Quantcast
Utah

Family Research Council weighs in on Utah gay marriage case

Comments

Return To Article
  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    March 5, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    In today's society anyone who doesn't go along with every possible new trend or idea is considered a bigot and a hater. There are a great many in the world today who do not go along with the idea of same sex intimate relationships. Granted some of those individuals are jerks at best, but there are a lot of those on the opposing side as well.

    I find it interesting that the vast majority of the posts I read regarding this issue are pretty similar. Those opposed to same sex marriage have specific reasons why they do - though we may not agree with their reasoning, they are reasons. The strategy of the vast majority of pro GLBT issues is to call those against it - bigots, neanderthals, homophobic, and so forth. Much of the research cited is lacking in breadth of sample study groups and duration since it cannot be effectively determined how well gay marriage will pan out in a thousand years.

    We need civil discourse on both sides of the isle.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 10, 2014 3:39 p.m.

    @ ksampow: "There is no denial of rights by upholding the traditional definition of marriage - gays can call their relationship a marriage if they want, but they have no right to force US and our STATE to call it a marriage."

    So, gays can call their relationships marriage, they just can't have any of the benefits or protections that marriage entails - and in your opinion this is not a denial of rights.

    The law states that a spouse is protected under the 5th Amendment from being coerced to testify against his or her spouse - denying same-sex couples marriage denies them this right.

    Married couples can file for bankruptcy protection together - same-sex couples who are denied marriage are denied this.

    Married prisoners get conjugal visits and considerations for the health of their spouse and any children they and their spouse may have - this is denied to same-sex couples who are denied marriage.

    Death and educational benefits are provided to spouses of critically injured or killed police and firemen - denied to same-sex couples.

    Without marriage, same-sex couples are not treated equally under the law. Your religion may be okay with that, but we are not a theocracy.

  • Disgusted American deptford, NJ
    Feb. 10, 2014 12:37 p.m.

    ksampow

    Farr West, Utah
    (CIRCA 1960) There is no denial of rights by upholding the traditional definition of marriage - Black and white cpls can call their relationship a marriage if they want, but they have no right to force US and our STATE to call it a marriage. SOUND FAMILIAR???? Sorry - guess you'll be having a severe case of the Vapors, once Marriage Equality comes to ALL 50 STATES.....guess Russia will be getting some immigrants???

  • Disgusted American deptford, NJ
    Feb. 10, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    Family Research Council weighs in on Utah gay marriage case

    ...and There in Lies the Whole problem in a Nutshell.....NUT being the most important part of the word.

  • ksampow Farr West, Utah
    Feb. 10, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    Debate and sophistry by men can not change God's laws. That answers many of the other comments, but it does not answer the constitutional question. Judges can not use their own religious beliefs to interpret the constitution. However, a federal judge has no right to intervene in state issues and invalidate a time-honored definition that has been added to the state constitution by the will of the people. There is no denial of rights by upholding the traditional definition of marriage - gays can call their relationship a marriage if they want, but they have no right to force US and our STATE to call it a marriage.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 10, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    @ Captain Green: Have you read the Bible or studied history? The Bible is filled with situations where marriage was not between a man and a woman but between a man and several women.

    There is also strong support in the Bible for sibling marriage, uncle/niece or aunt/nephew marriage, and cousin marriage.

    And let us not forget the story of Lot and his daughters nor 1 Corinthians 7:36-38.

    Many royal families throughout history have preserved their claims to the throne and their property rights by encouraging sibling marriage.

    Additionally, many cultures throughout history have recognized same-sex relationships.

    It is interesting that those who want so desperately to rely on the historical definition of marriage to defend their position must ignore or rewrite history in order to have the support they want. To me, this is an indication of just how shaky their position is.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 9, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    @Captain Green;

    Wrong.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    Feb. 9, 2014 1:15 a.m.

    @Captain Green.. Traditional discrimination is simply not a valid reason to continue the practice.
    History shows us that marriage is not defined by those who are excluded. Otherwise, why would we allow opposite sex felon horrific abusers to civil marry? Interracial couples wanted to participate in the institution that traditionally did not allow them to marry. Tradition is simply not a valid reason to continue a practice of discrimination.
    There are no:
    -Interracial marriage licenses.
    -Felony marriage licenses.
    -Non-procreative marriage licenses.
    Allowing same-sex couples to participate and/or strengthen the existing institution, means there is only ONE marriage license for all. Nothing has been re-defined. Look no further than "traditional voting" which was NOT "re-defined" by allowing women the right to vote.

    A right to marry someone for which there is no attraction or desire of intimacy is simply no right at all.

    Parental fitness and child bearing is an issue for adoption, reproductive and family law. In other words, some feel that it is perfectly rational to hold same-sex couples and their children morally and legally responsible for any failure of heterosexuals to act in the manner that the state wishes them to behave.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    Feb. 8, 2014 10:22 p.m.

    CaptainGreen,

    Where, where to even start... First of all, read more newspapers. Marriage between same sex couples is now legal in a host of our allied nations, from the Netherlands to New Zealand, from Canada to South Africa, from Denmark to Mexico. from Argentina to Britain. And. Nothing. Bad. Has. Happened.

    It's been legal in Massachusetts for a decade, and by any objective measure, their state beats your state in every family performance metric.

    Perhaps once upon a time, when gay people were treated like criminals, hunted down and arrested, their furtive encounters were of a more seamy nature, but since those unjust laws were overturned and they can live open, normal lives, we see that there's no sexual obsession there. Their attraction to their own kind is just a romantic attraction, of the exact same nature as heterosexuals experience, and those are the only people they can fall in love with and share their lives together.

    Your comparisons to incest and whatnot are nothing but desperate insults and hatemongering.

    There's absolutely no reason not to let gays marry. The District Court ruling against Utah's discriminatory laws and constitution will be upheld on appeal.

  • Captain Green Heber City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2014 4:47 p.m.

    It's absurd that there is even a discussion on the matter. Marriage is and always will be between a man and a woman. It's been that way through all of time everywhere in the world. Every person has the same rights already... they can marry, have children, raise a family, be happy. No one is denied that. But society does not allow someone to marry their sister, or their mother, or someone of the same sex. The reason is because that is not good for society or for individuals. Anyone can do whatever they want (with consequences, however), but they will not be given "special privileges" by law based upon their sexual obsessions. That's just plain nonsense.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    Feb. 8, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    Amendment 3 is also "under inclusive" by targeting only same-sex couples from marriage for the best interests of children. If a statute or amendment is about children, then civil marriage law should include limitations/restrictions for prior convictions for drug/alcohol, spousal and child abuse, or income level and educational attainment etc. This would be like a statute intended to preserve home heating, by mandating that front doors be kept closed, while leaving the back door and every window wide open. There is simply no rational basis that the governments purported objective will be achieved.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    Feb. 8, 2014 10:25 a.m.

    @genetics re: Social Science

    Then we must conclude that every one of the following main stream organizations base their analysis on being "politically correct." Every single one, does that really seem rational?

    Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights". These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,[6] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, American Psychoanalytic Association, National Association of Social Workers, Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, and the Canadian Psychological Association.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    Feb. 8, 2014 10:05 a.m.

    1aAllTheWay,

    You can stand on a hill and yell what you believe all day long. It's a free country. But, what you believe is not necessarily true. I believe differently.

    I am straight, and Christian, and married. I am not gay.

    But, I know people who are gay, and I also know what Christ wants us to do. Love them, as we love ourselves. Celebrate their happiness. Recognize God's love for and in everyone. Treat all people as equals. Leave judgement to God. (Romans 14)

    If human sexuality is a subject for theology, then in the theology of my religion, it's a gift from God of intimacy and love, a blessing for a committed couple, and not a matter for gossip, coveting, or prurient interest.

    You act as if people make a personal choice as to which sex attracts them. That's not true. After puberty and our hormones kick in, we definitely KNOW who we're attracted to. As a boy, I thought girls were icky. After puberty, I had very different thoughts! There was no selection, no experimentation, I just KNEW.

    Gay people know, too. It's innate. The how and why is not for us.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 8, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    1A-all the way says:

    "Why can't gays understand that most utahns think that gay marriage is wrong."

    Why can't most Utahns understand that what they think about someone elses marriage doesn't matter? They should stop worrying about other people's marriages and focus more effort on their own.

    @Tekakaromatagi;

    Your creator is not my creator. I don't believe in your fairy tales, please stop trying to force them on the rest of us.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Feb. 8, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    @Ariz: Thank you! I did not know that, and appreciate your correction. The key takeaway is that the court can't attribute an amicus brief to either party in the case. Regardless, the rest of my post stands... FRC = known, recognized hate group.

    @1A-all the way: Where to begin...

    "most utahns think that gay marriage is wrong"

    Um, no.... don't think that is quite accurate. But let's say that it is - are you suggesting that this would be justification to deny civil rights? Because of personal moral disapproval?

    "most Americans think it is wrong to marry your daughter, or sister."

    Please. This "slippery slope' logical fallacy is the most spurious argument of all, and it's just a ridiculous one. Gay humans want the *same* rights as straight humans. Incest will still be unlawful. Bestiality will still be unlawful. Marriage should be the committed relationship between two persons of consenting age which is lawful in all other ways.

    Toward your other argument: to conflate illegal drug use (a matter of criminal law) with marriage (a matter of civil law) indicates a misunderstanding of concepts.

  • genetics Canada, 00
    Feb. 8, 2014 8:25 a.m.

    You seem to misunderstand- marriage fulfills, in most cultures, the biology of male + female= children.
    Social sciences are soft sciences because bias is a huge problem. For example, see:
    Geoffey D. Munro and Peter H Ditto. Pers Soc Psychol Bull June 1997 vol. 23 no. 6 636-653 (this article has been cited as recently as 2013)
    In addition, references supporting pro-homosexual views are cited much more often than those studies less supportive:
    ALTER R. SCHUMM (2010) EVIDENCE OF PRO-HOMOSEXUAL BIAS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE: CITATION RATES AND RESEARCH ON LESBIAN PARENTING. Psychological Reports: Volume 106, pp. 374-380.
    This documented bias is likely in support of a political point- that's intellectually dishonest.
    Finally, concerns about sample sizes are well known in this area- see this abstract: Douglas A. Abbott, (2012) International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 13; July 2012.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Feb. 8, 2014 3:47 a.m.

    @Scientist:
    "The idea of "inalienable" and "inherent rights" is fundamental to the Founding documents (Declaration and Constitution). This means simply that "rights" are not given to individuals by any external power, such as government. Rather, individuals have "rights" for no other reason than because they are citizens."

    You misunderstand. All men have rights and those are given to them by their creator. Not just people who have been deemed to be citizens. In your paradigm, government can decide who are citizens, i.e. who has rights and they can decide who isn't citizens, i.e. who does not have rights.

    Just as creationists who literally believe in the Bible run off of a logical cliff when they try to age the world at 6000 years, atheists run off of a logical cliff when they try to explain that there is no higher power, but people still have inalienable rights and there is no absolute morality.

  • 1A-all the way SLC, UT
    Feb. 8, 2014 12:00 a.m.

    Why can't gays understand that most utahns think that gay marriage is wrong. Just like most Americans think it is wrong to marry your daughter, or sister. There is no discrimination here, it is wrong. It doesn't matter if their sister or daughter is their love of life, or if they were born that way. It s wrong, and it should not be legal to do so.

    Another example... Most Americans think it is wrong to use meth. Just because some people think it is ok, and want to legalize it, because it denies them the right to be happy...would that be ok. Would that affect your life, your marriage, if meth was legalized. Of course it would because people think it is wrong.

    Anything that happens in the world has an affect on something else. How else do you think I've come to love dark chocolate? Because my mom liked it, it was in the house,, and wanted to taste it, it so happens that I liked it.......I wasn't born to like it. Get it?

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 7:20 p.m.

    @1978

    Regnarus himself has admitted himself the numerous flaws in his study including the fact he does not know the sexual orientation of the parents or their related behaviors. His findings were also renounced by his own professional organization the ASA as unfounded and unsupported. The researcher out of Canada has stated that he is not able to establish any causal effect and should not be used as a basis for establishing public policy.

    Since the North Carolina law passed eight states have passed laws legalizing sam sex marriage and no states have passed any laws or amendments prohibiting it.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 6:43 p.m.

    @Navadacougar

    well lets see for starters there is the study New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California. then there is the research by Dr. Nanette Gartrell, M.D. the national longitudinal lesbian family study that has been collecting and disseminating their findings since 1980. Some of the children who they first started studying as small children are now in their 30's. there is the largest study so far by researcher Dr. Simon Crouch out of Melbourne, there is the Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts research, there is the Indiana University sociologist Brian Powel's research. If those are not enough there is always the numerous studies sited in tolstoys post on page one of the comments.

  • Jeff29 Draper, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    @The Scientist

    "This means simply that "rights" are not given to individuals by any external power, such as government".

    By this definition then "legal" marriage is not a right as it was given to individuals by government.

    This also creates a contradiction within your statement that "This is the Ninth Amendment, and guarantees that the right to choose whom you marry (even a same gender partner) is just as much a right of individuals as is the right to choose your religion." Choosing your religion does not involve approval/licensing by a government entity, whereas marriage does (at least in the context of this discussion).

  • Ariz Madison, AL
    Feb. 7, 2014 5:14 p.m.

    @TheTrueVoice "That is stunning that the state of Utah has allowed the FRC to get anywhere near this case! "

    It is up to the courts to decide which amicus briefs to accept or deny. Also filing and the court accepting them are two different things. The plaintiffs and defendants can't preclude or allow anyone to file a brief. It's entirely possible for the parties in a suit to invite others to file briefs outside of the court. But the court can't attribute the ideas or positions expressed in the amicus briefs to either party in the case.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 5:08 p.m.

    Tiago in Seattle, WA wrote:

    "(saying) gay people can do whatever they want as long as they don’t marry each other... is like saying “people can drink as much as they want, as long as they don’t drink responsibly.”

    Best simile I have read in months!

  • NevadaCougar Panaca, NV
    Feb. 7, 2014 5:01 p.m.

    @intervention

    You are excellent proof of my point. LGBT supports claim that all of the experts and data agree with them, yet fail to provide the proof. Did you happen to find a study in which children with LGBT parents were compared with children from happy heterosexual homes? I didn't thinks so. But ask yourself why? Are LGBT supporters afraid of the results. I have to acknowledge that two LGBT parents are probably better than one single parent that has limited time to spend with his or her children, but it is difficult to believe that two LGBT parents are as good or better than two biological heterosexual parents.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 4:56 p.m.

    The idea of "inalienable" and "inherent rights" is fundamental to the Founding documents (Declaration and Constitution). This means simply that "rights" are not given to individuals by any external power, such as government. Rather, individuals have "rights" for no other reason than because they are citizens.

    Neither the Constitution nor the government can bestow rights on individuals (for then these powers could also take them away without due process). The Constitution and government can only secure these rights that already exist.

    What are those "rights"? Where are they listed?

    Some are enumerated in the Bill of Rights or alluded to in the Declaration (life, liberty, happiness).

    But lest anyone take this to mean that people ONLY have those rights that are explicitly enumerated, the Founders stated clearly:

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    This is the Ninth Amendment, and guarantees that the right to choose whom you marry (even a same gender partner) is just as much a right of individuals as is the right to choose your religion. And that comes with the right not to be discriminated against for those choices!

  • TimBehrend Auckland NZ, 00
    Feb. 7, 2014 4:47 p.m.

    HeresAThought: Marriage is and has been (as far as recordable history can determine) a union between one man and one woman, providing the biological emotional and phsychological basis for which a family is based.

    Marriage among the indigenous peoples of the Great Plains, Texas, NM, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, etc., a range of traditional social structures with thousands of years of precedence, was polygamous and provided the labour "basis for which a family [was] based". This form of ancient traditional marriage was eradicated in the states and regions mentioned by genocide. Perhaps Americans who want to do away with the threat of same-sex marriage before it gains any more steam should follow the example of their own forebears.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    Feb. 7, 2014 4:45 p.m.

    Jeff29,

    Most people won't accept any explanation or reasoning that conflicts with their own. Let a "straight" person answer you from the position of my own religion, which is much more open and accepting than Mormonism.

    In the Bible, we learn numerous lessons. In the first creation story, early in Genesis, it establishes an equivalence between men and women, by saying we're both created in the image of God. In that, we see we're both equally imbued with God's love. Later on, we're told in a number of places that it's bad to live alone, without love. God wants us to have a life partner.

    Until 1563, when the Catholics formalized it as a required Church rite (Anglicans, 1753), marriage was a matter of self-declaration. A couple merely held themselves out as married. In multidenominational America, marriage registration became a matter for civil law. That is what is at issue here. Can a couple who establishes a loving, life partnership register that marriage even if they're the same gender?

    We ask, why not? God's love is God's love, regardless. Civil law shouldn't get to veto that. Our Constitution seemingly agrees.

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 4:15 p.m.

    @intervention

    Not all top universities and scientists agree with the LGBT propoganda. In fact all legitimate research done in this area agrees with the Family Research Council. Check the research that was done at Texas, LSU and leading researchers in Canada for example.

    All of the research that I have seen (yes I have researched this) that supports the fact that SSM and traditional marriage is essentially the same for children has the LGBT community's fingerprints all over it. In their sample population, which should be random, they have hand picked the participants to cook the books.

    People can make up stories and statistics like the BYU aversion study for example but I know the truth and am spending time convincing those that I know of the same. Considering the pro SSM media, Hollywood and Liberal University Professors it is amazing to me that when the votes are actually cast as opposed to the polls taken before elections the majority of citizens in a majority of states still support the traditional definition of marriage.

    For example, before North Carolina passed their traditional marriage amendment by 20 pts. a poll take by the Washington Post showed that it would fail.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    Feb. 7, 2014 3:11 p.m.

    Even if you think all gay relationships are sinful and you think man-woman marriages are optimal, can we also agree that the optimal gay relationship is a committed relationship where the partners have legal rights and responsibilities toward each other?
    It is so strange to hear other people of faith say gay people can do whatever they want as long as they don’t marry each other. This makes no sense to me. It is like saying “people can drink as much as they want, as long as they don’t drink responsibly.”
    I encourage my gay friends to be safe and responsible in dating and to stick together in good times and bad and to build long-term relationships, just like I do my straight friends.
    Would you really rather have gay people engage in promiscuity or cohabitation without commitment? Why would we fight against their desire to settle down and commit to each other for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish?

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    Feb. 7, 2014 3:00 p.m.

    I hope someone will answer marxist’s question. If not marriage, what are gay people supposed to do? And adding to that, how can we help them live the happiest, most successful lives possible?

    Sometimes the people who comment here make it sound like they despise gay people and just wish they would all move far away and stay very quiet.

    For example, if you are LDS like I am and want gay people to receive the gospel, what are you doing to reach out to LGBT people and keep them or draw them into the church? If you were LGBT and heard the things members say and do would you feel safe, welcome, and loved?

    Do you trust gay people when they tell you that their feelings are innate and immutable, or do you, contrary to LDS church teachings, tell them they need to “change” their fundamental orientation and view the only successful outcome for them as marrying an opposite sex spouse? Would you support a celibate gay person?

  • intervention slc, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 2:48 p.m.

    @nevadacourgar

    So are you really asking use to accept the argument that the top universities across the country and the leading professionals in the field of human behavior are biased but the family research counsel is an objective reliable source?

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 2:41 p.m.

    @genetics

    Marriage is a blatantly obvious biological imperative? Sorry but there is no obvious connection, if one is fertile or not has nothing to do with marriage. Do you have any evidence that marriage itself is a biological imperative? if you do not have evidence to support your claims maybe you should just be honest. Additionally, what makes you think that the Gaussian distribution is not utilized within the social sciences or that the research sited does not use a sufficient sample size and distribution? Again do you have any evidence or just disparaging remarks to support your claims? Your lack of understanding of how the social sciences conduct their research doe snot make them a "sofT science."

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 2:41 p.m.

    @marxist

    "OK, so's what the homosexual population supposed to do? Sit out life?"

    Celibacy is what comes to mind. Sexual relations are not all there is to life. Millions and millions of people have led fulfilling lives without having traditional marriage and the accompanying physical relations. The expectation for traditional marriage is abstinence outside of marriage and complete fidelity within.

    It's not easy, but I suggest it is worth it.

  • Jeff29 Draper, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 2:18 p.m.

    I'm wondering if someone who supports SSM based on the idea that it is a fundamental right could explain to me where those rights come from and who/what determines those rights. I'm genuinely interested in your opinion.

  • genetics Canada, 00
    Feb. 7, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    Sorry Charlie!

    I can't help you with the biology if you refuse to see it-the necessities are blatantly obvious. As for the social and behavioral sciences, they are "soft" sciences and rarely have viable statistical data sets to support the claims made. They are easily modulated to a political cause. For example, a Gaussian distribution would be necessary to even test a hypothesis and then positive results would have to move on to hundreds of individuals with several phases. Academic studies rarely push these realities, getting published is the goal. Generally, pharmaceutical companies looking for approval from the FDA for a treatment, new drug, etc. are the only ones held to high statistical standards.

  • NevadaCougar Panaca, NV
    Feb. 7, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    @Tolstoy

    You should probably take a look at the alleged "scientific evidence." There is an inherent bias in most of the "evidence." Also, most of the citations provided by the APA and AAP are mere commentaries. They are not actually studies at all. Take Patterson and Perrin, they are both commentaries, which "cherry pick" studies they agree with. Hardly empirical data. Not only that but the studies compare LGBT homes with single-parent homes. They have NEVER compared LGBT homes with happy heterosexual homes. The Family Research Council HAS. For example, they found that children of LGBT parents are 6 times more likely to become LGBT. Born that way or indoctrinated? Ask yourself this: if everyone were LGBT could our society survive? The numbers are growing rapidly. Marriage will only embrace the downfall.

  • src8 Newark Valley, NY
    Feb. 7, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    Discrimination appears to be a dirty word to many people these days. It's a real shame that so many people can't Discriminate (judge) between good and evil, right and wrong, Male and Female. So many have no moral justification for calling marriage something it is not, other than; it should be whatever they want to call it. They pervert the meaning of the constitution and say it is all about equal rights of couples and doing whatever they want. In fact it says nothing of marriage and has everything to do what protecting individual liberties and allowing equal treatment under the law. Laws of the State and of the US are enacted by state legislatures and Congress and should not be interpreted by judicial and administrative process. They should only enforce the laws. Congress in a bipartisan way approved DOMA and for some reason the LIBs and Dems think they can go around congress and State legislatures. It's going to come back and bite them. They will be put out of office and their strong arm methods will be put to shame for years to come. The sooner the better!

  • B Man Orem, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    @Testimony
    I don't follow your argument. The only 2 mentions of "natural parent" in the entire brief are both quotations of existing Utah state law and are not presented as the core of the case, merely as accompanying evidence that other state laws also recognize the importance of children being raised by their parents.

    @Here
    Great comments.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Feb. 7, 2014 1:39 p.m.

    That is stunning that the state of Utah has allowed the FRC to get anywhere near this case! This demonstrates the state has essentially thrown in the towel, and at this point are simply pandering to their flock.

    There can be no hope for a victory... the Family Research Council has officially been listed as a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2010 due to anti-gay speech from its leaders, which the SPLC says includes calls for gay men and lesbians to be imprisoned.

    The Family Research Council status as a hate group places them into the same company of groups like the Nation of Islam, the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, and the now mostly defunct Aryan Nations. The SPLC tracks 932 active hate groups in the U.S, and the deplorable Family Research Council is one of them.

    Now that the state has allied itself with the FRC hate group, it's game over. If they were serious about prevailing in this case, the Utah AG should have never let the FRC anywhere near the case.

  • Manzanita Las Vegas, NV
    Feb. 7, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    I agree with many of the comments already made here about the untenable position of those who inisist on denying equal protection to all adults who wish to enjoy the blessings of marriage.

    While I infrequently agree with Deseret News's views on the topic, I do want to credit the author of the story who, in the first paragraph, candidly recognizes that the Family Research Council is a "conservative Christian lobbying group." In the past, on this topic and others, Deseret News readers have been led to believe that such groups were non-partisan, uninterested "think tanks" without a dog in the fight. So, thanks for the candor, and here's hoping it's a sign of things to come.

  • Berkeley reader Berkeley , CA
    Feb. 7, 2014 1:30 p.m.

    Why is the Family Research Council's filing of a brief the top headline in the Deseret News? This organization has been designated a hate group by the Southern Policy Law Center for its unrelenting and uncompromising opposition to any civil rights for gay people.

    I thought the Deseret News called for civility and tolerance in a recent editorial? Obviously the paper has shown its true colors by aggresively placing this item as top headline!

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    Feb. 7, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    B_Man,

    Reading and understanding are not the same thing. One of the big errors in the brief is relying on Utah's citation of "natural parents" in several sections of the law concerning the treatment of children. This is cited as if it somehow means "two biological parents living together." It doesn't. In fact, in Utah law, the term "natural parent" is defined in a way that not only you will not like, but may very well lead the 10th Circuit quickly dismissing the argument.

    Wherever "natural parent" is used in Utah law, it is defined to mean, "a minor's biological OR ADOPTIVE parent, and includes a minor's NONCUSTODIAL PARENT." [emphasis added] "Noncustodial parent" means we're talking about divorces, separations, and perhaps even incarcerated parents. Hardly the picture of the ideal family the brief wishes to hold above all else.

    It's a brief doomed to fail, not only because childbearing is irrelevant to the subject of marriage, but because it's not even internally consistent in Utah law.

  • B Man Orem, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    Thanks to Heilig for the recommendation to read the entire legal brief filed by the State of Utah to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. I did so, and it was very helpful to me.

    For those who believe there is no rational basis for defining marriage in the way that it is defined the state constitution, I highly recommend reading this (Google Utah court brief 1294036). There is also a wealth of additional helpful information on the National Organization for Marriage website.

    Supporting the traditional definition of marriage does not discriminate against anyone. It supports many beneficial interests of society.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    @Here;

    SSM doesn't change "traditional marriage". As for morality, I am every bit as moral a person as you are. My marriage to my partner is as moral as your marriage to your spouse.

    "It’s not gay people I have a problem with. It’s the whole “lifestyle” which has always been - and still is - based on a defining behavior."

    --- Being gay isn't a "lifestyle". Our "lifestyle" is probably identical to yours. I have an extreme problem with your religious "lifestyle" though; especially when it comes to forcing me to live by it. I also do not believe in your "savior".

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Feb. 7, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    @happyinlife: You just compared gay men and women to dogs, pedophilia, incest and bestiality. How is that not naked hate speech? (For the record, the vast majority of those convicted of incest, pedophilia, and bestiality have been heterosexuals. Most of them, married.)

    @p_e: If you don't want to learn how to google/bing/yahoo, you could at least read other comments before posting. Your question was answered and documented.

    @Goldminer: Only 5% of humankind is gay. The populations of the "gay marriage" states are still growing, as fast as ever. Not even a slight chance of doom, except overpopulation.

    @Meckofahess: That 1987 magazine article was written by two men, entirely on their own, and said nothing untrue. Compare that to the dozens of organized, conservative PR/Thinktank/hate groups cranking out paid lies and fundraising letters in opposition. A lot of people make a pretty good living promoting fear of equal rights.

    AGAIN, extending the right of civil marriage to a previously excluded group doesn't damage it for the already-included group. Those of us who have gay friends or relatives just get invited to a few more weddings.

  • Here Sandy, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    It’s not gay people I have a problem with. It’s the whole “lifestyle” which has always been - and still is - based on a defining behavior. All people are children of God and deserve respect and compassion. But that doesn’t not mean their behavior does. All children of God are worth much in God’s view. All have unlimited potential. All are loved by a kind Heavenly Father. So much so that He gave His only begotten Son for all of us. That the Savior of the world suffered such agony for you and me despite the mistakes we make and sins we commit. He wants us to have compassion for one another, but He also wants us to defend truth. He is infinitely perfect in His compassion, His knowledge, and peace. You are His child, no matter what your persuasions. That doesn’t mean he condones our sins. He just wants us to overcome them by repentance through the Messiah and return to live with Him.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    @genetics

    "I stated the biological, scientific facts about the term "marriage" between a male and a female of the species, copulation was not specifically mentioned."

    please site the "biological science" that makes a connection between "biology" and "marriage" since we are not talking about copulation. The burden of proof actually does lie with those seeking to deny access to rights and privileges to prove a compelling interest in doing so, thats how our legal system works and several people have sited the social and behavioral science that supports gay marriage,

  • Here Sandy, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 11:43 a.m.

    @Equal Protection
    “sexual orientation like race is considered an immutable characteristic for most people.” I don't believe this premise. Discrimination against African Americans really and truly has no legitimate moral or scientific basis. But, comparing skin color to homosexual behavior is apples and oranges as far as I can tell.

    There is also much evidence that alcoholism has a genetic component to it. That doesn’t make it automatically supportable on a legal or moral basis. Society has to consider many other factors to make a genetic predisposition justifiable by the law. Just because there MAY be a genetic component to many traits does not make them healthy for society nor uncontrollable

    It wasn’t that long ago that supporters of SSM were using the argument that they, as a minority, needed constitutional protection. Now they are implying that with so many people on their side, they must be right and legally defensible. Inconsistent. Maybe it’s time the religious folks get some constitutional protection.

  • Here Sandy, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 11:40 a.m.

    In my view, just because we who are against same-sex marriage have lost some battles doesn't mean we're mistaken. I believe it is an indication that some liberal judges legislated their opinions into law from the bench.

    Also, I suggest proponents of traditional marriage presenting familiar arguments is not a problem. These principles are tried and tested and have stood for thousands of years. They are compelling. The problem is, many don't recognize them as vital for society.

    As far as saying that those who support traditional marriage are hateful, Of course hate is not right. But if one is defending traditional marriage, whether through the legislature or the courts, one has to be firm, solid, and persistent as a rock given the militancy shown by some SSM supporters. Not all, but some.

    On a religious note, I believe the fact that these battles over same sex marriage even exist is truly a sign of the times. Not some grand battle for equality, but a sad commentary on today's societal norms and morals. I know you may not believe that, but I believe it is key to the debate.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 11:32 a.m.

    OK, so's what the homosexual population supposed to do? Sit out life? They are anywhere between 2% to 10% of the population. They were born homosexual. I repeat, what are they supposed to do?

  • genetics Canada, 00
    Feb. 7, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    Lane Myer

    I stated the biological, scientific facts about the term "marriage" between a male and a female of the species, copulation was not specifically mentioned. Please indicate your 5 reasons how SS relationships trump these biological, anatomical, population genetics, generational, DNA driven, evolutionary endowed facts. The burden of proof is not on those who support traditional marriage- its advantages are self evident if you accept contemporary evolutionary theory.

    Ranch

    Most of us are content with the traditional definition of marriage, irrespective of the imperfect people who attempt to practice it, and see no need to alter it to fit our particular views- it is what it is.

  • p e RICHFIELD, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 10:55 a.m.

    @DanO
    Can you give us any reference for your statement that the Family Research Council is "recognized as a hate group"? Or should we just conclude that YOU recognize any group who doesn't share your views as a hate group?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    @Goldminer;

    Marriage is what the couple makes of it, not how you define it. You do not get to define any other person's relationship. Mind your own relationship and stop worrying about what others are calling theirs.

    @genetics;

    Any "corruption" of the "traditional family" is coming from those very "traditional families". Not the LGBT families.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    genetics: Do you think that the act of copulation is all there is to a relationship? Do you think that gay relationships are different from heterosexual ones in any other area other than the act? You do realize that many heterosexual married people do the exact same actions in their relationship, don't you? And how does genetics make them different (especially for those married couples who are infertile)?

    What do you feel makes them completely different? Could you list your 5 main areas?

  • intervention slc, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    @Meckofahess

    So Tolstoy quote the leading professionals in the field of human behavior (with citations) and you dismiss it as junk science? Based on what evidence?

    here is another, this one from the American Sociological Association, “The results of our review are clear. There is no evidence that children with parents in stable same-sex or opposite-sex relationships differ in terms of well-being. Indeed, the greater stability offered by marriage for same-sex as well as opposite-sex parents may be an asset for child well-being. When the social science evidence is exhaustively examined -- which the ASA has done -- the facts demonstrate that children fare just as well when raised by same-sex parents. Unsubstantiated fears regarding same-sex child rearing do not overcome these facts.

  • Constitution Is King Brigham, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    Happyinlife said "Both men and women have equal rights. Neither may marry their sibling (even if they are in love), neither may marry a child, neither may marry a dog, and neither may marry someone of the same sex."

    1. Marriage gives people the right to make a legal commitment to the love of their life. Straights have that right for themselves, gay minorities want that EQUAL right (and the US Constitution demands it).

    2. States CAN ban things if the state can prove harm. Child marriage = child rape = harm, Incest = birth defects = harm .... States have been unable to PROVE any harm of letting gay people marry the love of their life, and that's why judges are forced to strike these bans down.

  • genetics Canada, 00
    Feb. 7, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    Hetero- and homosexual relationships are completely different based on biology, anatomy and genetics. The homosexual agenda to corrupt the traditional definition of marriage is intellectually dishonest and disingenuous to that union that gave most of us life. Terms such as "bigotry" and "hate" will not and cannot change the underlying biological contradictions of proposed SSM.

  • Happyinlife PROVO, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 10:12 a.m.

    "Laws that treat men and women equally, and do not subject them to different restrictions or disabilities, cannot be said to deny either men or women the equal protection of the laws," according to the brief. "Amendment 3 treats men and women equally: Both men and women may marry someone of the opposite sex; neither may marry someone of the same sex."

    Well said!
    Both men and women have equal rights. Neither may marry their sibling (even if they are in love), neither may marry a child, neither may marry a dog, and neither may marry someone of the same sex.

    And Baccus0902, no it is not all about sex. Sex is also a word to determine gender. See this definition from wikepedia on sex: the biological makeup of an individual's reproductive anatomy.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Feb. 7, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    If Utah lawmakers were actually sincere in the laws they make, they would make it illegal for anyone to divorce. If a married male/female is truly best for the children why would the state ever allow a divorce to take place? Further, if a spouse dies the children should be taken from the surviving spouse and placed in a two parent (M/F) home. Its best for the children.

  • Goldminer Salem, ut
    Feb. 7, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    Marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman for millennia. Every person has the "right" to marry as it has been defined. Now, we have a small element in our society (and there has always been a hidden but very small group throughout history as far as we know) who want to redefine marriage so they can get what they think is acceptance for their relationship. This is NOT marriage; it is a relationship. These individuals want their relationship legalized and are willing to force society to accept their redefinition of marriage. Unfortunately, immoral behavior cannot be redefined so it is accepted; it will NOT be accepted as such by the majority of people who understand that humankind cannot survive if all were homosexual. If they wish to be united as a homosexual couple, fine; but that does not make them married as originally defined.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    Hey Utahns - below is the strategy employed by the gay community to "desensitize" those who favor morality, decency and pro-traditional marriage:

    "The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the pubic is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of keen emotion. The authors go on to note their goal to make sexual preference placed on a par with preferences in ice cream flavors or sports. You prefer chocolate, I prefer butter pecan. You prefer hockey, I prefer baseball. No problem.

    At least in the beginning they write we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect full appreciation or understanding of homosexuality from the average America. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can only get them to think that is just another thing, with a shrug of the shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won."

    Published in the 1987 edition of Guide, a homosexual publication,The Overhauling of Straight America

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 9:38 a.m.

    ulvegaard says:

    "I do not agree with gay marriage. That does not mean I hate gay people or wish them ill. It means that I do not agree with gay marriage, period."

    Then don't have one. Problem solved.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Feb. 7, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    @Quaker:
    "The Family Research Council ("FRC") is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center ("SPLC") as a hate group."

    The director of the Family Research Council has called those who support traditional marriage homophobes, so if he uses epithets, then the SPLC is a hate group themselves.

    Last summer there were discussions here about Orson Scott Card. People said he was virulently homophobic, but they could not ever cite anything that he aaid to back that up. So what have they said to make them a hate group? Never mind what the SPLO says. We think for ourselves here.

  • Constitution Is King Brigham, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    The US Constitution is VERY clear on this. "No State shall make or enforce ANY law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". The words stand on their own. We may NOT need to hear from the supreme court at all on this. Every district court may strike down the bans and the US Supreme Court may refuse any appeals.

  • McMurphy St George, Utah
    Feb. 7, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    "Amendment 3 treats men and women equally: Both men and women may marry someone of the opposite sex; neither may marry someone of the same sex."
    The same argument was used to defend the ban on inter-racial marriage. While whites could not marry blacks,blacks could not marry whites. A transparent scheme to justify bigotry. Same argument in this brief -- same justification.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    If you want to be scared go to their website. It is unbelievable. Makes the Eagle Forum look radical. They promote creationism over anything else and they deny science. Even BYU teaches Evolution classes. They have at times in the past made negative comments about Mormons. They are an extremist group and Mormons should be wary of them.

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    "Family Research Council is recognized as a hate group."

    Oh Really? Is that why they beat up an old lady after the Prop. 8 vote in California when she attempted to speak at a public gathering?

    Oops.. My bad. That was the LGBT activists who did that.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    @Meckofahess

    So Tolstoy quotes the leading professional scholars in the field of human behavior (with citations) and you dismiss it as junk science but provide no evidence to support your dismissal of these leading scholars in the field? I wonder who I should trust?

    Let me give you another one, this one from the American Sociological Association, “The results of our review are clear. There is no evidence that children with parents in stable same-sex or opposite-sex relationships differ in terms of well-being. Indeed, the greater stability offered by marriage for same-sex as well as opposite-sex parents may be an asset for child well-being. When the social science evidence is exhaustively examined, which the ASA has done, the facts demonstrate that children fare just as well when raised by same-sex parents. Unsubstantiated fears regarding same-sex child rearing do not overcome these facts."

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Feb. 7, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    The Family Research Council ("FRC") is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center ("SPLC") as a hate group.

    FRC doesn't publish any clinically-accepted research, only issues position papers espousing anti-gay propaganda -- crafting language, accusations and arguments to be used in public by their political allies to combat societal acceptance of homosexuals. Some of their baseless assertions are extremely inflammatory and cause great harm. Once part of the Focus On The Family organization, they were split off as a separate corporation to protect Focus's tax exemption.

    The more "friends" like this the State has, the clearer it becomes what the real purpose of Amendment 3 is. I wouldn't go trumpeting how closely their position is to yours, if I were you and wanted to win that appeal.

    SPLC has a lot of information on their website about the harm that FRC and similar organizations do, and the falsehoods that they spread. I would encourage you opponents of SSM to check closely who your allies are. With friends like those... maybe you'll reconsider your position altogether.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    Feb. 7, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    @DanO

    The Family Research Council is labeled as a hate group -- just as anyone who does not go along with the GLBT agenda. The current atmosphere in this country is one of division; not unity. And that is not to say that unity cannot exist if people maintain differing opinions. It is to say that divisions result when people prefer to label anyone - on either side of the isle - who does not support their agenda or way of thinking.

    I think that there is room for civil discourse on this issue as well as others. But we are teaching our rising generation that if they are going to be accepted by the majority they must conform to current trends or they are not welcome.

    I do not agree with gay marriage. That does not mean I hate gay people or wish them ill. It means that I do not agree with gay marriage, period. I don't like calamari either, but that doesn't mean I hate squids.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 8:36 a.m.

    Meckofahess: Whether or not you want to say that HIV/AIDS is a homosexual disease, the fact is that it is highly prevalent among the gay and lesbian community due to their great number of sex partners.

    ----------

    This is totally a deception. I didn't think you would allow something so misleading.

    The truth is that lesbians have the least sexually transmitted diseases of any group - including heterosexuals and especially do not have HIV/AIDS! This are not a problem at all in the lesbian community.

    Where did you get this information, Meck? Do not trust that source again!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    They should patch over the word 'freedom' on the sign in the picture.

  • koseighty Logan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    @Rocket Science who said:

    "We all forget that the whole issue, regardless of what side we take, will be decided by SCOTUS. ..."

    This may not be decided by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has shown a desire to delay this -- they could have ruled on the whole of marriage equality during DOMA and did not. Leaving it to the states, but confining the states within constitutionality.

    The SCOTUS may decline all appeals on the matter until at least 2 district courts have disagreed. If all the district courts agree, on one side or the other of the issue, the SCOTUS may choose never to hear the case at all.

    Personally, I'm betting they will wait until 2 circuit courts disagree before taking it on. But that's just an informed layman's opinion.

  • koseighty Logan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 7:54 a.m.

    @HeresAThought who said:

    "... If it's so broken, why would you want a part of it? And are you saying that love can't exist without marriage? Strange."

    I've never considered it any of my business who others choose to marry or why. Over the years I've seen people, young and old, marry for a variety of reasons: love, companionship, money, security, friendship, "for the kids," etc. Never have I thought I had some special right to judge them for their choice of partner or reason. I have also seen people, young and old, avoid marriage. Again for a variety of reasons. And again, I found it to be none of my business.

    This is not, and never has been, about why people marry. It's about treating all adult citizens of this country with equal respect and dignity -- giving them the choice to marry whom they choose, for whatever reason they choose. Or not. That's what liberty and freedom are all about.

  • InLifeHappiness Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 7:51 a.m.

    The 14th Amendment needs to be upheld. Utah's new attorney general appears to have guaranteed the violation of this amendment, as Shelby ruled, thereby invalidating each state as final marriage arbiter. The State of Utah has left the federal courts no other recourse than to nationally invalidate a state's definition of legal marriage due to the violation of Amendment 14 and invalidation of the Supreme Court's DOMA decision. Coupled with state definitions' violation of the rights of all U.S. citizens and the Supreme Court's invalidation of DOMA, Utah's appeal will inevitably lead to federal court national definition - which has already been given when DOMA was invalidated to uphold Amendment 14.

  • Twin Sister LINDON, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 7:48 a.m.

    "The principal defining characteristic of marriage, as it has been understood in our 'history, legal traditions and practices,' is the union of a man and a woman," according to the filing.

    Amen! Bravo to the Family Research Council for defending the rights of those who support the definition of traditional marriage.

  • koseighty Logan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 7:46 a.m.

    @HeresAThought who said:

    "Marriage is and has been (as far as recordable history can determine) a union between one man and one woman..."

    A statement which conveniently omits the Mormon church's own history just 100 years ago as well as the Biblical definition of marriage, which I'll restate here:

    Marriage is between one man, his wives, his concubines, his female slaves, his wives' female slaves, and his concubines' female slaves.

    The meanings of words change all the time. Our definition of marriage also changes over time. It used to be a simple sale of a woman by her father to her husband -- which is also supported in the Bible. We got over that. We used to forbid interracial couples from marrying. We got over that too.

    I'm a heterosexual male, married to my sweetheart for 30 years. And it's clear to me that extending marriage to more of our brothers and sisters will in no way affect my marriage or my life -- except, perhaps, to restore a bit of my faith in humanity.

  • Albemar West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    After a decade of listening to both sides, I'm still waiting for one real concrete example of harm done to marriage. Still waiting to hear how allowing the neighbor down the street to get married is going to dissolve, disturb or deny someone of their own marriage.

    However, the other side has been able to provide hundreds of examples of how denying them equal access, would in reality harm their families. And most of their arguments use love and equal treatment as reasons. While the "not them" side, continues to use fear and hysteria.

    It looks as if the future is coming to Utah, and it bends toward fairness and equality.

  • koseighty Logan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 7:33 a.m.

    @LovelyDeseret who said:
    "I wonder if gay marriage is not punishment for not valuing and protecting marriage enough. If you don't cherish it, you lose it. Like a thief on a Friday night before Christmas it snuck in and stole marriage."

    And yet, nothing is being taken away from you. Your marriage, and mine of 30 years, will not be lost. The only thing threatened by marriage equality is a sense of privilege some insist on having. My enjoyment of a piece of pie is in no way diminished by someone at the next table also enjoying a slice. To believe otherwise is the height of arrogance and self importance.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 7:06 a.m.

    @Tolstoy

    Same-Sex Parenting and Junk Science

    “No one should pay any attention to studies that are poorly done. They are just some stories, they really are not science.” Dr. Linda Waite

    One the misleading claims commonly made by homosexual activists and their allies is that social
    science research proves that there are no significant differences in the social and psychological outcomes for children raised by same-sex “parents” when compared to those raised by heterosexual parents. (The term “parent” will be used for convenience, but with the recognition that no more than one member of a same-sex couple raising a child can be the biological parent.)

    However, independent evaluation of the studies commonly used to support these assertions have concluded that all of them fall far short of the minimum standards the social science disciplines require to be met for research findings to have any validity.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 6:59 a.m.

    @Schnee

    In reply to my comment you stated "Hmm, well maybe we can reduce the risk of STDs by encouraging committed monogamous relationships"

    To try to compare the rate of STD (HIV/AIDS)in the heterosexual population to the rate in the gay community is counter-factual and disingenuous and you know it. Your assertion does not stand up to statistical analysis or scientific evidence.

    According the Centers for Disease control and Prevention "In 2011, in the United States, MSM (men who have sex with men) accounted for 79% of 38,825 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older and 62% of 49,273 estimated diagnoses among all persons receiving an HIV diagnosis that year".

    This is very troubling because HIV research and treatment costs the American tax payer billions of dollars that could be used for other needs such as healthcare for the needy and education.

    Another major reason why laws in America should foster committed traditional marriage and family relationships!

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 6:54 a.m.

    Most stories of sexual abuse of a child reveals that the pedophile hid behind the "sanctity" of "marriage" to have access to his victims.Never heard of one case of sexual perversion by a married gay couple. The sexual perversion statistics that these so called "family" organizarions cite are all statistics taken from their own gene pool.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Feb. 7, 2014 6:52 a.m.

    Also weighing in with their own amicus brief are Center for Urban Renewal and Education, The Coalition of African-American Pastors, and The Frederick Douglass Foundation.

    From the FRC brief: "Given that same-sex marriage has been allowed only since 2003...it cannot be said that same-sex marriage is firmly rooted in 'the Nation's history, legal traditions, and practices.'"

    It CAN be said, however, that discrimination against LGBTs is firmly rooted in the Nation's history, legal traditions, and practices. The fertile ground in which it was planted is a compost of fear, ignorance, and superstition.

    But we know too much now, as evidenced by Tolstoy's contributions above and countless others' throughout this debate. When information enables one to shed fear or suspicion of another human being, why would a person instead choose to cling to them even harder? This reflex I do not understand. It seems to go against one's self-interest. Don't you feel better - mentally, emotionally, physically - when you view something positively rather than negatively?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 6:33 a.m.

    "Everyone has their opinions on these issues, which is why the political process should decide the outcome, not unelected judges."

    I think I just realized why some people are so against the language arts' common core; the goal is to teach students that the way to present an argument and support it is by providing factual evidence. Because opinions vary, we cannot base our laws on them. We need to establish rules of law based on fact.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 6:24 a.m.

    We all forget that the whole issue, regardless of what side we take, will be decided by SCOTUS. Constitutionality HAS NOT been decided by SCOTUS at this point. Remember that in California Prop 8 SCOTUS did not rule that SSM is a Constitutional right, but that those bringing the suit did not have standing. Utahs Governor and AG have standing. Will SCOTUS rule in favor of Utah supporting 33 other States? Or, will they rule against Utah and traditional roles of States? Until then all of our opinions are only personal opinions, only 5 SCOTUS opinions will matter.

  • Stephen Daedalus Arvada, CO
    Feb. 7, 2014 6:21 a.m.

    Family Research Council's amicus brief and the one filed by Utah is a night and day contrast. FRC's is the brief that I think Utah's citizens will wish their state filed.

    While much more focused, analytic and supported (and thus persuasive) in terms of the legal argument as to why Shelby's opinion should be overruled, since FRC is not a party to the case, there is no requirement that the 10th Cir. judges should give FRC's brief any formal regard in their own analysis, nor will FRC's attorneys be part of the oral argument.

    Unlike Utah, FRC's brief doesn't simply throw out a passing, and somewhat off-point, citation as to why Shelby erred -- they dig right into the cases Shelby cited and logic he followed. Now, even if the 10th Cir. pays it any mind, they may or may not find FRC's argument convincing enough. But this is how it looks like when a party wants to prevail on the appeal, just a shame for Utah that FRC is not a party.

  • HeresAThought Queen Creek, AZ
    Feb. 7, 2014 6:07 a.m.

    Marriage is and has been (as far as recordable history can determine) a union between one man and one woman, providing the biological emotional and phsychological basis for which a family is based. Man and woman can, in principle create children within the bonds of matrimony, which is acceptable before our Creator. It is the fundamental basis for our society.

    I think it perhaps ironic that one of the biggest arguments for same-sex marriage is that it denies the rights of same-sex couples to experience the same joy and happiness that hetero couples enjoy, as if to imply that happiness can't exist without the bonds of legal marriage. Yet, in the same breath, I also hear how fractured and fallible hetero marriages are (over 50% divorce rate) from the same people. If it's so broken, why would you want a part of it? And are you saying that love can't exist without marriage? Strange.

  • Joemamma W Jordan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 6:00 a.m.

    Why is it that gay people continue to try to make the argument that marriage as sanctioned by the state is about love??
    It is not!!!!
    The state's only interest in marriage is the benefits of social structure and moral control.

    Since what's best for society is no longer a consideration by the state but getting more votes is they have changed their position on the issue.
    The "LOVE" thing is only a requirement in the religion sanctioning of marriage, which gay people totally oppose religious views but want to use it to make their case that love supersedes nature, God and common sense.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Feb. 7, 2014 5:52 a.m.

    The Family Research Council want to help and weigh in - my advice - run the other way as fast as you can. No one needs help like that.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 4:46 a.m.

    @Heilig 7:28 p.m. Feb. 6, 2014

    I would like to recommend reading the entire brief filed by the attorneys for Utah (just google the Utah appeal court brief 1294036). By reading the entire document, one can gain a much better understanding of the powerful and compelling reasons Utah has for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage.

    -------------------

    I read and analyzed the entire brief. There is nothing powerful or compelling in it. It's just saying the same old thing in a lot of ponderous words. It is in no way legally persuasive. Utah really wasted its money for that one.

  • TriSam North Carolian, AP
    Feb. 7, 2014 4:20 a.m.

    I defend Admendment 3. Come on people get behind this in droves. I know your out there. We must potect the sanctity of marriage.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Feb. 7, 2014 3:08 a.m.

    @DanO:

    “You're known by the company you keep. Family Research Council (FRC) is recognized as a hate group. With friends of the court like that like that, who needs enemies. Good luck on trying to show there is no animus behind Amendment 3.”

    Where did you get that information? Recognized by whom?

    Question what you are told. Think for yourself. PC accepts. Liberal thinks.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Feb. 7, 2014 2:00 a.m.

    I wonder if gay marriage is not punishment for not valuing and protecting marriage enough.If you don't cherish it, you lose it.

    Like a thief on a Friday night before Christmas it snuck in and stole marriage.

  • Constitution Is King Brigham, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 11:40 p.m.

    Marriage laws allow a person the right to make a legal commitment to the love of their life. Utah gives incentives to both fertile and infertile straight people to do this, but bans gay people from doing this same thing. Utah tells a gay person "Dump the love of your life and marry some other opposite-sex person that you don't love"... That's unequal treatment and is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment... Further, it's downright cruel and immoral to try to split-up a loving couple.

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    Feb. 6, 2014 11:32 p.m.

    The brief posits the question --what is marriage, [just like the casuistic book by Robbie George] but this is a tactic to confuse the historical view of what marriage has been with the essential question: what is the government's purpose in acknowledging a marriage? The first purpose in civil family law is to reflect the way that committed couples actually organize their personal, financial and familial lives. Based in reality, the law makes presumptions regarding affinity, family and fisc. [Historically, it reflected rich white men's desires.] It is not an abstract concept, as the FRC would like us to believe, but the way real couples exist in the real world. Straight and gay couples order their lives the same way in making real world decisions, and thus the government should and must recognize reality.

  • play by the rules SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 11:02 p.m.

    Gay Marriage = Oxymoron.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 10:58 p.m.

    I sure am glad they weighed in. I was beginning to wonder what their thoughts were.
    I'm also angry judges never follow the constitution. Cause I'm the expert, not them.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 10:27 p.m.

    From the American Medical Association "Our American Medical Association: (1) recognizes that denying civil marriage based on sexual orientation is discriminatory and imposes harmful stigma on gay and lesbian individuals and couples and their families; (2) recognizes that exclusion from civil marriage contributes to health care disparities affecting same-sex households; (3) will work to reduce health care disparities among members of same-sex households including minor children; and (4) will support measures providing same-sex households with the same rights and privileges to health care, health insurance, and survivor benefits, as afforded opposite-sex households."

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 10:11 p.m.

    From the American Academy of Pediatrics "Scientific evidence affirms that children have similar developmental and emotional needs and receive similar parenting whether they are raised by parents of the same or different genders. If a child has 2 living and capable parents who choose to create a permanent bond by way of civil marriage, it is in the best interests of their child(ren) that legal and social institutions allow and support them to do so, irrespective of their sexual orientation. If 2 parents are not available to the child, adoption or foster parenting remain acceptable options to provide a loving home for a child and should be available without regard to the sexual orientation of the parent(s)."

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 10:05 p.m.

    From the American Psychological Association (with citations) “Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents (Patterson, 2004a). Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents (Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999). Evidence also suggests that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). The picture that emerges from research is one of general engagement in social life with peers, parents, family members, and friends. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support. Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.”

  • Gearhead Layton, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 9:34 p.m.

    Consider the position:
    "Laws that treat men and women equally, and do not subject them to different restrictions or disabilities, cannot be said to deny either men or women the equal protection of the laws,"

    I agree with this completely it makes sense however, the US government gives married people tax breaks doesn't it? If it does, then married people and un-married people are subject to different restrictions gay or straight. Having said that, does a single person have the same protection under the law as a married person? Perhaps tax breaks for married folks should be modified?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 9:14 p.m.

    @candaceparker "Everyone has their opinions on these issues, which is why the political process should decide the outcome, not unelected judges."

    The outcome of an election is always the best solution. Take the case of 3 starving wolves and a delicious lamb voting though the political process on what to eat for lunch. The majority should always rule.

    @Snapdragon "This is completely different then Loving vs. Virginia."

    Not really, sexual orientation like race is considered an immutable characteristic for most people. The issue of traditional and historical discrimination does not justify continuation of the practice. African Americans, Convicted Felons, just like Same-sex couples were and are not asking for a new right, but a fundamental right to participate in the existing institution of marriage. There are no interracial, felon, non-procreative or same-sex marriage licenses, there is only one "marriage" license. A right to marry someone for which their is no attraction or desire of intimacy is simply no right at all.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Feb. 6, 2014 9:05 p.m.

    You're known by the company you keep. Family Research Council is recognized as a hate group. With friends of the court like that like that, who needs enemies. Good luck on trying to show there is no animus behind Amendment 3.

  • Baker Boy Westminster, CA
    Feb. 6, 2014 8:49 p.m.

    Candaceparker said "the political process should decide the outcome, not unelected judges". However unelected judges of the U.S. Supreme Court, not the political process, decided in a 1967 case, Loving vs. Virginia, that persons of different races had the right to marry. If the Supreme Court hadn't done that, it might still be the case that interracial marriage would be outlawed in several states. The U.S. Constitution trumped state laws in that instance, as it should have. Please Google 'Loving vs. Virginia'.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 8:46 p.m.

    @candaceparker
    "Opponents (States) have also prevailed in court by showing the disparaging effects that same-sex orientation generates with procreation, parenting, choice-of-law and other judicial efficiencies. Ultimately, courts must decide whether sexual orientation constitutes a suspect class. Until then, rationales on either side are mere banter in terms of true justification."

    ---

    I am sorry, since last June's SCOTUS ruling, which court did opponents of marriage equality ever prevail? Can you tell me?

    The truth is, when district judges in Utah, OK, OH struck down SSM constitutional ban, none of them invoked heighten scrutiny, they all applied rational basis, and the states' argument could not even pass this lowest standard.

    Utah spent big bucks to hire outside attorneys to defend Amendment 3, that is fine. However, unless these high priced lawyers can present some new argument, which they haven't, I don’t see how they can prevail in court with the same old tricks that have failed over and over again

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 8:41 p.m.

    "...unprincipled fundamental rights...".

    A fundamental right is unprincipled?

    "...The Family Research Council's brief is the second of many expected to be filed on both sides before the Denver-based 10th Circuit holds oral arguments April 10...".

    DN readers will receive a summary on each brief or just the briefs sympathetic to Utah's position?

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 8:39 p.m.

    Loving v Virginia's opinion was that Marriage is a fundamental right BECAUSE it is "fundamental to our very existence and survival.

    You can't cite precedent where none exists. The court described marriage between a man and a woman, nothing more, nothing less.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 8:23 p.m.

    @Meckofahess
    "The fact is that homosexuals do not live as long as heterosexuals due to the health risks associated with the lifestyle"

    Hmm, well maybe we can reduce the risk of STDs by encouraging committed monogamous relationships. Now if only we had a word that could describe something like that...

    By the way... it's discriminatory to argue that same-sex couples can't marry due to HIV (even though many of them don't have it, particularly the case for lesbians) but that a relative of mine who does have HIV can marry because he's straight.

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 8:19 p.m.

    "Amendment 3 treats men and women equally: Both men and women may marry someone of the opposite sex"

    True.

    "neither may marry someone of the same sex."

    Technically not true - anybody may marry someone of the same sex - Amendment 3 just makes it so that the government does not recognize it.

    Therefore, Amendment 3 should stand.

  • candaceparker Scottsdale, AZ
    Feb. 6, 2014 7:41 p.m.

    @USU-Logan "The truth is, Amendment 3 treats straight people and gay people unequally. A straight person can marry the one he or she loves; but a gay person can not do so, simply because they are of the same gender. The opponents of marriage equality have failed again and again in court to justify the rationale."

    Opponents (States) have also prevailed in court by showing the disparaging effects that same-sex orientation generates with procreation, parenting, choice-of-law and other judicial efficiencies. Ultimately, courts must decide whether sexual orientation constitutes a suspect class. Until then, rationales on either side are mere banter in terms of true justification.

  • Heilig St. George, Washington, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 7:28 p.m.

    I would like to recommend reading the entire brief filed by the attorneys for Utah (just google the Utah appeal court brief 1294036). By reading the entire document, one can gain a much better understanding of the powerful and compelling reasons Utah has for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage.

  • Snapdragon Midlothian, VA
    Feb. 6, 2014 7:06 p.m.

    This is completely different then Loving vs. Virginia.

    The whole idea of comparing the two are like comparing apples and oranges.

  • Dobby Fresno, CA
    Feb. 6, 2014 6:26 p.m.

    If Adam can marry Eve then Sally should be able to marry Eve. This is the same nonsense they tried before Loving vs. Virginia. It did not work then, and it will not work now.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Feb. 6, 2014 6:24 p.m.

    @ Paul Benjamin Linton, an attorney for the council, argues in the brief that the question isn't who may marry but what marriage is.

    I like that. May be we are getting smarter soon.
    Whatever is braking lose on this page from here on, I kind of like to get out before it starts.

    Good luck on the war on words.

  • Stephen Dickey PACIFIC PALISADES, CA
    Feb. 6, 2014 6:15 p.m.

    '[H]istory, legal traditions and practices,' does not legitimize the continued discrimination in laws like Amendment 3. The Supreme Court also noted in the Loving case that the long tradition of anti-miscegenation laws would not save it from constitutional scrutiny, either.

    Its amazing how similar the arguments are being pushed in this anti-discrimination case as they were in the 60s.

    It looks like the Virginia marriage rights case will be the first to be heard by the Supremes, making the Oklahoma and Utah cases moot.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 6:10 p.m.

    "Amendment 3 treats men and women equally: Both men and women may marry someone of the opposite sex; neither may marry someone of the same sex."

    ---

    The truth is, Amendment 3 treats straight people and gay people unequally. A straight person can marry the one he or she loves; but a gay person can not do so, simply because they are of the same gender. The opponents of marriage equality have failed again and again in court to justify the rationale.

    I don't see how the same old argument will magically prevail in the 10th circuit this time.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 6, 2014 6:04 p.m.

    ""Amendment 3 treats men and women equally: Both men and women may marry someone of the opposite sex; neither may marry someone of the same sex."

    So, marriage is a sexual contract? Pure biology with the solely purpose of propagation of the species?

    Let's forget love, companionship, common interests, just sex!!

    Is this the "Traditional -marriage" Utah is defending?

  • candaceparker Scottsdale, AZ
    Feb. 6, 2014 5:55 p.m.

    Everyone has their opinions on these issues, which is why the political process should decide the outcome, not unelected judges.