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

"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.

Canada, 00

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.

Constitution Is King
Brigham, UT

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.

slc, UT


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.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

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?

Here, UT


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.


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

p e

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?

Canada, 00

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.


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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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?

Sandy, UT

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.

Sandy, UT

@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.

Sorry Charlie!


"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,

Sandy, UT

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.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@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, UT


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".

B Man
Orem, UT

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.

Philadelphia, PA


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.

Berkeley reader
Berkeley , CA

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!

Las Vegas, NV

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.

West Richland, WA

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.

to comment

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