to equal rights.
Those who tell us that God made a mistake have made a grave error. They think
that people listen to their malarkey. They think that they, who cannot raise
even a blade of grass from the dead, can instruct their creator on what
constitutes the most fundamental unit of society. What arrogance! What
pretentious, vainglorious, pomposity!Where are the worlds that they
created? Which stars have they lit to shine for eons? Which planets have they
set in orbit? What life forms have they placed on those planets? When did they
breathe the breath of life into those life forms? Yet they lecture us on the
structure of a family. What is the eventual result of their chosen
lifestyle, if they convince foolish people to follow them? It is the extinction
of the human race - yet they tell us that their lifestyle harms no one! They
have made the most grave error. They have rejected light and truth and replaced
it with arrogance. That was tried before. It failed then. It will always fail.
I can't figure out the strong reaction against gay marriage in Utah. When
we first moved here we lived next to a group of polygamists who exercised an
ancient form of "traditional marriage" and guess what? It didn't
have any effect on our more modern form of marriage. Even though
these types had been living in our midst for over 100 years no one seemed to
care! It seemed like a classic "live and let live" situation.I think it is getting harder to find reasonable arguments as to why gay
marriages are detrimental to society, and the explanations are becoming more
convoluted and legalistic, and harder to take seriously.
liberal larrysalt lake City, utahYa -- I suppose
Utah can then deal with Gay marriages like they have with Plural marriages...They can pass all the laws they want to banning it, and then
NOTHING about enforcing any of them.
I don't see a need to bury it in semantics. Every marriage is a civil
union; the sacred or religious component is just a veneer some couples put on
I'm not LDS, but on this issue I stand with Mormon prophet Monson, who
according to Mormons speaks for God. Nice to know I'm with him on this!
He has stated only a man and woman should be able to marry.
In addition to points made by the prior comments, there is a very practical
issue that is not often discussed. Even if 'civil unions' (or
comparable term other than word 'marriage') were to be offered to
same-sex couples, with the idea that it would be roughly identical in terms of
rights/obligations to marriage, it is not simply a matter of doing a
word-processing 'search-and-replace' throughout the text of
state/federal statutes. The secular concept of 'marriage'
is marbled throughout both statutes and case law, and can't easily be
swapped out with a phrase such as 'marriage or civil unions'. Even
amending all statutes where marriage is mentioned would tie up state
legislatures and Congress more so than amending the U.S. Constitution, given how
difficult it is to pass the least controversial bills.This same
problem applies to the other idea of 'getting government out of the
marriage business' by simply referring to all secular 2-person
state-recognized bonds as something other than 'marriage'. I agree
that would sort of avoid the current controversy, but there are insurmountable
practical hurdles to overcome, so its more of a theory than anything that could
"Why could they not have been satisfied with a category of secular union
that would have offered them the secular benefits they sought?"I
think the key word in every argument against marriage equality or
anti-discrimination laws is the word THEY. It is a word that separates us
instead of bringing us together as a community. It keeps those of us who are the
THEY at arms length. You are really telling us that we aren't as good as
the rest of you; that you don't want to get to know us.The real
reason for the fight is about inclusion. We want to be a part of your
communities. We want to be invited to the neighborhood barbecues. We want you to
realize that we have the same dreams and aspirations as the rest of you. We
would like your acceptance, but we will survive without it.
Great point! See the straw-man arguments roll forth.
The LGBT types have a very heavy burden they must face, and quite frankly, a
very sad one. They know all too well that their lifestyles are not normal, and
go against the laws of nature. While their stated desire is to gain
acceptance/approval from society on the basis of equality (e.g. admission into
the BSA, Gay Marriage, benefits, etc.), there is another reason the LGBT
community is trying so desperately to have their lifestyle considered
"normal." They are attempting to deny reality to sooth their own
consciences. Their thought is: "Hey, if society considers this healthy and
normal...well, it must be!" No, it's not, and the LGBT types know
it's not. Ever wonder why there’s a need for Gay Pride parades and
celebrations? These are not the actions of people who are comfortable with
their lifestyles, but rather people who are trying to convince themselves that
it is normal. Sadly, now the LGBT crowd is trying to push this mess
on our kids as an “alternative lifestyle” choice. Just one more peg
in trying to normalize these abnormal lifestyle choices.
Rather than always arguing semantics, why not demonstrate how your marriage
would suffer if the gay couple across the street is legally married. It's
going to happen and you won't notice a thing.
Why won't 'They' settle for a different word? Because our gay
brothers and sisters want to be treated equally. What's wrong with that?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments