Comments about ‘Traditional marriage is the best place to rear children, Utah appeal says’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 4 2014 8:35 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

Great to see people sticking up for good morals and families, especially innocent children!

Keep the good work.

Pope Francis and Prophet Monson and I all agree on this issue. Nice to know I stand with them!

1.96 Standard Deviations

"A society can have but one understanding of marriage: It is either a uniquely man-woman institution, or it is not. Because man-woman unions are unique in their ability to produce children, maintaining the man-woman definition reinforces the child-centric view of marriage."

I like that! Here's to gender and marriage complementarity!

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

It might have been nice if the article included a link to the filing. If anyone is interested, you can find a copy by googling "13-4178-Utah-Opening-Brief".

It's basically just a rehash of the "tradition" and "religious basis" arguments. In other words, nothing new or compelling. Tons of rationalizations with questionable "facts" that are easily refuted. Especially of note is how Utah's laws are uniformly cast "in the best interests of the children." Considering Utah's stats and various laws on the books that completely ignore the welfare of children, they might as well have teed it up and handed a driver to the plaintiff's attorneys.

I'm guessing Schaerr doesn't want to win at the 10th Circuit, so he can bill for an appeal to SCOTUS. If it comes to that, though, Utah should find someone with more intellectual rigor.

Berkeley reader
Berkeley , CA

The state's arguments fail in a spectacular way. What about those thousand of Utah children being raised by same sex parents? Are they not entitled to the same legal protections? If marriage is all about child rearing, how can the state discriminate against same sex families and yet allow elderly heterosexual couples to marry? Utah is leading the way to our having same sex marriage legalized nationwide. What a wonderful irony!

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Nope, that isn't going to work.
Nothing new, therefore same judgment.

San Diego, CA

The Gay lobby answers these arguments with

a)what about the elderly who can't have children, will they be banned from marriage too? obviously not because it isn't about the children.

b) 14 amendment is about equal treatment. So if you treat person a one way, by granting him a marriage licence then you must treat person b the same way by granting him that same marriage licence irrespective of religion, race, ethnic background or sexual orientation.

I'm no a fan of SSM but I can't yet see how we will win the argument in the courts when more and more judges are siding with the gay lobby by accepting both of the above arguments.

Sandy, UT

Marriage as child-centric? I suppose that makes my marriage a sham since we didn't have children? What about all those couples who can't have children? Perhaps we should only allow those who are fertile to marry? Since my mother re-married at age 76 her marriage too is a sham? I find the reasoning specious at best and illogically at worst.

Kaysville, UT

Well said. Thank you for defending marriage as was instituted by a loving omniscient God.

Salt Lake City, Utah

There are no new arguments being made - these arguments have failed before and there is no reason to believe they will not continue to fail.

Lethbridge, AB


With this as their ($2 million) argument, it is obvious that Utah doesn't even expect to win.

They are sending a message to the faithful that they tried, at least, to defend their principles.


Salamankero in Utah
Farmington, UT

"Millions of Utahns who accept these traditions understand marriage and sexuality as gifts from God, designed not principally for the gratification of adults, but to provide an optimal setting for bearing and raising children"

I really wonder if the attorney was able to say that with a straight face.

This is the same argument again (at least what the reporter is bothering to report. It is time to drop the religious bigotry and advance our society. I'm sorry, but just because "everyone else does it this way" does not make it right. Most of the religions mentioned do not allow contraceptives. Others have questionable views on non-believers. More people need to read Christopher Hitchens.

get her done
Bountiful, UT

Talk about beating a dead horse. Utah needs to get into the present century.

Buffalo Grove, IL

This is nonsense. It doesn't protect anyone's "religious freedoms" to prevent others from marrying who they want. If a law was being proposed saying YOU MUST marry someone of the same sex, you'd have a point. It is NOT your religious freedom to in ANY WAY interfere with someone else's life. Until the religious right gets that through their heads, they will continue to lose members and influence. You live YOUR life and let others live as they wish!

salt lake city, UT

WOW. That's the State's argument? We're going to lose in a big way. Seems a first year law student could have prepared a stronger argument than this. Truth, honesty, and equality are all working against the State so we throw out the "children" defense? Where are Utah's leader's on this issue? People who know and respect the U.S. constitution? We're throwing millions of dollars away and we're going to defend it being say it's all about the "children".

Lehi, UT

If we really want to "save marriage", get rid of no-fault divorces.

Poplar Grove, UT

If they are so worried about children why are single people allowed to adopt in Utah? Sociological studies have shown time after time that children do best in a two parent home, whether those parents are gay or straight. So if we really care about the children.....


The Utah Attorney General's office did a national search for outside counsel and he is being paid millions and millions of dollars.

This is the best he could come up with? I hope the taxpayers can get their money back when the Court laughs him out of the building.

Federal Way, WA

In the book, Mere Christiantity, C S Lewis begins by describing the importance to society that the definition of words like Christianity or marriage actually convey accurate information to the reader about what the term means. To go from a fact based definition to one that generalizes a feeling regarding the definition is to destroy the meaning of the original work. I was struck that this is exactly what is happening in this legal batter to refine what Marriage means.

Gay and Lesbians relationships are different from society's centuries old definition of marriage. To provide a different term to define that relationship (civil union)seems perfectly fine for a State and its citizens to acknowlege.

"A society can have but one understanding of marriage: It is either a uniquely man-woman institution, or it is not. Because man-woman unions are unique in their ability to produce children, maintaining the man-woman definition reinforces the child-centric view of marriage."

West Richland, WA

I find it rather unbelievable that Utah is actually going to try to use these same old exhausted canards as a legal construct against equal rights for all citizens. These are essentially the identical constructs used in the original Shelby Ruling. Does the state think these tired, specious arguments are going magically gain legal traction?

Several million Utah tax dollars... wasted.

I am sadden that this money could not have been put toward actual good use, like say... feeding Utah school children, instead of shaming them and throwing their lunch away in front of them.

Priorities, Utah. Please find them.

Chris A
Salt Lake , UT

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.

Thank you to the state of Utah for defending these values.

to comment

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