@ Spellman789: Encouraging homosexuals to enter into committed same-sex
marriages sustains and promotes a stable society in exactly the way that
encouraging heterosexuals to enter into committed opposite-sex marriages
does.How does prohibiting same-sex marriages do anything positive
for society? It doesn't - just as prohibiting opposite-sex marriages would
not do anything positive for society.Married couples, regardless of
their genders and regardless of whether or not they have children or how those
children were conceived create units that care for each other and invest in each
other and the community around them.Encouraging people to live
together without the commitment of marriage or, even worse, encouraging them to
participate in a serious of short-term relationships prevents bonds of caring
from being formed and increases the societal cost of caring for individuals who
have no one close to perform those caring functions.You may view
childless couples or couples who have conceived through assisted reproductive
technologies or couples who have adopted as inferior based solely on the genders
of the parties involved, but legally there is no difference.
Your suggestion that a married Caucasian man and woman, together with their
children constitute a “natural” family, is a narrow view for whom
those who exist outside those parameters find offensive. This supposed ideal
representation of a “natural” family does not take into account the
vast number of people, some of whom include those who choose not to marry; those
with non-religious affiliations; interracial couples; couples who adopt;
same-sex couples; to name only a few, yet who advance humanity by their good
deeds and fine character. An intelligent society would do everything within
its power to encourage such individuals, instead of suppressing those who
challenge the denigrating mass-produced ideas of the uninformed and uneducated.
Your suggestion that a married Caucasian man and woman, together with their
children, constitute a “natural” family is a narrow minded view
which is offensive to those who exist outside those parameters. This supposed
ideal representation of a “natural” family does not take into
account the vast number of people, some of whom include those who choose not to
marry; those with non-religious affiliations; interracial couples; couples who
adopt; same-sex couples; to name only a few, yet who advance humanity by their
good deeds and fine character. An intelligent society would do everything
within its power to encourage such individuals instead of suppressing those who
challenge the denigrating mass-produced ideas of the uninformed and uneducated.
@ Redshirt: You missed the "similar conditions and circumstances" and
the "'a rational basis' to a 'legitimate state
purpose.'" parts of the article. First, it can be proven
that polygamous relationships are not 'similar conditions' to
two-party relationships - the involvement of extra people makes the situation
different. States have tried to prove that same-sex relationships are not
similarly situated to heterosexual relationships, but have never been able to
present an argument that withstands scrutiny by any court. Second,
the state has an interest in establishing inheritance rights and survivor
benefits along with the many other benefits of marriage. There is room for a
compelling argument that limiting marriage to two people has a rational
connection to furthering the state's interest. Just because one
situation violates the 14th Amendment does not automatically mean other
situations will also violate it.
Sure, it was not as horrible as you make it sound when polygamy was practiced
here. Are you against that? Just keep it between adults and I do not mind.I honestly think it would be a very small percentage that would want
polygamy since most people are pretty much a one person at a time type, but we
can make exceptions to those who believe differently. They just need to have
all their inheritance, ss surviorship, and benefits already decided before said
marriages. What is the problem there?
To "Lane Myer" you should read "equal protection: an overview"
at the Cornell Law school. They explain the "equal protection" clause.
So, if you say that equal protection mandates that gays should be granted all of
the benefits and definition of marriage, then you must allow 1 man to marry 5
women, 5 gays to join togehter and be called a marriage, 2 men and 3 women must
also be allowed to marry and be called a marriage. If you use that as your
justification, then you must allow any combination of adults to marry,
regardless of gender or sexual orientation.Are you prepared to open
up Pandora's box and let this out?
Pops,The people who changed laws were the states themselves! What
do you think Amendment 3 was about? It was the state realizing that there were
no laws prohibiting gays from marrying and then deciding that they did not want
to treat and give benefits to gays that they, themselves enjoyed. That amendment is what this whole court fiasco is about - not the rights that
gays (and blacks and women) obviously had before they were granted those rights
by the courts.Read amendment 3 and then read the 14th amendment to
our constitution. I don't think you can defend #3 unless you believe that
gays are not citizens. Either Utah is right or the constitution is right.
Judges MUST side with the constitution---every time.
@Lane,Marriage laws, up until recent court decisions, have in fact
been administered identically for all citizens without respect for race,
religion, nationality, or sexual preference. One man may marry one woman. One
woman may marry one man. Show us how that is not a true statement.What is being attempted by progressive judges and other advocates of the
normalization of homosexual relations is not the equalization of how the law is
administered, but a fundamental change to the law itself.
Redshirt1701:You act naive---but I know that you know that the
"protections under the law" mean that all laws are equally administered
to all citizens. That means that the benefits, privileges and rights given by
law are to be for all. Not just those you find worthy or feel akin to. Not
just those who act like you want them to. And not just those who you would deem
"ideal."We give marriage rights to murderers, to child
molesters, to drunken elopers in Vegas, and to temple going Mormons. All have
the same rights and benefits of marriage, whether or not they even have sex or
procreate. Now it is being extended to gay couples too. That is the American
way, believe it or not. It has nothing to do with what you think is moral. It
has nothing to do with traditions. It has to do with the constitution and
treating all citizens as equal under the law.Read the 14th
amendment. Read the 10th. See how they actually work together to insure that
we, the people (all of us) are a part of this great country and treated as equal
under the law by our great constitution.
To "Hank Pym" what are we protecting gays from by redefining
marriage?That is something that makes left wingers go insane.
to CHS 85 on 3/18... *Equal protection under the law* is a better
phrase to make the heads of the right wingers on this site spin.
@Ranch "Do you mean like incentivising adoption, for instance?"Exactly. Best to leave adoption as a contingency plan, to be used when the
preferred arrangement becomes impossible, and decide it case by case.
I wish Paul had had more space to go into depth on a few aspects of what he had
to say. Gay couples endeavoring to raise children, for example, is, in a way, is
a selfish endeavor. How so? Because it is a situation that intentionally
deprives a child of the knowledge of who one of its parents is, and
intentionally deprives a child of the natural right to be raised by its
biological parents. I don't think a stable or enduring free society can be
built on the premise that it's okay to sacrifice children as an
esteem-building exercise for adults.Single people have just as much
biological capability to reproduce as gay couples do. Maybe we should just call
everyone married and be done with it.
@RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTThe gays can still be united and
have the benefits, just don't call it marriage. Fix inheritance laws, fix
the laws that govern hospital visitation and medical issues.3:49
p.m. March 18, 2014======= Utah's Amendment 3
prohited "Civil Unions" and "Domestic Partnerships" or anything
else like unto it.And THAT is the smoking gun as to why Judge Shelby
correctly ruled it UnConstitutional and struck it down.BTW -- Does these now mean you are argreeing with me that Civil Unions and Domestic
Partnerships are back on the table, but only now after you've clearly lost?
@RedShirt;The hypocrisy is you saying "I get to use the word
marriage for my relationship and you HAVE to use the word 'union' for
yours". You can call your union whatever you want and
I'll do the same with mine. I couldn't care less if you refuse to use
the word 'marriage' for my marriage; but the goverment MUST use the
word I use for my relationship. You do whatever you want.
@Paul Mero; Balderdash and nonsense.Nate says:"If we believe that children thrive best under the care of both biological
parents, why would we create incentives for something else?"---
Do you mean like incentivising adoption, for instance? @RedShirt;We'll call it marriage if we want to; you call your
union whatever you want to. You don't get to dictate what words others
use.@Spellman789;It's time for you to stop worrying
about how other people live their lives. What "worked for millenia"
hasn't always been so great either.
@KalindraHow does fostering SSM sustain and promote society? It will not
and cannot. It is an inferior, flawed attempt to copy what has worked for
millenia and will continue to work in the future.
@CHS 85 "...I seem to remember the phrase 'Separate is inherently
unequal.' It applies here as well."How does it apply? No
one here is calling for segregation. Please explain.@Hutterite
"...what combination of humanity we choose to sustain ourselves that does
not violate our innate sense of morality, church free, is probably
acceptable."What if we choose to make it advantageous for
biological parents to stay together and raise their children? That is, to give
them societal advantages for doing so? And to raise the status of a couple even
when the potential for reproduction exists, whether realized or not? This
appears to my mind a great way for humanity to sustain itself, and my innate
sense of morality agrees.
This, from the head of the group which backs the lawyer fighting the marriage
equality ruling.My somewhat sarcastic translation:"Why don't all of you, and the Supreme Court, simply follow the
doctines of the lds church, and realize that they supercede the Constitution of
the USA and any ideas that contradict them?"Yes, it is VERY
inconvenient for the 80+ lds prophet to be placed in such a bind, but most of us
think it is his job to find God's current interpretation of what is right.
No, we mustn't agree that. A society's individuals must be empowered
first. There need not be anything so esoteric as 'the church' involved
at any level. Free from stereotype, expectation, and imposition, people are the
basis of society. Each and every one of us. After that, what combination of
humanity we choose to sustain ourselves that does not violate our innate sense
of morality, church free, is probably acceptable. We need not a self proclaimed
pontiff or prophet to know what is wrong. At this point, we're already
wired to do things correctly without the imposed false morality of the church,
or its' apparent lapdog, the right wing.
@RedShirt"The gays can still be united and have the benefits,
just don't call it marriage."Granted, I'm only 47 and
have only a Bachelor's Degree, but I seem to remember the phrase
"Separate is inherently unequal." It applies here as well.
To "Tiago" how can you expect to have marriage equality for a situation
that will never be equal? Would you put a the best team from the WNBA up
against the best team from the NBA? Would they be equal?That is
what you want. You want something that isn't equal to be declared
equal.The gays can still be united and have the benefits, just
don't call it marriage. Fix inheritance laws, fix the laws that govern
hospital visitation and medical issues.
@TiagoIf we believe that children thrive best under the care of both
biological parents, why would we create incentives for something else?
@RedShirtI don't think your argument is correct, but even if gay
parents were, on average, not as ideal for kids as the average straight parents,
how does this lead you to oppose marriage equality?There are now and will
always be gay couples with kids, either born biologically or adopted. They are
trying to raise them the best they can. I don't think anybody is proposing
taking those kids away and shipping them off to straight parents. That would be
inhumane to all parties and devastating to the kids. For those families,
what is the benefit in preventing the two people raising the kids from ever
marrying each other, so the kids are raised by a single parent and a live-in
boyfriend or girlfriend? How is that a better model and environment for those
kids than having two married parents?Allowing same-sex marriage for people
who are gay only helps make stronger families and a better environment for the
families it affects. For people it doesn't affect, it does nothing.
To "Irony Guy" there is a scientifically basis for wanting a mother and
father for a family. The simple fact is that children cannot fully learn learn
what it is to be a mother or father if they are raised by a gay couple.No matter how hard they try, 2 lesbians can not teach their children how a
married man and woman interact. The gay couple will never have the balance of
the nurturing characteristics of a mother balanced by the discipline brought in
by a father.Gays raising children will never equal a hetersexual
couple, no matter how hard they try.
While I completely disagree with Mr Metro's conclusion, I have to say I was
just a bit relieved.I thought for a bit that he was going to
conclude that it was "the church".Hey, this is Utah. Hardly
"Likewise, you would immediately rule out the individual as the fundamental
unit of society."Really? You think that by just asserting that
it becomes true? What a stretch!Our laws, our system of government,
indeed our society itself, only functions when the fundamental unit is the
individual. Without that, the Bill of Rights can't make sense. Are only
families entitled to free speech rights, but not individuals? Does the 2nd
Amendment only provide for a _family's_ right to possess firearms? Does the
Fourth Amendment only protect a _family's_ right to privacy? Did the 13th
Amendment only free slave _families_?The Sutherland Institute is,
once again, desperately grasping at straws here. As was previously noted, if
Utah attempts to bring this ludicrous line of "reasoning" before a
federal judge it will be laughed out of the courthouse, and with very good
No one is arguing that a family with two biological parents is not the ideal.
But we do not discourage or ban stepfamilies, where children have one biological
parent, from forming. We do not discourage adoption away from biological
parents. Two parents of any kind are a better support system for children than a
single parent situation. Time and time again opponents of marriage equality have
been unable to explain how allowing same-sex partners to marry would harm their
children. It is estimated that there are 8 million children with one biological
parent in same-sex partner households in America. Yes, homosexuals do bear and
sire children. Children in these households would definitely fare better if they
were in legally recognized families where the partners are married and their
"family" has all the protections and benefits marriage provides. If you
play the child card all the time, admit that these children are better off being
in a real and legalized two-parent family.
Mero's bizarre reasoning again. Who can argue that children need a stable,
loving environment to secure their future? But how does a stable, committed
union of two loving people (regardless of gender) with children THEY WANT work
against the ideal he presents? It doesn't.
Tiago posted: "It sounds like Mr. Mero started with a conclusion then wrote
an opinion piece to support that conclusion."That was exactly
what I thought in reading this column. He seems to just make stuff up.
(Confession: I used to do that a lot on essay tests in school.)By
the way, the state characterizes Judge Shelby's decision as "a judicial
wrecking ball," but I just don't see how it wrecks traditional
marriage. Rather, the decision seems to merely legitimize unions that heretofore
haven't been legal marriages. In other words, the judge's ruling could
better be described as "a judicial building block."
Mero: "We must agree that..."Well, no. Not really. You
have not made a convincing case for any of your conclusions.Mero
fails to define his "natural family," taking it as a given that all
readers will understand. One assumes he means a bigenerational nuclear family a
la Ozzie and Harriett, but his postwar idealized family is probably a historical
anomaly. What of multigenerational and extended families (The Waltons) or
polygamous families (still the norm in many parts of the world)? Does his
natural family concept, the stated source of order in society, embrace practices
like primogeniture, which for centuries provided for the orderly disposition of
property? What about adoptive families and other family structures? His
definition needs more explication.Families (however defined) may
arguably be the fundamental unit of society, but they are certainly not the
fundamental unit of American culture or politics, where the rugged individual
reigns supreme. One man (not one family), one vote. Nathan Hale never said,
"I regret that I have but one family to give for my country." John
Wayne, Shane, Natty Bumppo...
I wish the link on the Opinion page indicated this was written by Paul Mero.
Then I wouldn't have wasted my time. We all already know what he's
going to say.
It sounds like Mr. Mero started with a conclusion then wrote an opinion piece to
support that conclusion.He fails to address what he expects gay men and
women to do in his utopian society. Has he considered that the same love
that draws a straight man and woman into a selfless and caring relationship also
draws a gay person into a relationship with another gay person that is equally
selfless and caring and equally maintains order, stability, and reduces
government dependency?I would also be interested to hear Mr. Mero's
plan for other non-natural family situations such as step parents and adoptive
parents. Where will they fit in this utopia?
If this is what the State of Utah (in conjunction with the Sutherland Institute)
is planning on walking into court with, they will be laughed out of the
Although absolutely true, it isn't always enough to simply say what
marriage is: it helps to put it in a fuller context, such as this. It's
easy to look at something like the family unit and see how clearly society
progresses and succeeds when it's healthy, and how it all falters when the
family unit is weak, unrecognized, or attacked... But it's not always so
clear -why- that's the case.People keep looking at only
themselves, with the perspective of a base creature with the interest of
satisfying instinct-driven desires. Society isn't formed of individuals;
society is formed of families. Marriage doesn't bring two people together
to reduce their taxes; it brings two families together to create and strengthen
a new, third family, symbiotically tied to the first two.
"We must agree that marriage can be only between a man and a woman. As the
cornerstone of family, we must understand that marriage is substantively
different from any other kind of human relationship."Why? Why
must we agree to this? How does agreeing to this further any of your stated
goals?Why do you get to decide that your view is not "selfish
individualism" but all other views are?How does prohibiting
same-sex marriage foster and promote families as essential to society and