Lesbian expectant couple sues Utah for recognition of marital rights


Return To Article
  • uwishtoo MESA, AZ
    March 16, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    @Brown I always have to shake my head at people like you that say that different sex couples are the best alternative for a child. Why? After all who are the parents of most gays? Yep different sex couples have gay children. Just because a child is raised by same sex couples doesn't make them gay.

  • uwishtoo MESA, AZ
    March 16, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    @Laura Ann So only the children of gays seek out their biological parents? This couple haven't adopted a child, one of them IS the biological parent but by law only one of them is recognized as a legal parent. Why should they have to find a legal way around something that is just assumed by different sex couples having children?

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Feb. 4, 2014 1:26 p.m.

    I have been following this issue in Utah since the Shelby ruling on Dec 21.

    It is unfortunate (if not disturbing) to continue to see how those who allow themselves to be controlled by mythology are making more desperate and nonsensical arguments as we get closer to marriage equality in Utah.

    Those who promote state-sponsored discrimination need to start preparing yourselves accordingly. The legal bigotry in Utah is about to end. Equality under the law is coming. You can not stop it.

    At best, the state of Utah can delay the inevitable by introducing stall tactics (as they are doing now, spending millions of tax dollars on arguments that have already been thrown out of court).

    Again, I say in another decade or so, people will look back on all this and wonder what the fuss was all about.

  • girl.in.slc Salt Lake , UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 11:15 a.m.

    @Mom of 8

    Congrats on your large family of 8. Seriously impressive.

    I'll bet you were born here. I was too. My family is here. My parents are here. My sisters are here. My in-laws are here. My job is here.

    I'm staying because Utah is my home too.

  • deseret pete robertson, Wy
    Feb. 4, 2014 12:20 a.m.

    It said the baby was from a " careful" selection from a sperm bank in California -- who made the selection and how ? Maybe she should have been a little more careful and thought of the welfare of the baby before the selection knowing that their marriage would be in doubt in many states --- Their is no real precedence for same sex marriage -- God has never authorized it at any time. It is like trying to remake a key to fit a lock that holds a treasure when only a father and mother have access to those keys.You can not change the degrees of God even if you don't believe in God.

  • poyman Lincoln City, OR
    Feb. 3, 2014 10:57 p.m.

    How messed up can society be today to even entertain such a suit?... How sad this culture has become... This suit shouldn't get 30 seconds of consideration before it's dismissed... This once great nation is getting destroyed from the inside out and it is very hard to watch.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    @informed "This couple obviously cannot create a family together, so how can it be classified as a marriage." You may be surprised to learn that opposite sex couples can legally utilize assisted reproduction technologies. So, what legally defines a family in civil marriage law? Are single or adoptive parents entitled to call themselves a family?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 7:46 a.m.

    @ play by the rules "Dear Modesto, Children are entitled to a Mom and a Dad."

    I'm trying to find this requirement in civil marriage, adoptive and reproductive law, but cannot find the entitlement. Why isn't it there do you suppose? Moreover, why should society stop at just a Mom and a Dad, how about a parental requirement of no criminal record, specific educational level and amount of financial assets too?

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 7:35 a.m.

    Children are not pets or commodities to be manufactured and bought as fashion accessories for adults.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Feb. 3, 2014 3:36 a.m.

    @worf: The only thing that's going to be squeezed out of the public coffers is the expense of defending against suits like this.

    Don't you realize, the way our benefits systems are set up, that single mothers are actually entitled to more benefits than married ones? By allowing these women to marry, you create, legally, a single household where you can take into account the income of both adults. Unmarried, with one working and the other being a completely unrelated stay-at-home mom, Utah law makes them legal strangers to each other, and the stay-at-home mom is eligible for all sorts of programs she wouldn't otherwise be. WIC, EBT/Food Stamps, AFDC, etc. Instead of a spouse, the non-parental woman could legally claim to be a landlord, charging her "tenant" rent to maximize her eligibility for benefits.

    So, if you were just being stingy with your tax dollars, instead of your heart strings, you would support same-sex marriage. Heck, you would encourage it!

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 2, 2014 6:55 p.m.

    @ wrz: There are valid legal reasons for prohibiting intimate relationships between closely related individuals and for limiting reproductive opportunities in situations where those close relationships occur.

    There are valid legal reasons for prohibiting children from entering into contracts.

    Allowing same-sex marriage will not eliminate the valid legal reasons for prohibiting other types of relationships.

    So far no one has been able to present a valid legal reason for prohibiting dame-sex marriage. And without such a reason, same-sex marriage will soon be legal.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 2, 2014 4:06 a.m.

    @wrz: " Same sex marriage could eventually evolve into a 95 year old grandfather marrying his ten year old grandson (or grand daughter) to pass on medicare and other financial benefits."

    1) Marriage of blood relatives is illegal.

    2) A ten year old cannot consent to marriage, or any other contract.

    3) Medicare is not "passed on" by marriage. The spouse of the Medicare recipient must be 65 to get coverage.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 2, 2014 3:56 a.m.

    Hey, Brown, you live in a community property state. You do not have to sign any form to inherit from your spouse. You can buy property in your individual name, but your spouse must sign before you can sell it. And where did you ever get the notion that "the rates for marrieds are higher"? Have you ever looked at the tax tables?

  • El Chango Supremo Rexburg, ID
    Feb. 1, 2014 10:37 p.m.

    I don't believe a lesbian couple can be expecting a child together, that is unless I missed something in biology class. I guess I'm a tad confused...

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 31, 2014 8:24 p.m.

    "Where do you draw the line, what if my neighbor wants health insurance, can they just move in and become insured?"

    That's the beauty of the thing. Same sex marriage could eventually evolve into a 95 year old grandfather marrying his ten year old grandson (or grand daughter) to pass on medicare and other financial benefits. What a novel idea!

    "Where do you draw the line?"

    Same sex marriage will eventually erase all lines so that anyone can marry anyone or even several anyones. Certainly will help in sharing assets and government benefits.

    Oh, and it says these ladies carefully selecting the sperm donor... what a clever idea! The child could be a handsome movie star or another Einstein.

    @higv: "...they used a sperm bank for artificial insemination, just as many married couples (both gay and straight) have done for many years."

    Good point, but how would two gay guys do it? Isn't that some sort of gender discrimination that the federal government should remedy?

  • CB Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 6:15 p.m.

    Not content to have been married in another state, they have to come here and start their
    'activism'. You can make something legal, but it still doesn't make it right and never will.
    Unfortunately they are putting children in the middle of it all.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    informed?: "This couple obviously cannot create a family together, so how can it be classified as a marriage."

    Did you know that Utah marriage law makes it a mandatory precondition that first cousins be nonreproductive in order to be allowed to marry? These couples not only "obviously cannot create a family together," the state actually PROHIBITS them from starting a family together. It would be illegal for them to marry if they could have children. So how can what these couples, legally married under Utah law, have "be classified as a marriage"?

    The clear conclusion is that marriage is about more than procreation. Facilitating procreation is an important purpose of marriage, indeed, it may be the most important one, but it is not the ONLY one. It is within the realm of the state to encourage stable, loving relationships to benefit social stability.

    Is a lesbian couple with a baby conceived and cared for together any less a family than childless married first cousins or an infertile married straight couple with a baby conceived by IVF?

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 11:16 a.m.


    What exactly are this couple trying to squeeze out of the tax payers?

    @ informed?

    "This couple obviously cannot create a family together, so how can it be classified as a marriage."

    Since my wife and cannot have children together, does that mean our relationship is not considered a "marriage"? What about my sister and her husband? They are not "married" because they cannot conceive?

  • Mom of 8 Hyrum, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    Why don't they move to a state that DOES recognize their marriage? Problem solved.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Jan. 31, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    @play by the rules
    "Dear Modesto, Children are entitled to a Mom and a Dad."

    So can you take the children away from same sex couples or single parents and put them in "ideal families"?

  • princeza9 salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 10:18 a.m.

    Recognize the marriage, Utah! It would go a long way to providing a sense of security for this family.

    And New England is an area of the US made up of SIX states. Please specify which state. It's like saying someone was married "out west".

  • Ethel Home Town USA, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    Come people just think? There are OTHER ways to give another person the rights and privileges like parents. People do it all the time in cases where the parent or parents need help to raise children. It is called Guardianship. This lesbian couple have a biological mother, right? The other partner who wants to be like a parent also can get legal permission as a guardian of said child and solve the issue without having to make a federal case out of it.

    My parents helped raise my nieces and nephews (5)forty years ago when their parents were no longer able to care for them. My parents were their grandparents/parents as legal guardians.

    It is very simple and no need to go into such a big battle over "rights" etc.

    IF that is really what is wanted then a person who has legal guardianship can insure those children by legal means. Recognizing a person's same sex marriage is an appendage of the argument.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 8:48 a.m.

    Dietrich, ID

    "Where is the father in the picture as two women can't produce a baby"

    Had you actually read the article rather than just commenting on the headline, you would have known that they used a sperm bank for artificial insemination, just as many married couples (both gay and straight) have done for many years.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 31, 2014 7:57 a.m.

    Where is the father in the picture as two women can't produce a baby

  • MoreMan San Diego, CA
    Jan. 31, 2014 6:46 a.m.

    @ DNsubscriber... "Are they really seeking 'equality" or just working an agenda for that "some are more equal than others" stuff?" Try looking into your magic mirror. Are these really your own "true and living" beliefs?

  • Brown Honeyvale, CA
    Jan. 31, 2014 6:35 a.m.


    The gays who went to the sperm donor already had to sign a contract indicating they wouldn't hold the donor responsible in the future for child support, etc. They could have easily completed a similar contract with each other but they chose not to. Kind of like a pre-nuptial agreement, some have them to make divorce easier and some don't. There are legal options already available for gays to give the same benefits of marriage (other than taxation laws). Perhaps instead, the government needs to regulate set fees for those legal instruments, let's say, the same cost as a marriage license, so gays can afford it and not be 'taken by lawyers.'

    No matter what happens later in a child's life, we as a society have a responsibility to protect children and place them in the best possible situation to succeed--and that is with a mother and a father. Anyone who is in a loving marriage relationship sees the unique benefits their spouse provides to their child that they cannot, because of the gender differences. It is simply an indisputable fact

  • Brown Honeyvale, CA
    Jan. 31, 2014 6:17 a.m.

    This is not about protecting citizens rights, it is about rights of one political group and legitimizing a behavior. Who is protecting the rights of the children gays will adopt?

    Legal rights? If I want to know about my spouses health care treatment, my spouse has to sign a form--thanks to HIPAA laws. If I want to inherit my spouses property, we have to sign legal documents to assign that property upon death. It all isn't automatic because we are married. Another lie the media continually fails to represent.

    Yes, you do need to be married to file joint tax returns, but how is that an advantage? The rates for marrieds are higher!

    This is about 2 things, legitimizing gay relationships as normal and, giving gays the ability to adopt. My question is, who is looking out for the rights of the children who have no say in whether they get a mother and a father? No one seems to care about doing what is best for children and fighting so adoptive children will obtain the best possible start to their lives. This is not about protecting citizens rights, it is about the selfish rights of one political group.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 31, 2014 3:40 a.m.

    Like it or not,in the end love and equality always wins!

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 31, 2014 3:11 a.m.

    "The only thing accomplished by withholding marriage rights from same-sex couples is the punishment and degradation of their children, who become de facto second-class citizens through no fault of their own. "

    So, by that logic should we criminalize having children out of wedlock? Because, after all, if the child born out of wedlock is going to be a second class citizen because their mother did not marry their father? Should we ban single people from adopting children? If one parent dies, should we take the child from the surviving parent and put them into the orphanage or give them to a married couple so the child does not become a second class citizen?

    I support traditional marriage because it sends a message about the ideal way to raise a child, but extending your logic is draconian and is heartless.

  • BlackDiamond Provo, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 12:59 a.m.

    I would help them get there baby but not allow or recognize their marriage. Just move to a state that recognizes it.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 11:44 p.m.

    To barter a child for self-interests is cruel.

    A bishop, arguing against the roman take over of the early church, once compared the mistreatment of children to barbarism. I have to agree. Abusing children physically or intellectually amounts to nothing less.

    So where are we now?

    The very idea of robbing children of their male Father and female Mother is not a good one. Sometimes it happens in extreme circumstances, such as a father who dies and other situations. But those are not circumstances we seek out.

    Does this issue have an inevitable outcome? Maybe.
    Do those who offend little children have an inevitable outcome? Yes.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anyone is bad because they believe differently that I do. I'm not intolerant of beliefs. I'm intolerant of doing things to children that they don't deserve. Children deserve to have a Father and Mother.

    I'm not in favor of illegalizing behavior. I'm in favor of protecting children and honoring good behavior. There is a difference.

    Youtube: Ryan Anderson in the Indiana House Judiciary Committee
    Youtube: The lost art of democratic debate

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 11:31 p.m.

    @ play by the rules

    So should divorce be illegal, or what?

  • informed? Utah, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 11:22 p.m.

    This couple obviously cannot create a family together, so how can it be classified as a marriage.
    The problem is that if we classify a same sex couple as marriage, then you open a new can of worms. Where do you draw the line, what if my neighbor wants health insurance, can they just move in and become insured? Should they be put on their neighbors food stamps because they have know each other?
    Perhaps we can have everyone in one company decide they want to be a family so they can all be on the same insurance plan. All 750 employees. Where do you draw the line?

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:59 p.m.

    @ DN Subscriber: In another state that also does not recognize same-sex marriages, two women had a child together. They did not consult an attorney or a doctor, nor did they read through state law - neither did the donor.

    Because the relationship was not legally recognized, when it ended there was no way for the non-custodial patent to be held responsible to support her child. Because the law was not followed when the donor was chosen, the contract he signed was not valid and his rights were not protected.

    The couple here in Utah want their relationship legally recognized which will avoid all the problems associated with the situation to which you refer.

    Legal recognition of same-sex marriage means legal responsibilities and protections for same-sex parents.

    @ worf: The nerve of these women wanting the benefits of married parents for their child! How dare they!

    (And FYI - most same-sex marriage advocates freely state they want access to the benefits of marriage - that's where the whole pesky "equality" argument comes in.)

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:47 p.m.

    @ Laura Ann: If adopted children are happy with their adoptive parents, what are so many trying to find their bioligical parents? By your reasoning, we should prohibit adoption. We should also probably prohibit single women from having babies.

    And how exactly would establishing a trust fund allow the making of medical decisions or address any of the other concerns the couple has expressed? Why should same-sex parents have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars in an effort to get rights and access that heterosexual parents (whether married or not) get just by being listed on the birth certificate?

    @ play: If children are entitled to a mom and a dad, what laws are you advocating to ensure that entitlement is met? Should single parents have their children forcibly taken from them? How long does a parent have to get remarried after a death or divorce before the children are removed from the home? What incentives are going to be offered to encourage married couples to provide homes for all the children who won't have a mom and a dad otherwise?

  • Vladhagen Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:29 p.m.

    Why all of the sudden is getting the benefits of marriage worth suing for? When they decided to have the child, gay marriage was illegal in Utah. If she has a February due date, they conceived well before Amendment 3 was overturned. Why not sue then? This seems like opportunistic timing. I feel that yes, the state should grant legal status to the marriages performed. That would be a only right. But if benefits are important now, why was this lawsuit not filed back in July or so?

  • Laura Ann Layton, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 10:20 p.m.

    I am for traditional marriage. If a gay couple has a child, why don't they create a trust fund, a will, or some other way to deal with these problems. I am sure there are legal ways to solve these problems. Just a thought: If these children are happy with gay parents, why are so many trying to find their biological parents?

  • play by the rules SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:55 p.m.

    Dear Modesto, Children are entitled to a Mom and a Dad.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 8:56 p.m.

    "This is not about love, but benefits."

    What's wrong with wanting both?

  • omahahusker Modesto, CA
    Jan. 30, 2014 8:14 p.m.

    It's time for the state and the people to come together and provide benefits that are equal and fair for all. Most affected will be the children, aren't their needs to be given the highest consideration?

  • koseighty Logan, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 7:28 p.m.

    "This is not about love, but benefits. How much I can squeeze out of tax payers."

    As a married man, I seem to be missing out on all these wonderful tax benefits marriage brings.

    But the article isn't about that at all. From the article:

    "The couple, who have been together for more than eight years, are worried that Roe will not be able to "make emergency and other significant decisions for their daughter," who is the result of careful selection from a sperm bank in California, the suit states."

    Yes, gays are seeking the "benefits" of marriage. Things like being able to make medical decision for each other and their children in the event of an emergency, being able to inherit, to even be able to visit in the hospital. There are tons of "benefits" that come with marriage. Very few (any?) have to do with government handouts.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 7:13 p.m.

    Will those "rights" include making the mother's (spouse?) responsible for child raising expenses, and specifically exclude the "sperm donor?"

    In another state, it was held that the sperm donor had to pay child support after the mother's (spouse?) divorced the mom.

    Are they really seeking 'equality" or just working an agenda for that "some are more equal than others" stuff?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 30, 2014 6:39 p.m.


    This is not about love, but benefits.

    How much I can squeeze out of tax payers.