Quantcast

Comments about ‘Same-sex marriage decisions in other states argued in Utah case’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 28 2014 5:18 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Nungwa
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

@Arand

Separate is not equal

@BigBubba

The sky is not falling.

@Brown

I've read all the briefs. I'm embarrassed for the State. They have no rational basis and are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. All they've managed so far is a mangled sow's ear.

No child ever born has been guaranteed a specific parent set. Marriage isn't really about children in the first place, but if you really want to go there, fine. Regardless of when marriage equality is extended in all 50 states, LGBT couples will continue to have children. They are allowed to adopt in all 50 states.

In Utah, LGBTs can adopt if they are NOT in a committed relationship. This not only defies logic, it flies in the face of the State's argument "for the sake of the children."

YBH
Sugarland, TX

@Brown

Why pro-gay marriage comments have more likes than the other side? You can try to make your theory sound like “fact”. What you can not change is the reality that the tide has turned, and majority of American people are now supportive to SSM. Young people are generally pro-marriage equality in the first place, and many older people have evolved on this issue too, from opposition to neutral, to even support gay marriage.

What happened on this message board is just a reflection of current social reality.

Nungwa
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

@procuradorfiscal

Which of your civil rights would you like to put up for popular vote?

Equal protection under the law and due process of law are Constitutionally protected for good reason. It ensures that the will of the many will not trample the rights of the few.

Each and every one of us in some way is part of a minority. It may be race, it may be gender, it may be religion, it may be sexual orientation. It is something to bear in mind when we are about to be cavalier with the rights of others.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

Taking optimal parenting rationale to a logical conclusion, empirical evidence at hand should require that only rich, educated, suburban-dwelling, married Asians can marry while excluding all other heterosexual couples. The absurdity of such a requirement is self-evident.

Every major professional organization in this country whose focus is the health and well-being of children and families has reviewed the data on outcomes for children raised by lesbian and gay couples, including the methods by which the data were collected, and have concluded that these children are not disadvantaged compared to children raised in heterosexual parent households. Organizations expressing support for parenting, adoption, and/or fostering by lesbian and gay couples include (but are not limited to): American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of America, National Association of Social Workers, and the Donaldson Adoption Institute.

It’s quite simply not the gender of the parent that’s the key, but the quality of parenting that’s being offered.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@ Brown re: "Your argument doesn't work and, like gay marriage, doesn't think about the desires and choices children would make if given the choice...."

Where do you propose to codify your "Parental Fitness Test?" Would you exclude convicted felons of horrific spousal and child abuse, or lay out the red carpet for them as long as they were opposite-sex couples in civil marriage law?

Civil marriage law has nothing to do with adoption or assisted reproductive law. So all you are doing preventing people from getting married, but not from having or raising children. Does this make sense to you?

Beaver Native
St. George, UT

I based my previous comments on studies. I don't know how many gay people I know. I don't worry about whether those I associate with are gay. I didn't switch specialists when I found out he was gay. I didn't care. I continued to go to him for several years and only quit when I moved 390 miles away. While I do have my feelings about long-term relationships, those same feelings apply to those who enter into marriage not committed to making the relationship work. While I recognize that a marriage cannot work when one spouse is not committed to making a relationship work, it's up to each individual to be committed to make it work from their end, except in the cases of abuse or their partner's infidelity. Yes, I do care about stable relationships and what children are taught. It's about children's right for a stable environment and having both a male and female in the home who love them and are there for them. You can call that prejudice. I don't.

fact based
Salt Lake, UT

@ mrjj69 "gambling is against the law in utah. but is legal in nevada. what another state does in not germane"

Exactly, lets assume your own marriage is not recognized in Nevada, and you travel there to Gamble, have a few drinks and see a show where know one will notice.

Your spouse has a heart attack and is rushed to the hospital, except you cannot approve medical treatments, make end of life decisions, visit your loved one or find any information on his/her condition. Why? Because you have no legal relationship to your spouse in Nevada. Like you say, what another state does is "not germane."

fact based
Salt Lake, UT

@ Beaver Native " I do care about stable relationships and what children are taught. It's about children's right for a stable environment and having both a male and female in the home who love them and are there for them. You can call that prejudice. I don't."

You don't target opposite-sex convicted spousal and child abusers with your anti-civl marriage animus, ONLY same-sex couples. This is called prejudice or bigotry.

Every major professional organization in this country whose focus is the health and well-being of children and families has reviewed the data on outcomes for children raised by lesbian and gay couples, including the methods by which the data were collected, and have concluded that these children are not disadvantaged compared to children raised in heterosexual parent households. Organizations expressing support for parenting, adoption, and/or fostering by lesbian and gay couples include (but are not limited to): American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of America, National Association of Social Workers, and the Donaldson Adoption Institute. Its not the gender, but quality parenting.

Beaver Native
St. George, UT

fact-based,

In revising to bring my comments to less than 200 words, I unwitttingly deleted some aspects, including an indication that comments about stable relationships and making marriage work except in the case of infidelity or abuse applied to all relationships, be they homosexual or heterosexual. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I have read about the studies you refer to and do believe that abuse is more prevalent in heterosexual relationships.

I am appalled by the "try it for awhile and see if it works" attitude that prevails in traditional marriagess today.

I also have read studies that indicate that in heterosexual relationships, most teenage boys connect better to their mothers while most teenage girls connect better with their fathers. I understand that women are naturally more nurturing, but I haven't been able to understand why girls tend to gravitate to their fathers - perhaps because I never had any daughters. I have read also that children are more well-adjusted in relationships where both birth parent are in the home, but I imagine results of such studies depend on the criteria used in defining "well-adjusted". I believe the criteria used in those studies are basically correct.

mcclark
Salt Lake City, UT

Keep saying "a marriage is between a man and a woman" Say it over and over again, maybe it will come true. It seems to me the anti gay marriage argument boils down to "its our club, and we don't want them in it". Not a real compelling reason.

Bronco181
Provo, UT

Listen, This coming from someone LDS/Christian God knows there is sin out there. Not one of us is perfect. We are all sinners. But those obstacles out there will and have strengthened us. They strengthen faith. If you are so worried about gay marriage ruining your belief, your faith must not be that strong to begin with.

I personally don't believe homosexuality is a sin. However, I do believe the world is facing bigger Goliath's. But all of you should know you CAN'T fear man. Although the future seems tougher our children are stronger. So you can argue your fear of what is to come, or continue letting things carry as they do knowing you're faith along with others stands unshaken.

No-one is taking away our faith, we can still carry on testifying our beliefs. But what hypocrites would we be if we were to take away another's belief. This would only show that our standards are lower than the rest. Don't be afraid of what men can do, your faith cannot be unshaken.

hilary
nottingham, 00

childred are very understanding. If brought up by decent gay couples, not much of a problem. They will, however, be subject to obvious and subtle abuses by some of their peers as they grow. Lets get this straight, some heterosexual couples make their childrens lives a living hell. The drive towards the end of this argument in Utah is this, Eternal Marriage in one of the Temples, lets have this out in the open NOW. This is when the trouble will really start.

to comment

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