Quantcast
Opinion

My view: Natural family is the key to a free society

Comments

Return To Article
  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 24, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Phylowoman Manila, UT
    March 22, 2014 9:46 p.m.

    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.

  • SML Manila, UT
    March 22, 2014 9:11 p.m.

    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.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 22, 2014 1:28 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 21, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    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?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 21, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    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?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 21, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    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.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    March 20, 2014 9:48 p.m.

    @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.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 20, 2014 4:25 p.m.

    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.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 20, 2014 1:50 p.m.

    To "Hank Pym" what are we protecting gays from by redefining marriage?

    That is something that makes left wingers go insane.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    March 20, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    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.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 20, 2014 7:11 a.m.

    @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.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    March 19, 2014 8:52 p.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 19, 2014 3:29 p.m.

    @RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT

    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.

    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?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 19, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    @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.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 19, 2014 12:11 p.m.

    @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.

  • Spellman789 Syracuse, UT
    March 19, 2014 9:42 a.m.

    @Kalindra
    How 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.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 19, 2014 7:35 a.m.

    @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.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    March 19, 2014 4:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 18, 2014 11:07 p.m.

    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.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    March 18, 2014 9:46 p.m.

    @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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 18, 2014 3:49 p.m.

    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.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 18, 2014 3:14 p.m.

    @Tiago

    If we believe that children thrive best under the care of both biological parents, why would we create incentives for something else?

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    March 18, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    @RedShirt
    I 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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 18, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 18, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    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 unprecedented.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    March 18, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    "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 reason.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    March 18, 2014 11:11 a.m.

    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.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    March 18, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    March 18, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    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."

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    March 18, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    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...

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 18, 2014 8:57 a.m.

    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.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    March 18, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    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?

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    March 18, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    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 courtroom.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    March 18, 2014 7:08 a.m.

    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.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    March 18, 2014 6:42 a.m.

    Ridiculous.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 18, 2014 12:09 a.m.

    "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 liberty?