Comments about ‘Tangled court cases have impact on Utah's same-sex couples’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 22 2014 6:25 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Huntsville, UT

The examples listed in the article are just a few of the legal benefits that are being denied to LGBT couples. And conservatives say there's no discrimination. Yep.

Dietrich, ID

Every child deserves to be raised by Father and Mother they have something that other gender can't give. Do they care about well being of there children people in so called same sex marriage situations. No real such thing as same gender marriage even if government grants it.

Liberty For All
Cedar, UT

It's the helpless children who will suffer, what about their rights? Marriage is about bringing the two great halts of humanity together and providing the bond for the children they bring into this world. Every child deserves to have a know their mommy and daddy. Same-sex couples need to think for a moment, and ask themselves "Which parent could they throw away? Which one didn't they need? Which one was least important in their lives? Same-sex marriage is about permitting same-sex couples to take the rights away of others peoples children. Governor Herbert and AG Sean Reyes a fighting for the common good of humanity. What is wrong with that? Every child deserves to be loved by a real family with a mother and father.

San Diego, CA

Same sex couples are going to raise children regardless of SSM. Once you get that through and understood then you realize that SSM in fact helps protect these children that will be raised regardless.

Do I really think that the opponents of SSM are concerned about the children? Nope. If they were they'd support SSM, not argue a point that doesn't exist.

Cole Thomas
Salt Lake City, UT

Mormons should lecture me more about how to live my life. Feign humility, and then in the next sentence, tell me how to live my life. Or maybe this comment won't even make it through, because some Mormon sensor thinks it might be too harsh for the next Mormon in line. This is what other Mormons think of each other. "Oh gosh, this guy was critical, so lets hide the comment."

Salt Lake City, UT

If, as several of the previous comments assert, every child has the right to a mother and father, then why do we allow divorce in Utah? Not to mention, why does Utah have the fourth highest divorce rate for women, and a higher-than-average divorce rate overall? Seems like people should be cleaning their own house before knocking down the walls of another home.
Also, I suspect that if you asked the children of same-sex couples which would they prefer:
1-Parents who loved them them, no matter what their gender...
2-Parents who were opposite genders, but it didn't matter if they loved them...
...you would get the resounding answer that love is most important.
Statements like "Every child deserves to have a know their mommy and daddy" and "Same-sex marriage is about permitting same-sex couples to take the rights away of others peoples children" can't see the love that exists in same-sex couple families.

Wilf 55

It is nice to care about children and to pretend that "every child deserves a mother and a father". But precisely such rhetoric hurts millions of children in single-parent homes and in homes where a same-sex couple fulfills the parental roles. Stigmatizing such families as failures is unchristian. Homes with single parents and same-sex parents are a given in our society. They deserve our full support, for the happiness of all.

Wailuku, HI

Two parents is the ideal. The gender is not as important as the number. When parents divorce, it is generally almost always in the child's best interest to have both parents significantly involved in the child's life.

It is unfortunate that Utah voters and elected officials are having gay marriage (two parents if children are involved) shoved down their throats. It would be much better if the voters and elected officials of Utah had a change of heart and instead of fighting marriage would embrace it and also embrace their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters at the same time. Give love a chance.

1 Voice
orem, UT

The constitution doesn’t guarantee people the right to marry. People who want to redefine marriage to include SSM don’t seem to realize the unintended consequences of that. Allowing people to change the definition to suit their personal desires leave states unable to define marriage at all. If the courts rule against the rights of states to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, then any group of individuals (polygamous, bigamous, or polyamorous) who say it is their right to marry base on love, or desire for acceptance, or perceived social benefits could change the definition of marriage to suit their purposes.

1 Voice
orem, UT

Not only is traditional marriage deserving of our support because it is what is best for society and children, the consequences of changing the definition of marriage makes marriage meaningless. The argument that children are being hurt because they live in family groups that don’t include a married father and mother miss the point. Its not that the care givers are married. Its that they love and care for the child. That doesn’t change by forcing the state to say they caregiver are married. All other social contracts between the care givers or perceived benefits of being married can be handled through other means without forcing states to redefine marriage.

I support the states rights to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman because that is what is best for society, including our children.

Murray, UT

Strategically, now is the time for DN to embrace the inevitable outcome of SS couples being able to get married and begin publishing feel good articles about avoiding SS divorce, tips on inviting straight couples to events, etc. This braying is becoming obnoxious...

Huntsville, UT

@higv & No-Liberty for Any;

In that case, you are going to have to outlaw divorce, death and grandparent headed households, foster households, etc.

Anything else is utter hypocrisy if "every child deserves to be raised by a father and mother". You simply can NOT provide that to every child.

Besides, that argument being one of the stupidest arguments against SSM ever.

Bill McGee
Alpine, UT

Things would be so much easier if people would spend less time reading propaganda on this topic and more time looking at actual evidence. The study most commonly cited suggesting that traditional married couples are better for children than same sex couples was deeply flawed, and has been rejected by both professionals and professional organizations. The threat to families is not more families. It is poverty and abuse and divorce and children raising themselves and a failed foster care system with an abyssmal success rate. People worried about children need to address THOSE issues. Single sex parents are part of the solution, not the problem.

cohoes, NY


I don't know what conservatives you are referring to, or even what you mean be conservatives, but as a traditional marriage supporter, I am completely clear that my position in regards to marriage law IS discriminatory in that same-sex partnerships should not be recognized as marriage.

Alexandria, VA

If the common good is the welfare of the children then (by that logic) same sex marriages are as equally valid as opposite sex marriages as they provide a legal basis for the family (and children) and will help to move children out of institutions into the kind of caring environment that the children deserve. Perhaps a mother and a father are ideal - but two committed people of the same sex who truly care about a child and are committed to raising that child (children) well, are infinitely better than two opposite sex people who really don't care (and unfortunately "don't care" ends up happening far more often than it should these days).

Eagle Mountain, UT

I wonder how many of those claiming Marriage should be left to the States support Senator Hatch when he tried to pass an amendment to the National Constitution "defining marriage as between a man and woman."

Is this really about States Rights? Or is that a cover to push an agenda

seattle, WA

Now that many of the old, tired arguments have been stripped away to prohibit same sex marriage, we see full display of the remaining ones.

Two prominent arguments made here are: 1) I just want to discriminate, and 2) states rights are more important than Federal rights.

As to #1, at least you are honest. Thank you. Let your maker judge you, but at least we know you love to discriminate. Who/what is next on your list to discriminate against?

As to #2, not so honest. Confederates hid behind the mantel of states rights to continue the inhumanity of slavery. Almost any time a progressive law is seen as an American right as opposed to a state citizen right (voting, discrimination, etc) the ghosts of the Confederacy come out. Last time I checked my passport said citizen of the United States. No one citizen of the US should have more privileges and rights as citizens than should another. And that means if I am a free person in Utah, I ought to be free in Idaho, even if Idaho citizens would votes to enslave me. This argument is only meant to keep a group of people seen as second class citizens.

San Diego, CA

"...can be handled by other means without forcing states to redefine marriage."

Why? Are you hung up on a word? The fact is that SS marriage is the easiest, fairest, and least complicated way of ensuring that SS couples and their children are protected just like with OS marriage.

Values Voter

I note the relatively sympathetic tone of this news article and it encourages me. But why not include a photo of Mr. Milner and Mr. Barraza? or some of the other affected couples? By not doing so, the DN is missing an opportunity to further humanize them and thus make the inevitable arrival of marriage equality in Utah (and the U.S.) potentially more palatable to more of its readers.

Seattle, WA

Again, the DN includes a generic photo with the article instead of actually showing the faces of the subjects. I wish they would include a photo of Tony and Matthew and their son so readers can see the family the state refuses to recognize.
I hope we can all agree that refusing to recognize their legal marriage causes harm to this family. Utah's attorney defending Amendment 3, Gene Schaerr, agreed in oral arguments before the 10th Circuit that children of same-sex couples “would likely be better off if their guardians or parents were allowed to be married.”
So the question is whether or not it is worth it to harm gay families and their children because of some benefit to straight families. I have not heard a single rational argument explaining how refusing to recognize and give the legal security and responsibilities of marriage to this family make it so straight people are more likely to marry or stay together. Can somebody please explain this link? There would have to be a strong argument to make me believe we should hurt gay couples and their families for the greater good.

to comment

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