Published: Sunday, April 13 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
For my conservative family it was a sibling coming out and finding a partner
that made it abundantly clear that their bring together posed no threat
whatsoever to anyone. Eight conservative adult men I associate with weekly have
had the same experience and change of heart. As for the tech CEO,
and other recent examples of reverse discrimination, this seems almost laughable
to me after what the LGBT community has put up with and continues to experience.
It shouldn't happen, but seems a little like saying 50 years ago, "Well
the civil rights bill passed, but there had better not be a single case of white
oppression if theses minorities want the rest of us to accept it.""Traditional marriage and traditional families have been society’s
bedrock." As has been pointed out countless times, this a strange statement
coming from someone who understands Utah's history so well.
LaVarr acts as if we are embarking on a great social experiment with an
undetermined outcome. The outcomes of same-sex parenting are well
established:Utah's brief focused "on the impact of family
structure from dozens of studies, journal articles and books. The brief showed
how “the two sexes bring different talents to the parenting
enterprise,” how “the weight of scientific evidence seems clearly to
support the view that fathers matter,” how the absence of a father places
a daughter at special risk for early sexual activity, that children in same-sex
households experience lower high school graduation rates, and that there are
higher rates of depression, delinquency and substance abuse among children
conceived through sperm donation."
Why the change in public opinion? Because we are recognizing that the only
difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is in the way we view
homosexuals' sexual orientation. When we didn't understand it, it
scared us and we condemned it. Much like left-handedness. Now that science is
illuminating our view with information, and gays are allowing themselves and
their lives to be more visible, we see we have nothing to fear.I
don't think LGBT's have anything to prove to us heterosexuals. I
think it's the other way around. I think WE need to prove that they have
nothing to fear from us.
Web writes:"So my question to my gay friends is, can you do
family? Can you do it well?"and"I have no doubt
that many of you can, and some of you are already doing it."and
"But it’s a grand, untested, social experiment because it
really hasn’t been done broadly, and we’re messing here with the
foundational unit of society. . . "Webb seems to be implying
that if the answer, to his questions above is, on balance, no -- then ALL gay
couples should be denied access to civil marriage. Does he really want to use
this argument?There are, right now, distinct groups in our society
for whom the answers to the above questions is, on balance, no -- and yet no one
is moving to strip them of the right to marry civilly.Why is he
suggesting disqualification ONLY for gay couples?
Agreed.Republicans are more ANTI-gay, than they are PRO-Civil
or EQUAL-rights.Just like Healthcare -- Just NO, Without offer any alternatives or solutions.Lose, Lose everytime.
Karen R reveals a previous prejudice that is a great example of the evolution of
social understandings: left handedness.Most people have no idea that
lefties were once viewed as being not just wrong, but actually evil. Seriously.
Frantic parents would try every known idea to change the orientation of their
left-handed kids, horrified at the life these children faced in a world that
viewed left-handedness as being not just wrong, but fundamentally evil.If one digs around today, they can find studies that show lefties have this
problem or that tendency, compared to righties. The material is out there, for
whomever wants to re-stoke this prejudice. (I didn't think there would be
many takers.)When I use the example of how left-handed people were
perceived and how the issue used to be viewed, most conservatives are baffled
that people could have ever thought that way. Which is exactly the
reaction young people have today when they hear anti-gay opinions from their
Why did American's change their view? Simple answer, ignorance never
stands the test of time. If it did, women would not have the right to vote nor
would blacks be able to hold the priesthood. Truth, honesty, love and compassion
are powerful forces.
Why the change?I don't know -- progress?Why the change
that Blacks are equal?Why the change that Women are equal?Why the
change [ala, 1776] that all men [regardless of gender, race, religion, ect.] are
created equal?Some people are stuck in 1775.Rich ruled
the poor, Nobles over the Commoners, and achievement was based more
on what family you were born into, more than individual capability.
This article/opinion came across at first as well thought out, until the authors
decided to draw the line at traditional marriage and then asked whether gays
could "do family," and the answer they wanted was "no." And so
that was supposed to be a reasonable reason to deny traditional marriage. The
last holdout argument of those against same sex marriage has to do with
procreation and raising children, and the implied argument that children are
better off in a mommy/daddy household. That would be fine. But it's not the
reality. Fifty percent of opposite sex marriages end in divorce and the best
they can do is shuffle their children back and forth with one parent getting
visitation rights and the other essentially raising them alone. No need to list
all the ways that "traditional" opposite sex households have failed
miserably, especially involving children. So why attack and withhold marriage
from same sex couples? At least those same-sex couples who have children want
them and plan for them, unlike many, many heterosexual couplings that produce
children and reluctant or absent parents.
This first half of this article touches upon some actual common sense before
nosediving back down into typical DN propaganda. There is no requirement that
straight people have to have children in order to be married. I'd ask why
there's a double standard here, but I'm pretty sure I know the reason
why: as same-sex marriage grows more and more inevitable, you guys are going to
grow more and more desperate to tear it down...
Same-sex marriage may be new on the sociological horizon, but same-sex parenting
certainly is not. It is not a "grand, untested, social experiment." Gays
and lesbians have been successfully raising children for centuries, if not
millenia, just like hetero couples. There is at least one credible study going
back 40 years that shows no significant difference in childrearing outcomes
between GL and straight parents. The State backtracked on one of their primary
cited studies--the night before the 10th Circuit trial! In the Michigan marriage
equality trial a month or so ago it was ripped apart and discredited soundly,
and Utah wisely asked the 10th Circuit judges to pretend it wasn't included
in Utah's brief.DN, if you're going to have a two-sided
discussion piece on marriage equality, could you please, at least, find a
proponent of gay marriage for our side of the argument?
I wonder if the Dnews produced similar articles in the early to mid 60s on
"Why the change of public opinion on black civil rights?"Public opinion is hanging because ignorance is being replaced by knowledge and
understanding, just like the blacks civil rights movement in the 60s and
Women's Suffrage in the early 1900s.If the GOP hopes to stop
the bleeding, they need to stop opposing civil rights. Otherwise, they will
continue to see their tent become smaller and smaller.
The Mozilla CEO case doesn't bother me one bit. He was forced out by the
board of directors, not by any activists, gay or otherwise. The next CEO may
think before supporting causes that may be detrimental to their careers if their
careers are important to them.
Sal, above, cites the state of Utah's brief without ever acknowledging the
11th hour letter from outside counsel that seems to back away from the central
point of Sal's comment. Notice that two of the asserted sub-optimal outcome
examples, "absence of a father" and "sperm donation",
overwhelmingly involve the actions of heterosexuals. How, then, is it effective
to ONLY focus on civil marriage between same-sex individuals? But
in citing a legal brief, Sal does point to an excellent source of information if
one wants to understand the underpinnings of the public opinion shift at issue.
Read the briefs. I recommend it. Even if you disagree, you'll be better
educated as to why the shift is happening.
It is quite simply a war on God as prophesied in the scriptures and reiterated
Man cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. It is that simple,
unfortunately, we are lost on the example of Soddom and Gomorrah.
@Owen:"For my conservative family it was a sibling coming out and
finding a partner that made it abundantly clear that their bring together posed
no threat whatsoever to anyone."If there is a threat, it's
not to any person in particular. The threat is the institution of marriage
itself.If SSM is legitimized so must all other forms of potential
marriage combinations, including polygamy, incest, children, siblings, anyone
who loves anyone else. You name it. Even group marriages such as a fraternity
or neighborhood. It might even include marrying a Bush. Then there goes the
institution out the window.The LGBT argument is faulty... that of
denying SSM violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It
doesn't. Everyone has equal rights to marry but under a certain set of
requirements: one man/woman, not closely related, of a certain minimum age,
mentally competent, etc. These requirements apply to all across the board. No
one is excluded. Thus there is no discrimination against gay/lesbians.
n the US, same sex marriage is being used as a club to destroy religious freedom
and freedom of association and simple democracy.
Could it be that the real truth is that people have not changed their minds
about same sex marriage but have realized that the issue is freedom for the
individual as promised in the founding documents of this nation. And that
freedom for the individual is more important than the personal habits of the
individual.A person can be totally against the homosexual life style
and at the same time willing to allow adult Americans to do as they wish
according to their own religion. So long as those people don't impinge on
the freedoms of others.
Societal opinions are changing. A useful analogy is the Klan or the Westboro
Baptist folks. There's no law stopping the KKK from marching, or the WBC
from picketing, but it's pretty clearly unacceptable behavior in the eyes
of most of society. If the Mozilla CEO were fired from his job
because of the government, that would be a civil rights issue. He was fired
because a private company decided his beliefs and actions were incompatible with
their corporate ideals, and with their bottom line as a business. The same as
if someone showed up to a job interview in Klan hood.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments