Comments about ‘Letter: A new term’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Jan. 27 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Heber City, UT

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."

Bob K
portland, OR

"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.

Leesburg, VA

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!!

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Here, UT

"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.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"

Ogden, UT

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.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

West Jordan, UT

12:14 a.m. Jan. 27, 2014


(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.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

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.

Everett, 00

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

Ya --

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.

American Fork, UT

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 it.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Stephen Daedalus
Arvada, CO

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 be achieved.

Kearns, UT

"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.

Murray, UT

Great point! See the straw-man arguments roll forth.

Morgan, UT

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.

Sandy, UT

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.

E Sam
Provo, UT

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?

to comment

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