Comments about ‘Family Research Council weighs in on Utah gay marriage case’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Feb. 6 2014 5:15 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
West Jordan, UT

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.

Logan, UT

@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.

Twin Sister

"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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Logan, UT

@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.

Logan, UT

@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.

American Fork, UT

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

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

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!

Medical Lake, Washington


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.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

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.

slc, UT


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."

Salt Lake City, UT

"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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

St George, Utah

"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.

Constitution Is King
Brigham, UT

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.

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

"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.

Here, UT

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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

Salem, ut

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.

Sneaky Jimmy
Bay Area, CA

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.

to comment

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