Published: Sunday, July 13 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
I disagree that human rights issues like this should be left to the
"representatives of the people." Constitutional amendments protect the
unlimited rights of the people (Amendment 9) and due process and equal
protection of the law (Amendment 14), and judicial review protects the minority
from the "tyranny of the majority." If left to the states and their
representatives civil rights and women's suffrage would not have been
accomplished as soon as they were. No one is arguing that a family with two
biological parents is not ideal. But, we do not ban or discourage
adoptive-families or step-families from forming. I contend that the
approximately 800,000 children of one biological parent in same sex partner
households in America would be better off if they were in a legal family with
two parents having the benefits and protections of marriage. If you are
pro-family why would you prefer that these children be in the legal equivalent
of a single parent family?
Could not disagree more, and take exception to almost every assertion. Marriage did not start out a the way to raise kids. Millennia ago it
was about property, inheritance and power. Studies do show that
kids were better raised in two parent homes, but there is more to the studies
than just that (divorce?). And new studies of kids raised in same sex
households show that kids are all right, and even better in some ways, than kids
raised by opposite sexed parents.Human rights in a constitutional
republic should never be put up for a vote. Our county's history is
replete with examples of bloody wars fought to solve this problem in the
extreme, and amendments and laws to end practices in which the majority is
repressing the minority. In the fight to maintain the specious
religious notion that marriage can only be about opposite sex parenting, no
stone is left unturned to convince the majority that gay marriage is some great
evil. Young people, and increasingly the mainstream of the country sees this as
By emphasizing the procreation aspect of marriage you denigrate the millions of
non-procreation marriages. On the other hand by emphasizing the "personal
aspects” such as “emotional support and public commitment” as
well as “access to legal and financial benefits" you do no harm to
married couples who choose to and are capable of having children. My non procreative marriage has done no harm to any of your procreative
marriages. In addition I don't remember anyone, including friends and
family insisting that my to be wife and I have children before we could get
married. There is absolutely no basis for denying someone the right
to marry the person they love based on whether they will or can have children,
and we have never done that...never. Simply put, in the end SSM is
about the commitment of two people and not whether the two people will choose to
procreate or parent.
Don't look now, but "Marriage" has been changing for over 100
years.Woman have the right to vote, Women have the right to
file for divorce.The "divorce" rate - for heterosexual
couples -has leveled off at 50%, But co-habitation "common law"
has increase 50 times since then, and is now considered
"normal".If heterosexual "marriages" are so perfect,
then why all the trouble?If yo are worried about "the children"
Society needs to fix that first.Blaming Same Sex Marriage couples
for the ills of "the children", is like the Nazis blaming
Germany's economic woes on the Jews.
With more marriage-minded women in Utah than men (thanks to the Mormon influence
which encourages women to marry and young men to do nothing but play the field)
the effects of same sex marriage does nothing to improve the dating pool for the
As a fundamental unit of society, marriage has really suffered under the care of
those that have been able to partake in it thus far. It's time to let those
that really want have a go, It's their right, and that right needs to be
protected from the meddling of 'the peoples' representatives'.
If we are going to make marriage about children, then let's make marriage
about children. Let's pass laws requiring those with children
to be married and, absence abuse, to remain married until the children are grown
and married themselves. Let's pass laws requiring those who are married to
have children, and if they cannot or choose not to have children, their marriage
automatically becomes null and void. Let's criminalize adultery
because of its potential to interfere with determining paternity of any
conceived offspring. Let's pass laws providing the benefits
necessary for one parent to stay at home and raise the children while the other
parent works. Let's pass laws requiring the working parent to spend time
daily assisting in the raising of their children. Let's pass laws
outlining contingency plans should one or both parents die or become
incapacitated, or if a divorce is granted due to abuse. Otherwise,
let's recognize "the children!" claim for the red herring it is and
The most recent study of the effects of same sex parenting, conducted by Dr.
Simon Crouch of the the University of Melbourne, concluded that "children in
same sex families scored better on a number of key measures of physical health
and social well-being than children from the general population." The
biggest problems faced by children of same sex couples is stigmatization and
prejudice. I notice that this piece chose to ignore the Australian study.
"Recent cultural acceptance of same-sex relationships has paved the way for
marriage’s redefinition, but it is actually society’s changing
attitudes about what marriage means that are ultimately responsible for its
transformation."----------------This is a point I've
been making for at least the last 5 years and it's good to see that it is
found elsewhere.The greatest problem that I see with homosexual
"marriage" is that it is part of equating homosexual parentage, almost
an oxymoron considering the obvious biological constraints, with that of
heterosexual parentage. As someone who is very pro diversity, the obvious
advantages of being raised by both one's mother and father far outweigh
whatever benefits accrue to people in a homosexual coupling who also want to be
parents.I recognize that the traditional nuclear family of father,
mother and children is often not possible, for a variety of reasons. But,
creating the disadvantageous hurdle of not being raised with the diversity of
one's male/female parentage is something that should be minimized rather
than celebrated and encouraged.
Again if you have to use the same lies that have been disproven in more then a
dozen different courts of law about what the research shows then maybe there is
a problem with your argument. Claiming a morality to justify your position the
misrepresenting the facts diminishes not only your argument but also diminishes
religion as a whole.
The real problems with the institution of marriage are much more extensive and
more important to our survival than the argument over same sex marriage. In our
current world marriage is not as important as when it was first invented. Both
men and women have much more freedom and independence that often changes the
rules. Child rearing by Mom and Dad has always been regarded and
the best way create individuals with the best chance for survival and is
probably still so today. However that doesn't mean that child rearing by
Mom and Dad is THE best way to prepare an individual for success in our current
and future worlds. If we really wanted kids to have equal opportunity, we would
not leave it up to parents.
Ericksons: "Consistent with this adult-centric view, the majority flatly
rejected that 'procreation is an essential aspect of the marriage
relationship,' prioritizing instead the 'personal aspects' such
as 'emotional support and public commitment' as well as 'access
to legal and financial benefits.'"And yet the State of Utah
already embraced and endorsed the "adult-centric" view of marriage that
the Ericksons see as invalid in 1996 when it amended its marriage law to allow
first cousins to marry, but only if they were non-procreative. The arguments
advanced at that time in favor of the change were exactly those that the
Ericksons dismiss above-- emotional support, public commitment, and legal
benefits. Can they explain how childless first cousin marriage advances the
traditional procreative family model while same sex marriage (including many
couples with children) does not?The Ericksons too facilely and
cavalierly dismiss the many same sex couples that have children as unimportant
and irrelevant. They repeet the mantra of children needing "a mother and
father" but discount the benefits of two parents (irrespective of gender)
over single parenthood, which is perfectly legal.
Until Utah residents have made friends with SSM couples, they are simply
exhibiting fear of the unknown.They appear to be unable to say anything
good, because they really just do not know how happy and contented children
raised in SSM families can be. Utah is "sheltered" from much of
what the rest of our nation understands, and now comfortably accepts as good
and normal.People, open your hearts and minds so you can actually view,
unburden your life, and then know the truth.You will be able to live your
life in a different way because your blinders will have been removed!
"Transformative decisions are best left to the people's
representatives"???? If left to the "people's
representatives" of the Solid South, blacks would still be sitting at the
back of the bus and getting lynched for complaining about it. Under
our Constitution, the "people's representatives" cannot infringe on
the unalienable rights of human beings. That's the issue here.
Samhill, you continue to miss the point. "The greatest problem that I see
with homosexual "marriage" is that it is part of equating homosexual
parentage, almost an oxymoron considering the obvious biological constraints,
with that of heterosexual parentage. "The right to marry has
nothing..let me say it again, nothing to do with parenting. Two people who want
to commit to one another may or may not decide to or even be capable of having
children. It doesn't matter...again it doesn't matter.Like Maudine suggests if you want to talk about children and parenting then do
so, but it's not the same conversation as who is allowed to marry.
According to Citizen's United, the "people" who are represented are
most like corporations with deep pockets. Like, you know, Hobby Lobby. Not
"Genderless marriage?" No! "[E[mphasizing adult choices about
marriage deemphasizes children's needs for marriage." Absolutely, No!
Gays do not want to redefine the foundations of traditional marriage - they want
same-sex commitments included under the marriage umbrella. Courts keep ruling
for equality since gay marriage is not a threat to traditional marriage. Most
gays grew up in straight households, they have the same respect for marriage,
child rearing, and parental commitment as their straight brothers and sisters.
Implying that a gay child is less valued in this generational contract is unfair
and morally wrong. If your son brought home a same sex partner, would preventing
him from entering a marriage contract serve any purpose? It's probably not
the marriage contract that your church is looking for, but what are your
son's options? To be excommunicated from church - and family? To live a
solitary life? These choices are cruel. It's time for parents and church to
recognize that this is your son's life, it's how he was born and
it's his decision, and you should love and respect him (and his choices),
as you would his brothers and sisters.
"Transformative decisions are best left to the people's
representatives".Gov. Boggs comes to mind. I'll bet the
Erikson's would have a substantial problem with their argument being made
by Gov. Boggs and used against them and their cohorts.
The Ericksons' analysis is spot-on. This is the discussion that should take
place in our society before marriage is redefined by judicial diktat. Marriage
should first and foremost be about creating the best chance for children to be
raised by two biological parents, not about the well being of adults.
Decisions are best left to the people who are directly affected by the
decisions. In the case of marriage that is the two people getting married.
The person that's elected to represent thousands of people on a plethora of
issues is simply not in a position to make such a personally profound and
intimate decision on behalf of the individuals involved. Other marriages
between consenting adults are not subject to the scrutiny or whim of any elected
official or body. There's no reason that should be the case for same sex
couples. A marriage is not comparable to other political activity such as
setting budgets or awarding construction contracts for public works projects.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments