Deseret News, we expect better from you. This letter is just weird. Can't
you publish something that more people would respond positively too? And
I'm getting tired of the constant letters/articles against our elected
President. My Church does not teach we are to continually demean that high
office. We are to support and give our all to help. Continually publishing
articles against that high elected office is getting tiring.
Thank you for your article and courage!Love the Beatitudes - after reading some
of these comments I started to think of this one: "Blessed are they which
are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall
say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.Rejoice, and be
exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the
prophets which were before you." Matthew 5:10-12.
@ Iron&clay" It is especially satisfying to see the agonized
comments from the anti-traditional marriage crowd."Funny, I read
all the comments and I didn't read any that i would classify as
"anti-traditional marriage".I found some against Children
raised by LGBT parents. But all of them were pro-family and pro-traditional
marriage. Marriage by love, two adults in a monogamous relationship
committing their lives for each other.OooH!! You are from Utah. No,
Polygamy was traditional only in Utah! But that is over even for Mormons after
President Wilford Woodruff manifest. Interesting reading!
@iron&clayAgonized? We're trying to explain to you why
@ JBrown14I understand that you believe that same-sex marriages are
intrinsically unstable, but belief is not evidence and there is no evidence to
support your belief. What the evidence does show is that laws prohibiting SSM
create unstable situations for these families. What it also shows
is that belief can cause blind spots in some.@ Charlie0When do you consider the fact that YOU may be wrong? We've lived
centuries as if your position is correct and yet the "problem persists and
the "solutions" have caused far more harm than good. This isn't
just supposition. We have a multitude of evidence to back this up.So what is it going to take for you to consider that your good intentions may
be misguided? Is it loving to ignore truth in favor of a demonstrably unfounded
@JBrown14: "The more children who are raised in inherently unstable
situations..."You argue that children should be raised in stable
situations but argue against SSM that would stabilize gay relationships. You
can't have it both ways. Marriage is either good for children because it
gives stability or it isn't. Arguing that some marriages are good and
others bad displays bias. @Kei: "Decades of research shows that
children do best with a married Father and Mother in the home."During those decades researchers examined Dad/Mom and single parent families.
Not gay or lesbian couple raising families. The limited studies that have been
run show kids do best in families headed by 2 loving, committed parents. More
studies are being done, but they require funding, willing subjects and much time
to develop the data. To date the biggest observed difference between SSM and OSM
households is the the former tend to divide child care and household duties by
interest and ability, while the latter follow socially set gender roles. The key
is parental involvement, not gender.
Wonderful article. Loved every phrase.It is especially satisfying
to see the agonized comments from the anti-traditional marriage crowd.
@JBrown14What are the consequences to the children of redefining marriage?
I can see a lot of children--real live children with names--who will be better
off and no child who will be worse off. Please tell me a situation where a
specific child will be harmed by legalizing same-sex marriage."The
more children who are raised in inherently unstable situations will lead to more
dysfunctional adults."I agree with that statement but am super
confused how you think this supports your argument. Gay relationships are not
inherently unstable. Legal recognition and social acceptance will improve
stability, which helps their kids. The more I think of the children, the
more I support marriage equality.
What a beautifully written article. I could not agree more. There are many times
in the history of this country where unexpected endings have occurred. I believe
marriage will be preserved as more people are educated about the consequences to
children of redefining marriage. The more children who are raised in inherently
unstable situations will lead to more dysfunctional adults. This will effect
crime rates, substance abuse rates, and increase the amount of dependence on
government, which will raise taxes. Every single person has a stake in
strengthening marriage and fighting against attempts to change it.
@Charlie0;What if they turn out to be wrong?
What if those who oppose gay marriage turn out to be right? What if it is really
important to protect traditional marriage? Would those who are for gay marriage
come to realize it wasn't ever about hating anyone. It was about trying to
help others because of love.
Those opposed to SSM simply cannot explain their rationale with respect to
children in a way that makes the slightest sense. If we lived in a world where
one couldn't have children until marriage they'd at least be following
the logic of causality, but we don't live there. People have children in
all sorts of situations, married and not. Thus, the anti-SSM side is
not about "the children" that MIGHT occur after SSM marriage is
legalized, but about denying the benefits of a stable family to those children
that will be born into these families whether or not SSM is legal. Continuing to
argue as if the anti-SSM side is protecting children is thus obviously ludicrous
in the extreme, and I for one wonder how they expect anyone else to buy into
such poor logic. Give that this seems to be the sum total of the anti
side's rational, and it's obvious why SSM will be the law of the land
An awful lot of comments to a terribly biased article, where the woman dares to
bring up the co-founder of communism in contrast to Orin Hatch.More
of the comments ought to have been in despair of the DN for publishing such
Kimberley , what a great article which clearly presented what theSSM group
is trying to pull off. Also what courage to write this knowing 50 posters
opposed to your view are going to try to tear it apart.
“Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the
grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!”
(Ghostbusters, 1984)That was a great movie. The editorial should
have used some Ghostbuster quotes.Ten years ago, under Governor
Romney, marriage equality became the law in Massachusetts. To date, there have
been no plagues of locusts. :o)
Partridge:"I'm not saying we shouldn't support all
families that do exist, but why create situations that will bring about more
children being raised away from their biological parents? Because that will
happen."---------The way to supprot all families
that exist is to provide for them the most stable situation to raise their
children in - marriage.Gays HAVE children! 25% of the gay couples
in SLC are raising a child. Whether or not gays are married, if they want
children, they will have them. Somehow you think that gays will
stop procreating if they are not married. Not true. Gays were as surprised to
be able to marry as the State of Utah was in December. Many already had
procreated and brought their children with them to their marriages.Your saying that they cannot marry will not change any gay couple from
procreating (yes, they are individually able to procreate) and creating the
families that they want and cherish. Robert Lopez is one
individual. I can name you 50+ children right here in Utah who are wonderful,
caring, loving, tax-paying, responsible individuals who were raised by gays.
Can you name that many who are discontented with their gay parents?
Statements such as gay marriage "divorces" children from their parents
drive me crazy. That would lead someone to believe that children are being
plucked from their homes and from their biological parents which is so far from
the truth. More often than not, children up for adoption are coming from
parents who couldn't/wouldn't take care of them. Yet people are
willing to deprive them of a loving home because their adoptive parents are gay?
I'll tell you definitively, with gay couples, there are not any
"oops" babies. The time, effort and $ required to adopt a child is not
something two people who are not deeply invested in that child would ever
undertake. Doesn't that say something about gay couples wanting to
adopt? Last I checked, there are plenty of children without homes.
@lane myer"Why not support ALL families, whether or not they are
ideal? Why not support single parents, grandparentss raising grandchildren,
couples adopting children, gay couples raising their adopted, surrogate, or
in-vitro fertilized children, or older siblings raising younger brothers and
sisters. This is reality. Families come in all sizes and shapes, but most of
them are trying to love and raise good children. Let's legally support all
of them - for the good of the children?"I'm not saying we
shouldn't support all families that do exist, but why create situations
that will bring about more children being raised away from their biological
parents? Because that will happen. We will have more people using surrogate
mothers with the intent to separate the child from their biological mother.Another note, Robert Oscar Lopez, raised by who he acknowledges were 2 good,
loving lesbians parents is a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage for the very
reason that he LIVED the reality that he needed both a father and a mother.
@Meckofahess"Resentments will linger forever over the way the
gay community attempted to force acceptance of SSM through man-made courts of
law."Resentment will linger forever over the way the church
community of the state of Utah attempted to deny ALL Utah citizens their civil
rights based on nothing but their religious dogma and in violation of the United
States Constitution."The very attempt to take religion and God
out of the debate in the public square will forever resonate in a negative
way"The continued attempt to force YOUR religion on ALL in the
public square in contravention to the United States Constitution will be met
with untiring and fierce opposition from those whose rights you insist on
@Meckofahess"Resentments will linger forever over the way the gay
community attempted to force acceptance of SSM through man-made courts of law.
The very attempt to take religion and God out of the debate in the public square
will forever resonate in a negative way with those who cherish their traditional
faith systems."Amendment 3 advocates attacked first.
Wow! This is one weird opinion piece.
Zabet is right. The author was right.For those spouting
"marriage equality" you simply have redefined marriage. And equality is
all things is absurd and well accepted in all societies. Based upon the mindless
drivel the haters have infused in this discussion against the author they are
currently incapable of thinking this out.Men and women aren't
equal but the outcomes can be equalized. The crime for years has been in not
honoring the contractual wishes of two people -- regardless of sex. If they wish
to form a contract to share benefits, have "family" visiting, etc.,
those rights must be honored per the contract. That is the only equality that
matters in this discussion. What is really wanted by SSA couples is that what
they do be talked about and honored just as their Dad and Mom's
relationship was. But, it is NOT the same relationship. Isn't that
obvious?As for having children, the State has an obligation to
promote fundamentals of society. Stats have long proved this -- children have a
greater chance of success when raised by a father and a mother. That's what
the state should be promoting.
Kei says:"...when we make laws we need to promote the ideal for
children. "In that case, poor people should not be allowed to
have children, criminals should not be allowed to have children, young people
should not be allowed to have children, etc. as each of these scenarios not
"ideal" for the children. Why, I have to ask you, is it ONLY LGBT
couples who are not "ideal" in your eyes who have to be denied? Why not
ALL of these non-"ideal" situations? The only thing I can think of is
that you just don't like LGBT couples, otherwise, you'd want to ensure
only the "ideal" for every child, not just those who are in LGBT
families (which, btw, smells greatly of hypocrisy - condemned many many times in
@Kei:Same-sex couples will continue to raise children, whether or
not marriage equality is the law.Denying marriage to same-sex
couples will simply deny benefits to those families.Denying marriage
to same-sex couples will hurt children.
While it’s true that not every couple has children, every child does have
a Mother and a Father. Same-sex marriage automatically “divorces”
children from one of the natural parents who created them. Children want and
need both. Yes, we recognize that many different family forms exist,
but when we make laws we need to promote the ideal for children. Decades of research shows that children do best with a married Father and
Mother in the home. Early research in the 1950’s showed how critical
Mother-attachment and bonding is for children. More recent research shows the
many ways Father-presence matters. For example, Pres. Obama cited the fact that
children without a father are 5 times more likely to live in poverty and commit
crime. How can we continue to insist that fathers are essential, if the law says
fathers are optional?
@ P5momThe ability to procreate without outside assistance only
affords an advantage in CREATING a child. How the child does thereafter is
dependent on many things, including parenting ability. Sexual orientation has
been repeatedly shown to have no bearing on this capacity.@
Meckofahess"The very attempt to take religion and God out of the
debate in the public square will forever resonate in a negative way with those
who cherish their traditional faith systems."Yes, some believe
religion has no place in the public square. Personally I don't see how you
prevent it because we all carry our beliefs with us wherever we go. But no
one's beliefs should be afforded special deference simply by virtue of
their nature. They must win the day on their merits. Is this so unreasonable
to ask? When we know that religious belief can be harmful as well as
beneficial, is it unreasonable to objectively assess the consequences of a
religious belief first before we subject everyone to it?Nurse a
grievance if you must, but your rights remain intact. It's the pedestals
that some religions constructed for themselves that are taking a beating.
Some people continue to oppose SSM based on "the children". There is
such a disconnect. People including gays aren't waiting for marriage to
have children. There is no law you can pass that will make this the case, so
stop harping on the children. Marriage makes it better for the children that
will be raised regardless, so in reality you are hurting the children by
P5mom asks a thoughtful question regarding consequences of allowing family
formation without two opposite-sex parents.I'd like her to also
consider these other, interesting questions:What might be the
dangers of:..a) depriving a child of a well-rounded public
education?..b) depriving a child of comprehensive health care?..c)
denying a child immunizations?..d) denying a poor mother first-rate
prenatal care?..e) depriving a child those opportunities that poor parents
can't provide?..f) depriving a child of parental attention because
both parents need to work?..g) living in substandard housing because
that's all their parents can afford?..h) inadequate nutrition and too
much fast food?..i) television and videogames instead of time with friends
and loved ones?..j) environmental pollution because business comes before
people?..k) failure to instill a love of books, music, the arts, and
learning?..l) sugary snacks and drinks?..m) insufficient exercise or
play?..n) insufficient supervision?..o) parents living in
poverty?It really doesn't matter who your parents are if they
love and protect you and each other, and give you the best head start in life
Ms. Ells may be on very solid ground asserting that traditional marriage will
always rise again. Nature has bestowed on man/woman relationships a monopoly on
natural child-bearing. Maybe we should be asking: Why does nature favor
traditional man-woman relationships so decisively? What survival advantages does
it bestow on a child? What might be the danger deliberately depriving a child of
either a mother or a father? Perhaps the needs of a child should always trump
the desires of adults. The distinction of traditional marriage protects children
while still allowing same-gender couples the freedom to love and live together.
Congratulation to Ms. Ellis.
Zabet,Please understand that your credibility in this debate is
damaged when you offer incomplete, misleading or erroneous information. Please
get your facts straight and formulate your arguments based on accurate, complete
information, rather then just repeating someone else's talking points.Point 1. In Utah, first cousins actually ARE able to marry, in some
cases. They may marry, subject to proof that they are NOT able to procreate.
(Pssst, this hurts your argument in two ways).Point 2. In
Massachusetts, Catholic charities of Boston made a VOLUNTARY decision to cease
adoptions. They were accepting state funds to provide adoption services and so,
were bound by the state’s non-discrimination laws. Rather than place
children with qualified gay couples, they chose to shut down. Incidentally, they
could have done what LDS social services does, which is to remain COMPLETELY
private, accepting no public funds, and proceed, problem-free, with adoptions
according to their doctrinal beliefs.I'll close by citing this
line from an official LDS statement made during the prop 8 era in CA:"No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or
subject to erroneous information."
Zabet,You really should look at Massachusetts, as you suggest. With
one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, highest graduation rates, lowest
murder rates, lowest poverty rates, it shines in almost every category. Home to
premier institutions of higher education, and leading medical and technical
research, development, and commerce, it's the very picture of success and
societal stability.Your allegations are nonsense, nothing but
unfounded scare-tactics, which have been debunked in these comment threads many
times. For example, no adoption agency was ever told who they could and
couldn't place children with. As always, if they wished to get state money
for their services, they needed to comply with the state's
nondiscrimination law, which Catholic Charities already did, placing some
adoptions with gay couples. When Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage,
they did not change the nondiscrimination law. It remained exactly the same.
However, the Catholic Bishops shut down the service in a fit of pique. God
forbid they should have eschewed state money and continued God's work with
their own funds.LDS Family Services still operates adoption services
there, using private money, as they always have.
I don't know which is grater, my shock at the absurdity of this opinion
piece, or my weariness of this topic.Marriage equality is the right
thing to do.Period.If it is not inevitable, that is a
sad commentary on our society. It should be inevitable.
@Bob K;It's more than just Prop-8. Mormon leadership was
involved in every single state where constitutional amendments were passed
violating the civil rights of LGBT citizens. Every state!@Zabet;Cry me a river. If an adoption agency is so bigoted as to refuse to
place children needing homes with LGBT couples, then maybe they should quit.
And, just fyi, the Catholic Charities was willing to place hard-to-adopt
children with LGBT couples, it was the Catholic heirarchy that put a stop to the
practice and shut down the agency.
MeckofahessSalt Lake City, UTResentments will linger forever over
the way the gay community attempted to force acceptance of SSM through man-made
courts of law. The very attempt to take religion and God out of the debate in
the public square will forever resonate in a negative way with those who cherish
their traditional faith systems.--- Try reading the US Constitution,
rather than repeatedly trying to shove your belief that the ways of your church
should govern civil law onto the rest of us.. If you want Utah to seceded from
the Union and become a theocratic country, OK, please say so.Yes,
man made courts of law. The US system of Government says that people who feel
aggrieved by what they consider unjust laws or unjust actions by the Government
can bring suit, and let the Courts give them a remedy, if they prove their
case.Religions were also made by man, whether or not inspired by
God. Religions consist of imperfect people, since we all have human failings.It seems the very height of hubris to suggest a lingering resentment
over people earning their equality, considering that the Gays could resent you
eternally for Prop 8.
If you'd like to see how same sex marriage affects the society we live in
just look to Massachusetts where courts have ruled against parental rights when
their kindergartner and first grader were taught same sex morals. Look at the
adoption agencies that quit so they wouldn't have to place babies in same
sex homes when mothers and fathers were available and anxiously waiting
children. Those children's rights to a mother and a father were not
considered."Someone might object: What does it matter if a small
percentage of marriages are open, group, or temporary? Those arguments were made
in the no-fault divorce debate in the 1960s, but the introduction of such laws
had a dramatic impact. After all, law affects culture. Culture affects beliefs.
Beliefs affect actions. The law teaches, and it will shape not just a handful of
marriages but the public understanding of what marriage is." Ryan Anderson
Zabet,Funny you should mention cousins. From time immemorial until
a "liberal" social movement following a questionable mid-19th Century
Massachusetts study on "idiocy", first cousins were allowed to marry
pretty much everywhere in the Western world. Laws banning such marriages only
first got rolling in the United States in the 1880s, and later elsewhere, but
several states, especially on the Eastern seaboard, never enacted such bans, and
only a few states today have laws on the books that don't recognize legal
marriages from other states or countries.As it turns out,
"traditional" marriage, especially in European royal families, often
involved marriage between first or second cousins. Wikipedia suggests 20% of
all marriages throughout history were between first or second cousins, and are
still popular today in some jurisdictions, involving up to 55% of all Pakistani
immigrants to the UK. Modern geneticists say there is only a
modestly elevated chance of genetic defects from first-cousin marriages alone.
Genetic counseling is recommended not only for them, but for unrelated members
of several previously-isolated populations, such as Ashkenazi Jews, as well as
for older parents of any sort.
Wow. The vast majority of these comments are calling out the author's
arguments as specious and tangential, and are in favor of same-sex marriage.
Here -- on the Deseret News!! Times really are changing...
@ Partridge"Changing the definition of marriage also by default
changes the definition of parenthood."So this is the latest
iteration in the opposition's search for a valid argument. Sigh…I do agree that most opponents of SSM probably don't hate LGBTs.
But when they persist in their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the
contrary, and despite myriad examples of the harm they cause, it does open them
to this charge. After all, rejection and condemnation don't exactly feel
like the warm fuzzies.Personally, this stubbornness comes across to
me as worshipping the religion rather than the god. I understand that some
don't see a distinction, but every religion I know of has once espoused
doctrine that was later retracted as wrong. So if your god can't be wrong,
then your religion can't be your god. In the case of
homosexuality, I think some are mistaking their religion for their god. It may
have been god-inspired, but it was man-written and men make mistakes.
cocosweet:"I've always felt sorry for those that think gay
marriage will weaken straight marriages. How sad that their marriages are so
weak."It doesn't weaken conventional marriages. It weakens
the institution of marriage, which will soon disappear..Did you not
see where polys are popping up. If the courts approve SSM it must also approve
all other forms of marriage.
I have to laugh at this debate that occurs every time the DN runs an article
about this divisive subject. The same contributors (mostly) comment
over-and-over again (including me) and I don't see anyone being influenced
to change their existing view by this debate. I guess it makes us feel better
to exercise our fingers on the keyboard or something? SSM may become legal, if
it does it will not solve most of the problems debated about. Conservatives
will never fully accept SSM just like we have never accepted abortion after all
these many years. Just like we tolerate couples who live together out of wedlock
and engage in fornication, we will tolerate same-sex couples, but we will never
fully believe their life style is morally correct. Resentments will linger
forever over the way the gay community attempted to force acceptance of SSM
through man-made courts of law. The very attempt to take religion and God out of
the debate in the public square will forever resonate in a negative way with
those who cherish their traditional faith systems.
"... we’ll keep fighting." Fighting what? To devalue gay children
to make them feel horrible about themselves? How would you tell your gay child
that he is unfit to raise a family? Fortunately, it's inevitable and you
will have nothing to say about it.
@LouBird"It is incredible to me that we keep talking about the rights
of adults to marry who they want, but we rarely talk about the rights of
children to have the parents they need."How does prohibiting gay
people from marrying make more kids grow up with biological parents? What am I
missing in your argument? I need you to walk me through the logical leap.Will people who are currently married with kids in opposite sex relationships
abandon their families and turn gay when gay marriage is legal? Will kids
growing up be more likeky to be gay because gay marriage is legal? Will straight
people become more promiscuous and less committed because gay people are
becoming more committed? I want you to know that gay people love and want
to protect kids as much as anyone. If I thought gay marriage hurt kids, I would
not support it. I believe marriage benefits adults and kids, so I do support it.
Since when was marriage a right? Cousins can't marry cousins and siblings
aren't allowed to marry each other. Why? To protect their potential
children from the natural consequences that cannot be legislated away. And as
much as I love my same sex friends and relatives, changing the law to protect
their "right to marriage" will not change the natural consequences that
require a man and a woman to bring new life to this world and that studies prove
will provide the best chance of a healthy, happy life for the child. Children are our hope for the future and they deserve a mother and a father to
nurture and provide the optimal family relationship.Equal rights
that are guaranteed in the constitution are provided in numerous ways, but
redefining marriage creates a Pandora’s box of consequences that
obliterate so many other rights – the primary being the rights of
children. Children are our hope for the future and they deserve a mother and a
father to nurture and provide the optimal family relationship.
It is incredible to me that we keep talking about the rights of adults to marry
who they want, but we rarely talk about the rights of children to have the
parents they need. People love to quote dubious “scientific”
studies that support their positions, but the most rigorous studies have
repeatedly shown that children thrive best when they are raised by their own
married biological parents. The state has an interest in marriage only because
it is the institution which best insures that connection. When you alter the
definition of marriage, you alter the definition of parents. Adults are free to
choose whatever relationships they want. Unfortunately children can’t.
Since children do best when raised in homes with their biological parents, our
society should work to strengthen cultural commitment to that ideal, through
laws and education. There will always be problems that stand in the way of
reaching the ideal for each child, but our culture and legal system should
promote the best conditions for raising children. Anything that weakens the
protections provided to children by the natural family amounts to a war on
@Partridge:"Most people I know who oppose SSM don’t do so
because they hate homosexuals, they oppose it because SSM has led to same sex
parenting and they are trying to preserve the right of a child to be raised by
it's biological parents."Just one problem... gay people get
kids in one of three ways. 1. Adoption - biological parents are already
out of the equation there no matter where those kids go2. surrogate
parenting/in-vitro fertilization - surrogate parenting, whether for gay or
straight couples (like Melissa Harris Perry), automatically results in the kid
not ending up with the biological parents, in-vitro oftentimes doesn't
either3. from a previous heterosexual union - in which case you're
banning the kid from getting a stepparentSo what exactly do you want
to ban from this list?
I ask again: how is anyone's religious freedom affected by same sex
marriage? How are you not able to practice your religion because of same sex
marriage. Yes, I know you believe God hates same sex marriage, but how does
that affect YOUR practice of religion? Seriously, I would like an answer.
@Prochild"Let's consider how to strengthen marriage, not
undermine it."Agreed 100%. Gay people are gay whether they can legally
marry or not. Prohibiting a class of people from marrying does not strengthen
marriage. Allowing gay people to marry will have the exact same benefit it has
for straight people--it strengthens commitment, connects people to their
extended families and communities, and provides legal rights and obligations.
"Children's right to have the living arrangement shown to
produce their best outcome will be weakened not strengthened by changing the
definition of marriage to mean something other than the legally recognized
complimentary union that can naturally produce children and then nurture and
raise up that child."This is not true. Dozens of lawyers have had the
chance to prove a nexus between prohibiting same-sex marriage and superior
outcomes for children. They have all failed. Allowing gay people to be legally
married allows kids who currently have one gay parent to now have two parents
and they are better off. No one will take kids away from married straight
couples and give them to gay people.
I understand Kimberly's article to be a rally speech. She is rallying and
encouraging those of us that feel as if we are almost standing alone. She is
inspiring those of us who know that there are many things unique and important
about man-woman marriage to society and especially to children that will be
undermined if we go mindlessly on our way toward the feel-good concept that
"anybody can love each other - so that means it should be called
marriage". The benefits that children and society receive from stable
families have been undermined by changing divorce laws to recognize "no
fault" and therefore much more easily obtained divorces. These changes as
well as the widespread decline and abandonment of high morals and good character
have caused marriage to be less stable than it once was.Let's
consider how to strengthen marriage, not undermine it. Children's right to
have the living arrangement shown to produce their best outcome will be weakened
not strengthened by changing the definition of marriage to mean something other
than the legally recognized complimentary union that can naturally produce
children and then nurture and raise up that child.
Partridge: "Most people I know who oppose SSM don't do so because they
hate homosexuals, they oppose it because SSM has led to same sex parenting and
they are trying to preserve the right of a child to be raised by it's
biological parents."======== Every Gay parent I know
IS already raising their biological child/children.So, The
only other conclusion reamining for those who oppose them is because they hate
@Partridge"Changing the definition of marriage also by default
changes the definition of parenthood."That's plain silly.
How will granting marriage equality change the definition of parenthood? "Same sex parenting denies a child that opportunity. "More silliness lacking in fact."Most people I know who oppose
SSM don’t do so because they hate homosexuals, they oppose it because SSM
has led to same sex parenting and they are trying to preserve the right of a
child to be raised by it's biological parents."Baloney.
They hate homosexuality and, therefore,homosexuals. Their concern for the
children rings hollow when you look at the numbers of kids sitting in
orphanages, foster homes, or single-parent homes. The hypocrisy is that those
who oppose SSM would deny a child an opportunity at a stable and loving
environment just to preserve religious bigotry
@TheShootist1;Situations that looked bleak then went right?
Marriage equality! Barely 10 years ago states were passing constitutional
amendments banning marriage equality. Today, marriage equality is almost a
certainty nation-wide.@artbetty;As a biological
"reality", some children are created in test tubes. Another biological
reality, some children lose their parents to death. Time to face the facts;
families come in all manner of flavors and sizes, not just your restrictive form
of a "mommy and daddy".@frisbeemathgirl;Next, I
expect you'll be taking children from single parent households and placing
them in good "perfect" mommy/daddy households.@Partridge:"Most people I know who oppose SSM don’t do so because they
hate homosexuals, they oppose it because SSM has led to same sex parenting and
they are trying to preserve the right of a child to be raised by it's
biological parents."So, you're saying they're bigoted
against same-sex parents, right?
Partridge: "Most people I know who oppose SSM don't do so because they
hate homosexuals, they oppose it because SSM has led to same sex parenting and
they are trying to preserve the right of a child to be raised by it's
biological parents."---------------I believe you.
But you are being mislead. Stopping SSM will not stop gay people
from having and raising children. They have been doing so for decades. They
will continue to do so whether or not SSM is the law.All your
fighting against SSM does is deny those children the right to be raised in the
most stable environment that our government can offer - having parents that are
married with all privileges afforded to their families.Why not
support ALL families, whether or not they are ideal? Why not support single
parents, grandparentss raising grandchildren, couples adopting children, gay
couples raising their adopted, surrogate, or in-vitro fertilized children, or
older siblings raising younger brothers and sisters. This is reality. Families
come in all sizes and shapes, but most of them are trying to love and raise good
children. Let's legally support all of them - for the good of the
@Partridge: You have it exactly backwards. SSM hasn't led to same-sex
parenting.You have had same-sex parenting in Utah all along, through
the entire marriage-ban period. There are children who live in households with
unmarried same-sex parents. Why won't you allow their parents to get
married? Why won't you allow their only legal parent's lifelong
partner to also adopt them? Who exactly do you think you are you punishing? It hasn't been marriage that led to parenting. It's the
parenting that has led to the realization that the only way they can offer their
children maximum security, through thick and thin, sickness and health, whether
richer or poorer, is to get married.And even those couples who are
not parents, and don't seek parenthood, they realize the same thing. The
only way they can take care of the person they love through life's
tribulations is to get married. When you deny them that, you're denying
them what we all take for granted, including the right to bury their loved one
at the end. These people deserve next-of-kin status. It makes all the
This editorial was pure comic gold. It reminded of John Belushi rallying his
frat brothers. "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
Same sex marriage is not a simple issue of good vs. bad or enlightened vs.
bigots. The real conflict is between one good and another good: The equal
dignity and worth of all persons (including homosexuals) versus the right of a
child to be raised, wherever possible, by their natural, biological parents.
Changing the definition of marriage also by default changes the definition
of parenthood. Marriage as a social institution came about to meet a social
need: The need of a child that could be produced as a result of sexual
reproduction to be cared for emotionally, financially, and morally by their
father and mother who created them and for that father and mother to be in a
committed, permanent relationship in order to do that. Social Science data
affirms that a child does best when raised by it's biological parents.
Same sex parenting denies a child that opportunity. Most people I know who
oppose SSM don’t do so because they hate homosexuals, they oppose it
because SSM has led to same sex parenting and they are trying to preserve the
right of a child to be raised by it's biological parents.
artbettyProvo, UTAnd yet, in spite of this right you claim
children have to a relationship with both a mother and a father, there will be
thousands and thousands of children who will not have that. No matter how hard
you fight against SSM, there will still be thousands of children being raised by
single parents, or grandparents or in foster homes. There will even still be
thousands of children being raised in same-sex parent households. The only
difference your opposition to SSM will make is it will prevent same-sex couples
from being legally wed as they raise their children and it will prevent children
languishing in foster homes or other less than desirable situations from being
adopted into a loving, SSM marriage households. In essence, you are saying a
child is better off in a bad opposite sex household than in a good, loving, SSM
household. I'm sorry you feel that way but I have to strongly disagree
with your assessment. A good, loving, SSM household is far and away
better than the situatioins thousands and thousands of children are faced with
today. Legalize SSM today and do it for the sake of those children!
Great article! Every child deserves a father and a mother!
"The traditional family model composed of a man married to a woman is the
model conceived by The Deity as the best possible model for humanity."As 50% of them steadily march in and out of divorce court--often
repeatedly"Regardless, marriage is between a man and a woman.
Period."Except where it isn't (California, Connecticut,
Iowa, Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland.......)"Force society
to acknowledge SSM will have many unintended consequences."Name
one..."Those that hold a different view about the value of SSM
are now being persecuted by society."How many with an opposing
view have been beaten and left tied to a fence post in the middle of nowhere to
die slowly? How many have had their loved ones funeral picketed by LGBT for
holding that view? How many have been told by the county clerk they can't
get a marriage license because they are anti-LGBT and how many have been told by
merchants that they will not be served because of their opposing view?"Legalizing same-sex marriage eventually requires laws to be changed that
weaken a parent's relationship to their biological children."Name one.
The Shootist wrote:"I think some people just look for their 15 seconds
of fame at someone elses expense."_____Transport yourself
back to late October, 2008 in any of California's media markets. Do the
names Rob and Robin Wirthlin, or Professor Richard Peterson ring a bell? How about these names?Gar W__ of San FranciscoDaniel
of CovinaSuubi of Santa MargaritaGeoff of BrentwoodJenny L____
of Santa MonicaBarbara of San JoseAdam, student - UCLA School of
LawAlissa of PalmdaleAll of these people appeared in
saturation Yeson8 advertisements in California to assure voters that a
"yes" on 8 vote would produce very specific outcomes. So, voters, by a
slim margin, DID vote "yes" on 8 in 2008 and what has happened since?
Well ----- it turns out a "yes" on 8 vote did not, in fact, mean what
these people said it meant. There they are, their 15 seconds of
fame, preserved for posterity, boldly standing up and making claims that turned
out not to be true. While my husband and I are now civilly married, in the eyes
of the state of California and the government of the United States. And hurting
It is a biological reality that every child has both a mother and a father, and
they have a right to have a relationship with both a mother and a father. A
political movement that attempt to end that right will "inevitably"
fail. No one can beat biology.
You go girl! :) That was a great article. The critics are only showing
themselves to be part of the problem – most likely members of the LGBT
community. Some of them didn’t grasp that you were only using examples of
situations that looked pretty bleak and went right, in the end. They’d
complain about whatever examples you chose to use. I think some people just look
for their 15 seconds of fame at someone elses expense. Too bad the majority IS
mostly silent. Don’t be discouraged by nut jobs. Your article was spot on!
Hutterite... you'll hate me for this but I take the opposite view. I
think marriage as traditionally defined should be left to a man and a women, and
a new construct established for legally recognizing non-traditional families,
but I do think it will inevitably be made legal, because you can't have
separate treatment under the law..... and is the right thing to do.
Unhinged and embarrassing is how I would describe this editorial. Is
this a Trojan horse, back-handed way for the DN to discredit the anti-marriage
equality side? Just provide the zealots a platform and let them, in their own
words, illustrate the weaknesses of their position and why their arguments are
not winning the day -- either in court, or in the court of public opinion.
It may or not be 'inevitable'. But, it's the right thing to do.
So let's get it done.
Reading over these comments, it appears I am not the only one at a loss to
explain what this editorial is trying to say. The references to Engels, arson,
and Star Trek seem completely out of place as well. This just doesn't seem
like an appropriate way to approach a serious subject like this.
@Sonny2: Here's where your argument fails: According to my religion, God
believes in the love and care of ALL of His children. He, for His own reasons,
makes some of his children gay, but He wants them to live happy, secure lives,
looking after their birth families, their neighbors, and finding their own
happiness with each other.He also wants us to respect all of His
children -- our brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, neighbors, colleagues, and
strangers sojourning among us -- and treat them as we would be treated.Your religion is no less entitled to its doctrine than ours is to ours, but
yours is not the only one, nor the universal viewpoint, even among
Christians.This is not a case of Religion versus the Secular World.
It's only YOUR religion versus the secular world on this particular issue.
Mine is not only at peace, we pray that the rest of Mankind may learn that
Equality is God's desire. This includes not withholding the right to marry
from that particular minority of couples you wish to exclude.
@Sonny2Springville, Utah, UTGod put the family together. He
really does know best! ========== And He/She created all
of us.And all of us are His/Her Children.And some of them
might even happen to be Gay.So...How would our Heavenly
Parents expect us to treat our Brothers and Sisters?We are - after
all - the same Family.
I am a strong supporter of marriage equality. However, no matter what side one
is on I think everyone would agree that this is one of the strangest opinion
pieces to come out in a while. The piece just seemed all over the map and never
once gave a clear explanation for any of the points the author brought up. If
this is the best the opposition to marriage equality can do then that's
proof enough that same sex marriage is inevitable.
What even was this article? Was there a single coherent thought or argument in
this entire diatribe? Hey if the Continental Army can survive Valley Forge, then
somehow gay marriage will be defeated despite the glaring unconstitutionality of
it. Does that analogy somehow make sense to people? A better analogy would be
George Wallace's famous 1963 inaugural address where he said
"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever." Those
were the words of a stubborn, yet dying age.
I agree with Mz Ells, It is time to start speaking out and debunking the myths
surrounding the same-sex marriage debate that to re-define marriage will not
hurt children or traditional families or religious liberty. We can look to
places where same-sex marriage has been legalized. Legalizing same-sex marriage
eventually requires laws to be changed that weaken a parent’s relationship
to their biological children. It opens the door allowing the government to
claim more rights to the teaching of children without parental consent in the
public schools. It creates a battle front for religious freedom, and a host of
other considerations. I believe we can do better to show respect and
kindness. We need time to work through laws that will allow any needed benefits
to same-sex couples and the children in their family without re-defining
marriage. I am well aware that not every child will be raised by
their biological parents. Still I believe strongly that for the sake of
children, we should do all we can to support, in our teachings and in law, the
ideal that every child deserves a Mother and a Father.
Advocates of same-sex marriage are not anti-family. They want families, want to
be in families. You may hold that the ideal is that every child have a father
and a mother, but that does not preclude other configurations. Better two
fathers or two mothers or only one father or mother than none, or institutional
life, or life with abusive or incompetent parents. I welcome willing,
enthusiastic parents into the pool of parenthood. And changing the
definition of "marriage" most certainly does not render it
"meaningless"! If a parent gets divorced or dies, the other parent does
not become meaningless. Better any good parent than bad parents or abandonment
to the foster system.
Isn't it great that we are still free to voice our opinion! I applaud Ms.
Ells for sharing hers. My freely expressed opinion is this: puny man can not
legislate away what was set in place by a Higher Power, even God (yes, I believe
in Him) and create for himself what he wants without serious consequences. Read
the Bible. It's all there. We can already see some of those man-made
consequences in Mass. and other states that have legalized SSM. Religious
freedoms of those who disagree with the mandate of SSM are being trampled over.
Yes, religious liberty is at stake here in this "land of the free and home
of the brave." Big government should not be legislating this important
issue. Let the states decide....let the voice of the people be heard...not
judges who are legislating from the bench. And, I happen to feel strongly that
every child needs both a father and a mother. Two mothers can not replace a
father; two fathers can not replace a mother. God put the family together. He
really does know best! Yes, isn't it great to be able to express our
feelings and opinions!
@1 Voice"The logic is also flawed because if you allow SSM based on
the argument of rights you must allow polygamy or any other form of marriage for
the same reason."Did arguing for interracial marriage mean you
must allow any other form of marriage? No. Why are you applying a double
Unfortunately while SSM advocates cry discrimination, they are discriminating
against those who hold a different opinion. Those that hold a different view
about the value of SSM are now being persecuted by society. Talk about the
propaganda machine in motion (in the media, TV and movies) then complaining
when someone voices an opinion they don’t like labeling it as propaganda.
The real tragedy in all this is that many in society have lost their way. They
want us to believe that wrong it right and right is wrong.
Same tired arguments from SSM advocates. No ones rights are being violated when
you allow SSM. Wrong! The logic is also flawed because if you allow SSM based
on the argument of rights you must allow polygamy or any other form of marriage
for the same reason. Force society to acknowledge SSM will have many
unintended consequences.People seem to forget that the constitution does
not guarantee the right to marry. Its not about the right to marry. States
acknowledge traditional marriage as the union of one man and one women because
that is what is best for society. Traditional marriage is best for
society. We should promote and support it. If you allow people to redefine
marriage in any way they want the concept and institution of marriage becomes
If you don't believe same-sex marriage is inevitable, poll 1,000 voters
under age 30 and you'll get a different perspective. Those who are over 50
are primarily the voters who oppose SSM. Whether the Supreme Court finds in
favor of equal marriage rights or not (they likely will), it's just a
matter of (not very much) time before voters make this happen.Also,
I am an extremely strong supporter of 'traditional' marriage and
'traditional' families. I am a married, heterosexual male with 3
nearly grown heterosexual children. I know that SSM is absolutely zero threat
to my marriage nor the future marriages and families for my children. I can
support both traditional marriage and SSM as both can co-exist without harm nor
threat to the other.And I can tell you definitely that 100% of the
under 30 voters in my household support equal marriage rights for same-sex
What's the definition of marriage, whatever you want it to be, the term has
been rendered meaningless. Our country has no cultural norms, we are morally
bankrupt, America is disintegrating.
Well-stated essay! No doubt will be prophetic.
Somehow I don't think this editorial would pass muster at most college
(high school?) newspapers. The comparisons are so off base and far fetched that
the author only affirms the correctness of the thing she opposes.
Regardless, marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.Funny how
Orrin "Compromise" Hatch suddenly finds the backing/support of many who
wouldn't give him the time of day.At the end of the day, I for
one am not going to jump on any bandwagon designed by the "world," no
matter how popular.
Great article Kimberly!Yes, we will and we must keep fighting. The
traditional family model composed of a man married to a woman is the model
conceived by The Deity as the best possible model for humanity. Senator Hatch
had his temporary lapse and suggested the sky is falling, but we know that the
sky is not falling - truth will always trump error.
"Even if courts rule in a way that devalues the worth of a father or a
mother to a child....."No. the courts did not "devalue"
traditional marriage, they simply give same sex couples and their children equal
rights as their traditional marriage counterparts.The author may
believe heterosexual couples are superior than same sex couples, but that is not
how the courts of law see it.
Seriously, this is drivel.The side against marriage equality knows
that the only arguments they have are fallacious appeals to religion, to
tradition, to debunked studies, so this is what they are reduced to:
content-free screeds that compare the other side to Engels and the Borg, and
their own side to Washington at Valley Forge.
My cousin and her partner adopted a little girl doomed to poverty in a third
world country.When I see the smiles on their yearly Christmas card,
its hard to understand why so many people are invested in their failure.
Ahem - it looks like Senator Hatch is being 'primaried' by the Tea
Another crazy fantasy driven editorial!Man, we certainly do live in
a bubble! No where else would they call this news. In any other place this would
be placed in the comics or movie section!
Another flip flop from Hatch?Wow! It's only Thursday and
I've already been served plenty of pancakes!
"Even if it is temporarily killed, marriage will rise like a phoenix from
the ashes of judicial arson that set it aflame"Except that
straight couples can still get married, so marriage wouldn't be rising at
all. All that would be "rising" is striking down same-sex couples from
being able to marry and well... the younger generation is strongly against that
Completely odd article. Anywho I've always felt sorry for those that think
gay marriage will weaken straight marriages. How sad that their marriages are
The writer of this piece may feel strongly about the issue, but it is her vision
that is clouded. Wishing won't make it go away. Hatch was absolutely
correct. Can't we just get this over with. Allow gay marriage and then we
will hear virtually nothing about it afterwards, like in many other countries.
pragmatistferlife"I know I'm a little off target here but
what happened with the DN today? A letter about Benghazi stand downs, one about
how the President should somehow promote thought control, and now this."Remember who owns the DN.
Simply a case of denial. In state after state, not one judge or court has upheld
their ban on SSM marriage. And to compare this struggle for equal treatment to
Star Trek, George Washington, and Moses is so unrelated or convoluted, that it
is simply bizarre. We are not in some metaphysical struggle of good vs. evil.
Some rising Phoenix is not going to free us from the judicial system's
obligation to protect the Constitutional rights of equal protection and due
process for all citizens.
"The tactic of broadcasting statements that declare a certain outcome to be
“inevitable” is not a new one. It is a battle cry that has risen
from the lips of over-grasping RELIGIONS for many a century."No
need to read further.
The objections to SSM are primarily founded in religious belief. These beliefs
were imposed on all citizens in numerous states about a decade ago. This
violation of the First Amendment is now being corrected. Those who
cherish their right to free exercise of their beliefs should be applauding this.
Yes, it means you will have to live in a society where acts you consider
immoral are legally protected. But don't we all? I and many others
believe that what you teach about LGBTs and how you treat them in your churches
and temples is immoral. But even if SSM is declared legal, you will still get
to practice these things in your churches and temples, and you will still enjoy
legal protection to do so.So what are you losing? Government
sanction of your religious ideas? You were never entitled to this in the first
place and seeking it actually undermines the right you seem to cherish most.I really think you're trying to snatch defeat out of the jaws of
victory here, but your moral objections to SSM are preventing you from seeing
I know I'm a little off target here but what happened with the DN today? A
letter about Benghazi stand downs, one about how the President should somehow
promote thought control, and now this. One expects a certain slant
here, but the opinion page today is a leap into nuttiness. Sorry for
the interruption...carry on.
Inevitable? It's already happening and no matter what the legal outcome
will continue to be available in the most populous states. Utah continues to
hold out hope that it will remain the land of the lost.
Amen to this article. True marriage is the only way for society to survive and
Engels? Sharks? Enemy aircraft? Seriously? This is your comparison to
SSM?For an organization "which works to protect the family in
society," they're doing anything but. Nothing they stand for will in
any way strengthen anything. Robbing Peter does not pay Paul.First,
let's look at what's at stake in this marriage "argument."
1) Banning SSM doesn't create more opposite-sex families.
Asserting otherwise is empirically unsupportable. Completely illogical.2) Banning SSM doesn't end creation of same-sex families. Single
or divorced lesbian women who tried being "straight" already bring their
natural children to new households. Adoption agencies already place children
with the best available families, some of whom are same-sex. And assisted
fertility services are available to all. Already.So, all it comes
down to is simply denying civil marriage rights to a minority out of some
"us v. them" pettiness, supported by a doctrinal belief specific to only
some denominations.So far, courts which have examined the arguments,
the rationalizations, the excuses, the assertions, the causality, and the
doctrine, have decided that banning SSM makes no legal, Constitutional sense.Try supporting the families that already exist.
It is here, this editorial effectively advocates for a police force to carry out
Wow, this is some drivel right here. And it was never explained HOW gay marriage
isn't inevitable. So lets pretend the SCOTUS says that states do have the
right to define marriage as they want to. Polls pretty consistently show that
young people are fine with gay marriage, even people who define themselves as
conservative and who are religious. If it's not allowed through the courts,
it will allowed through the ballot box. Sen Hatch is right, it's over.
A weird piece. Engels against Moses and Captain "Piccard" (sic).
Judicial "arson." Only Luke Skywalker is missing from this fantasy . . .
I think the author is confused about who has been the aggressor and who has been
oppressed. It's not the marriage equality proponents who are the Borgs;
it's the majority who is telling gay and lesbian couples that they should
just accept what they have voted into law who are the Borgs. She
also uses an analogy of Moses being trapped at the Red Sea as they leave the
oppression and slavery at the hands of Pharaoh. You see, the Hebrews that Moses
were delivering weren't allowed the freedoms that the Egyptians enjoyed.
They were escaping that. So, then, who does Moses really represent in this
attempted parable? I would say he could be the "activist judges" that so
many have been complaining about. It's time those who are
fighting against marriage equality stop playing the victim; your freedoms are
not being lost.
"Even if it is temporarily killed, marriage will rise like a phoenix from
the ashes of judicial arson that set it aflame"Seriously,
DesNews? I mean, seriously!? So, this is what the propaganda machine has come
down to - baseless, useless opinion pieces that incorrectly divine that marriage
equality somehow kills heterosexual marriage. I personally wonder why
anti-equality advocates give SSM folks so much power over them. For me, no
matter what a court says or who marries whom, I will always love my wife and no
one can weaken our marriage but ourselves. Indeed, someone ought
to remind Ms. Ells that in actual "traditional marriage" she would have
been considered chattel and never given the right to offer up her opinions in a
public forum. It was those dang liberals who expanded women's rights to
the chagrin of conservatives, it was those dang liberals who expanded marriage
rights to interracial couples to the chagrin of conservatives, and it is now
those dang liberals who are expanding marriage rights to any couple to the
chagrin of conservatives. At some point, history must take an accounting of
repeated conservative missteps on the subject matter and deem their position
"And marriage — including lifelong vows of sexual exclusivity —
will still be the best way to maintain and foster life."Great!
Let two adults make vows of sexual exclusivity, reap the governmental benefits,
and start or continue raising children. This author is well on her way to
supporting marriage equality.
"With the passage of the means of production into common property, the
individual family ceases to be the economic unit of society.”--EngelsPrior to the industrial revolution, the family was the basic economic
unit of society. People lived and worked on small family farms, or family shops,
or banks, or newspapers, etc. The industrial revolution moved the locus of power
away from the family and into large corporations. This was the case when Engels
was writing.A great many nineteenth century conservatives were
opposed to industrialization, capitalism, and free trade for the precise reason
that the economic order that was emerging supplanted traditional families and
communities, which they saw as being essential to the survival of traditional
conservative virtues. Conservatives today seem to have forgotten their history.
It was not communism or socialism that wiped out the family as the basic
economic unit, it was capitalism.
Re: "The tactic of broadcasting statements that declare a certain outcome to
be 'inevitable' is not a new one. It is a battle cry that has risen
from the lips of over-grasping governments and social engineers for many a
century."It is a battle cry that has also risen from the lips of
the religious:"For just as when, in the days of primitive
Christianity, an upheaval in the religion of pagan states meant corresponding
revolutions in the political world, so in those remote regions where the thin
edge has already entered, the inevitable triumph of Christianity will be
followed by great social upheavals presaging the collapse of the old order of
things" ("The Churchman," August 12, 1899, p. 184)."They are facts which, if fairly faced, must compel assent to the
reasonableness of the faith in God, in the Bible, in Christ Himself as the only
Saviour of men, and in the inevitable triumph of Christianity as the universal
religion" (Howard Agnew Johnston, "Scientific Faith," 1904, p.
52).Would you characterize such statements as "Borg-like
intimidation tactics," too?