So Utah's court-shopping, apparently. It doesn't matter. This is a
loser case for Utah.
It's a no brainer that the AG would want the Utah supreme court to make a
decision on this matter of adoption. The court is very conservative and likely
to rule in favor of the State. The case for marriage equality won't come
fast enough for those impacted. And to reiterate, this is all about EQUALITY for
Ok you showed us you tried. Good game!
To Red Corvette: You're completely right, but we're not winning,
we're losing. It's definitely the Last Days.
Utah is just embarrassing itself and coming across as spiteful. At
most it will just delay the inevitable while having very negative implications
on Utah families of same sex couples. I'm embarrassed to live in this
All this will do is subjugate the State of Utah to more expensive litigation.
You can't have different classes of marriage without violating the
Constitution. While I understand the opposition to SSM, Utah will have to live
with the ones that were legally performed. This is a fools errand if there ever
what a waste of taxpayers funds. just wait and let the courts rule at the
federal level, but gays are too impatient for that.
It would be a waste of state money because ultimately the US Supreme Court is
going to make the call and the writing is all over the wall. Marriage equality
will be the law of the land very soon. Why waste State resources on something
that is going to be decided nationally within a couple of years?
Nope, no animus here.
It's sad that the AG is so desperate to keep children from having a stable
two-parent home that he'll go on a court-shopping binge in hopes of finding
a judge who will agree with him. Even if he finds one and wins, it won't
take children out of homes with same-sex couples. Rather, it just means that in
the event of the death of the birth-parent, the child will end up being bounced
around in foster care rather than remaining in the home where he or she was
raised. We have too many kids in foster care now without trying to find ways to
get more of them into "the system".
Children have the right to a mother and a father. Unfortunately, the pro gay
marriage people think this should all be about their own emotional desires and
not about the welfare and needs of children. Innocent children, who have no say
in this matter, need to be protected from this kind of selfishness.
If the appellate courts want to see evidence that disproves Utah's claim
that it has no animus against same sex couples, they need to look no further
than this. If the appellate courts want to see evidence that disproves
Utah's claim that it is acting "for the good of the children", they
need to look no further than this. Sad.
This action is simply mean and spiteful, and about as anti family as you can
get. The state is going to lose, but not gracefully.
"Marriage equality" is a name liberals and supporters of same-sex
marriage use in an effort to paint opponents of same-sex marriage as
discriminating against gays. They refuse to believe that there is an underlying
moral issue at stake, that frankly has nothing to do with a person's sexual
orientation. It is that a marriage is between a man and a woman.As
far as I know, if an adult man and adult woman wish to marry each other they are
allowed to. Regardless of sexual orientation. However, a man and a man cannot
marry because that is not marriage.People are trying to change the
definition of marriage to include homosexual couples, but they don't
realize that doing so diminishes the sanctity of marriage. It is a sign of moral
decay and the consequences will follow.
I certainly respect the traditional definition of marriage but this nonsense has
to stop. The AG and the State of Utah are just starting to come across as
cruel. This is not just about the married couples. It is about their children.
50 years from now these children are going to be looking back at these elected
officials as the "George Wallace" of their time. I urge the Governor
and the AG to think really hard if this is the legacy they want to be remembered
re: CatsOr, in the words of Helen Lovejoy, "Won't somebody
think of the children."
@CatsGay couples have children. To provide greater long term
stability for those children, they want to be able to legally adopt as a couple.
How is that selfish? Gay individuals have children from
a previous relationship. They are now in a stable relationship with a same-sex
partner and want that partner to be able to legally adopt the children to be
provide greater stability and protection. How is that selfish?Gay couples are often willing to adopt and provide loving homes to
children who will stay in foster care until they age out - unwanted by
"father and mother" couples. How is that selfish? Gay couples simply want to protect and care for their families the same as
you. How is that selfish?
@CatsYour "argument" makes no sense. The children will
still be raised in same-sex household whether gay marriage exist or not.
Allowing SSM WILL help to protect those children.
@Eliyahu 7:23 a.m. April 27, 2014Exactly right. That's he
reality of the situation in a nutshell. What I find selfish is the attempt by
people to deny these children the legal recognition of the family structure in
which they live and the security of legal attachments to both of their parents
-- the parents with whom they live and who they love. These children need to be
protected from the people who would deny them their families and legal ties to
both of their parents.
Those that complain about the money spent on the lawsuits, Which is actually a
small drop in the rain forest. Any event if you think it is too much money why
are they suing, it is gay couples suing to overturn voter approved initives,
And they are the ones that are fighting for the right to marry someone of the
same gender, or that would have been a nonissue. For several millennia no one
even thought of same gender marriage, why are people just now finding that
right in the constitution, A document that has been around many years longer
than people have supposedly found that right.
Riverton Cougar,How does my legal "gay marriage" diminish
yours in any way?
@Riverton Cougar 9:14 a.m. April 27, 2014....People are trying
to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples, but they
don't realize that doing so diminishes the sanctity of marriage. It is a
sign of moral decay and the consequences will follow.----------------------I am a woman in her 60s. My husband I will
be married 45 years in September (35 of them under the seal of the Temple). The
sanctity of our marriage, or any marriage, will not be diminished in any way if
same sex couples are allowed to marry. In fact, marriage will not be affected
in any way. What affects marriage and its sanctity is the actions of the people
who enter into it (Brittany Spears, any one?), and nothing else.In
fact, encouraging people whose sexual and affectional affinity is for same-sex
unions to enter into legal, exclusive unions would enhance morality, not be a
detriment to it. And that would work to stabilize society.The
definition of marriage is the legal union of two people who are not related.
Allowing same sex marriages would not change that at all.
RE: Cats " Unfortunately, the pro gay marriage people think this should
all be about their own emotional desires and not about the welfare and needs of
children. "Are you saying the "pro gay marriage people"
have no regard for children in these actions? I very much disagree.
@Riverton Cougar The word marriage is also used to define other
mergers such as, the marriage of two businesses, the marriage of two colleges,
the marriage of two churches. This is a civil issue, not a moral issue or a
religious issue. This is the 21st century and through communications and
education equality will prevail and Utah will join the states that practice
I agree that ideally children do best with a mother and a father in the home,
but that is not reality. Some of us are gay, and it's not fair to children
or potential spouses of the opposite gender to pretend to be anything other than
who we are. According to many of you, I only have two options for my
life:1. Marry a woman and do my best to make that look like a
healthy, fulfilling partnership. Unfortunately, more often than not, these
relationships fail, and brings heartache and anger to the spouses and children
of those families.2. Life alone for the rest of my life. This is the
sad advice that I have received from my church leaders over the years. Just
imagine how unsatisfying a life like that could be. Sure, I take advantage of
opportunities to serve in my community, and it makes a difference. But how many
of you live to enjoy the company and successes within your own family?
Gay Partnerships do not produce children. Children deserve a Loving
Mother AND Father. Allowing SSM will not protect children in any
way, but instead will result in an increase of children being adopted to Same
Sex couples which will result in that child being deprived of a Mother or a
Father. All Children deserve equality.... to be raised in a home
with a mother & father.
Basically, Utah is "pro-family" and they don't care how many
families have to be ripped apart to prove it.
Red Corvette: "We all know what the final outcome will be."Here's some guesses... polygamy, marrying your brother, sister, aunt,
uncle, cat, dog, and possibly all your neighbors... everybody/everything you
love.Esquire: "You can't have different classes of marriage
without violating the Constitution."Unfortunately, what you say
is probably true. See above for examples that will soon come to fruition with
the advent of SSM. Thanks, SSM proponents for ruining what used to be a
civilized society.Robert Johnson: "Marriage equality will be the
law of the land very soon."Marriage equality is already here...
you can marry whom you will with several caveats such as: no more than one
person ata time, no children, no siblings, no close relatives, no parent, no
same gender, etc.However, if SSM is legalized and all other
combinations are not, marriage discrimination will become the law of the land.
Good heavens!Eliyahu: "It's sad that the AG is so desperate
to keep children from having a stable two-parent home."You
don't need marriage to have a stable two-parent home. You need love and
commitment, not a piece of paper.
@CATSAs you wisely say, children have a right to a mother and a
father. The Traditional home provide the best environment for rearing children.
That is the family structure we should be promoting which furthers the best
interest of children and of society in general. Your argument makes total sense
- it has for hundreds of years!
Marriage is not couple centric, it's children centric. Allow gay people
civil unions and all their protections. As for children, they have a right to a
mother and a father.If that upsets you, settle it with Him.
El Chango Supremo"Allowing SSM will not protect children in any way,
but instead will result in an increase of children being adopted to Same Sex
couples which will result in that child being deprived of a Mother or a
Father."----------------------My partner - my wife - and I
adopted a girl who had been in the foster care system for several years. Her
health problems were not getting consistent attention, her emotional needs were
getting worse, she was in special ed classes and had bounced through several
foster homes. She is now mainstreamed in school, her medical
condition is mostly stable, she is active in our UU church, in Girl Scouts and
other activities. Our son - we are in the process of adopting him -
was badly abused by his biological parents. He has physical and emotional scars.
He is not in school yet, but is doing better and should be mainstreamed from the
start.In our local Gay/Lesbian parents social group there are at
least a dozen special needs kids who were languishing in the system and now have
two loving parents. How many children have you adopted?
@USAlover 2:54 p.m. April 27, 2014Marriage is not couple centric,
it's children centric. Allow gay people civil unions and all their
protections. As for children, they have a right to a mother and a father.If that upsets you, settle it with Him.-----------------------------Children are born in some
opposite-sex relationships, but not all of them. Children are born in some
same-sex relationships, but not all of them. It is not necessary to have
children to be married. It is not necessary to be married to have children.Marriage is intended to last through the lives (temporal and/or eternal)
of the parties contracting the marriage. Children are an enhancement to the
marriage, but their time living with their parents, and the time their parents
are responsible for them, is not intended to last the entirety of the marriage.
Parents have the responsibility to raise their children and protect them during
childhood, but their responsibility ends when the children become adults. The
married couple has responsibility for and to each other a lot longer than that.
That makes marriage couple-centric.
Umm. Yoram Yasur: Very interesting.
Go Utah!!! Stand up for morality!!!!
Any single parent, unmarried heterosexual couple, or married/unmarried
homosexual couple who genuinely wants to give a child its best shot at life
would not try to adopt one.
Riverton Coug: "Marriage equality" is a name liberals and supporters of
same-sex marriage use in an effort to paint opponents of same-sex marriage as
discriminating against gays."It's paint your are applying
to yourselves, and it's a perfect color match.
@USAlover"Marriage is not couple centric, it's children
centric."Except that this has never been the case in Utah.
Infertile people are allowed to marry. Postmenopausal women are allowed to
marry. Couples with children are allowed to divorce. There is nothing in Utah
law that hints that marriages are about children."Allow gay
people civil unions and all their protections."Except the kind
people of Utah disallowed "civil unions" along with marriage in
Amendment 3. If you want to allow civil unions, Amendment 3 must be repealed or
overruled."As for children, they have a right to a mother and a
father." Such a legal right has never been established. We
"allow" single parents, divorced parents, even foster parents where
children have no parent at all. Studies have shown children do best
with parent(s) of either gender, of any orientation, who love and care for them.
If we truly want what's best for the children, establishing - in law - the
families featured in the article (and all others like them), will serve the
children best. Those are the simple facts.
In asking for adoption by gay couples, advocates of gay marriage are asking too
To WRZ "We all know what the final outcome will be."Here's some
guesses... polygamy, marrying your brother, sister, aunt, uncle, cat, dog, and
possibly all your neighbors... everybody/everything you love.- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - No where in the story are any of your guesses mentioned.
To me they appear to be nothing more than overly speculative thoughts or
information not included in the story. It is my understanding that the Deseret
News will not approve comments that contain this kind of speculation. Since they
allowed your comments to post, obviously they didn't feel that they met
this criteria. Therefore I would appreciate your source references for the
subject matter you presented and what passages in the story mention or reflect
on the conclusions you reached. Thank you.
mpo"Any single parent, unmarried heterosexual couple, or
married/unmarried homosexual couple who genuinely wants to give a child its best
shot at life would not try to adopt one."-----------------My wife and I have adopted one and are adopting another. Both children were in
foster care and not doing well. Now, both are doing very well physically and
emotionally. They are adjusted and happy. I suppose there is a
possibility that a wonderful hetero couple could have adopted them... but they
didn't.And according to the professionals, they probably would
have stayed in foster care. Instead, they are getting a fantastic
start and will have a good life. And they have two moms.
cjb"In asking for adoption by gay couples, advocates of gay marriage
are asking too much."Why?In many places gay and
lesbian couples have been adopting and raising children for many years,
including Ohio. Same-sex marriage will mean that we have the same
protection for our family as any other married couple - right now, our family is
without those legal protections and benefits. So why is it too much?
@ Candied Ginger"So why is it too much?"It is too much
because all children rightfully deserve a mother and a father. Depriving
children of this is immoral, selfish, and evil. It is an act of barbarism to
keep children from the traditional family structure that they need.
@ Candied GingerI, for one, would like to congratulate you, your
wife, and your family. You are inspirational and have my profound respect.
Every child deserves to be part of such a loving family.
To Candied Ginger: You and your wife have my profound admiration. Not only have
you enriched the lives of two children, you have also enriched your lives. A win
win situation.To Avenue: "@ Candied Ginger It is too much
because all children rightfully deserve a mother and a father. Depriving
children of this is immoral, selfish, and evil. It is an act of barbarism to
keep children from the traditional family structure that they need."To
say I disagree with your position in your response to Candied Ginger would be an
understatement. Apparently you would rather see their two children remain in
foster and/or state care than being adopted by Ginger and her wife. "It is an act of barbarism to keep children from the family structure that
they need." I removed one word to make your statement correct.
Avenue"It is an act of barbarism to keep children from the traditional
family structure that they need."Last comment, clear and brief.
The state of Utah has nearly 3,000 kids in foster care in the state.
Children over the age of 7, or from minority groups, or with medical
needs, or with behavior problems have a near zero chance of adoption. They stay
in the system to age 18 - that is barbaric.When we investigated
adopting we wanted a healthy newborn. The social workers told us about the kids
who were unlikely to ever have a family. Our needs and ego about the
perfect child came way behind the needs of real children who need real homes.
Both our children had a mother and father who abused and abandoned
them and no other "mother-father" couples wanted them. Keeping children in the system is barbaric. The fact special-needs kids are
virtually unadoptable is barbaric. Trying to keep children from loving couples
is barbaric. How many children who would otherwise grow up without
loving parents or stability have you adopted?
@Cats;Children have a right to a loving family, regardless of the
genders of the parents, but anti-lgbt people like you dont' want them to
have the same benefits your own children enjoy; what utter selfishness on your
part.@Riverton Cougar;The only thing that diminishes the
"sanctity of marriage" is people who would deny it to others.@higv;"Voter approved initiatives" can't violate the
Federal Consistution. You don't get to vote on other people's
rights.@El Chango Supremo;Then outlaw divorce and
death.@USAlover;Did you marry for love or just to
"beget children"? (I smell some hypocrisy).@gwtchd;The state is "immoral" trying to purposefully harm others.@Avenue;You're saying kids would be better off in
@Candied Ginger: I'll add to the voices expressing admiration and respect
for the family you have created, and the choice you and your wife made to adopt
older children with special needs. They are very fortunate to have parents who
make this sort of choice, as with all parenting, there will be other
tough-vs-easy choices in the future, and they have assurance that you won't
be tempted to merely default to the easiest path.And I'm
impressed with your measured response to the inflammatory comment from @Avenue.
We can only hope that he/she never has the misfortune to learn what the words
"evil" and "barbarism" really mean.P.S. Way to
represent Unitarian-Universalism! My children have benefited greatly from UU
and its supportive/tolerant faith community.
To: rad3 - it you feel so embarrassed about living in Utah then maybe you should
move somewhere else where you will be happy. That's what most people do.
@suzyk#1;Wouldn't it be more Christian to make all people feel
welcome instead of just telling them "if you don't like it
leave"?Utah IS an embarassment. Utah's leaders are going
to go down in history right alongside the George Wallaces and Archie Bunkers as
hateful bigots. Is that the legacy you want attached to your church (to which
these people belong).
In 1890, the Feds forced our Great-Great-Great-Grandparents to adopt a state
constitution pretty much at gunpoint. In our day, we made changes to said
constitution to further our own lives, and the feds come in again and force us
again to their standards and will. At what point is this OUR state
constitution?! I agree with the AG; we voted on this amendment and we should
decide our own fates. I'm really getting tired of the Feds dictating our
lives. We are a state of the people, by the people, and for the people. Not for
the whims of the feds nor of their donors.
@davidmpark;This is our state too. You don't have the right to
vote on the rights of other Americans. WE are ALSO "the people" every
bit as much as you are. It's time for you to stop your bigotry and accept
that all Americans should be treated equally.
@RanchHand In Utah, all Americans are treated equally. All citizens can
marry, as long as the marriage is within the bounds the law has set. Amendment 3
is 100% constitutional.To everyone else:"...God gave them
up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into
that which is against nature:And likewise also the men, leaving the
natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men
working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of
their error which was meet"(Romans 1:26-27)For this reason I
cannot support homosexual families. Homosexuality is an unnatural desire.