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
B Man
Orem, UT

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.

Great comments.

Newark Valley, NY

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!

Panaca, NV


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.

Canada, 00

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.

Draper, UT

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.

Sandy, UT


"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.

Sorry Charlie!


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."

slc, UT


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?

Seattle, WA

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?

Seattle, WA

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?

Salt Lake City, UT


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.

Philadelphia, PA


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.

Auckland NZ, 00

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.

The Scientist
Provo, UT

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!

Panaca, NV


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

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!

Madison, AL

@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.

Draper, UT

@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).

Sorry Charlie!


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.



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.

to comment

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