And the Desperation Express just keeping chugging along...Considering that there is no requirement that a married couple have children,
pulling out the old "every child deserves a mother and a father" claim
in order to outlaw same-sex marriage is particularly pointless. This debate has
been going on for years and we have yet to see the anti-equality crowd give any
argument stronger than "God says homosexuality is a sin." If I had to
guess, I don't think we're going to be seeing one. I'm sure that won't stop them from trying, though.
I agree, so in consequence everyone who is not an upper middle class asian
married couple should be sterilized. I want the best for children and the couple
I mentioned are statistically proven to be the best parents. I assume the
author would agree.
This article is right on. At the bottom of this issue is the fact that kids need
a mom and a dad. Society should recognize and support that need.
Thank you for stating so clearly why marriage between a man and a woman must be
upheld. Our society must consider the consequences to children of redefining
marriage. I am also an advocate for social justice AND marriage between a man
and a woman. Well said!
If you are going to quote studies, you should quote them without selectivity.
Recent studies of children raised in stable same sex households don't show
adverse outcomes. You are being intellectually dishonest by not citing them in
your opinion.Also, lets talk about gender roles. Modern marriages
do not all conform to traditional male and female roles. There are men who are
the care givers to children of the marriage. Do the children in this
arrangement suffer? Where is the research on this, and does it not need to be
mentioned? Be intellectually honest.In same sex marriages, the
parties must establish new roles for the household. Choices are made by couple,
and nothing is necessarily held to strict gender roles (can't be). Men are
certainly capable of providing the emotional support that a mother can provide.
And a woman can coach a team as well as can her male neighbor. We have evolved.
Try to be intellectually honest.So, it appears you have an
intellectual blind side that refuses to even evaluate evidence to the contrary
of your natural disposition. That is not the scientific method, nor is it
This author's opinion will actually hold water once he writes a follow up
article in which he advocates for the passage of laws that immediately remove
all children from the custody of parents when the parents get a divorce.
Clearly, if the most ideal situation in this author's mind cannot be met
then it will be nothing at all - social justice inverted. Also, the author must
explain to us his reasons for opposing adoption by single parents. Until that
time: pure hypocrisy. There is no existing law that gives non-existent future
children the "right" to a mother and father - it's fictitious, made
up... while the right to marry is fundamental under the COTUS - when
"future" children's non-existent right goes up in court against
actual people's actual rights to marry, guess who wins? Oh, and what about
SSM couples that just want to be married but don't want kids?DesNews - You do realize this position has been soundly rejected by the court
systems and has literally no sway in the SSM debate? Perhaps, in the future,
hold off on publishing anti-family rhetoric until the author has overcome
his/her own cognitive dissonance.
Great article!! That was so clear and well-spoken. I totally agree. Thank
goodness for common sense!
Translation: "When I stand on my head and twist this way, my argument looks
like the righteous one!"I hope the author has a better defense
for his Ph.D. dissertation. One suggestion: Stay away from discredited
Regardless of laws, there will always be gay people in committed relationships
and some of them will have children.In the DOMA case, Justice
Kennedy said that law "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being
raised by same-sex couples... The law in question makes it even more difficult
for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family
and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily
lives."I personally know a young gay couple and an older lesbian
couple each raising children born to unmarried mothers in their extended
families. These couples had the love and resources to provide for those children
and keep the child in the extended family close to the biological mother. Would
it be better for these children to have been sent to other families?A close friend has always known he was gay. He married a woman trying to do
what was right and had two beautiful children. His wife tragically passed away.
He will not enter another mixed orientation marriage, but would consider
marrying a man. Is it better for these children for their father to remain
Same inane generalizations.Referencing one source from 16 years ago that
seems to fit the position being stated.(By the way this is the only source
listed in the entire op-ed.)Saying "that children of same-sex parents,
once grown, have significantly poorer physical and mental health and lower
educational outcomes than children from intact biological families." Where
are the references proving this?Saying "Legalizing gay marriage
implicitly requires the government, public schools and the media to perpetuate
the narrative that homosexual couples provide the same benefits to children that
a married mother and father provide to biological children. This is simply not
the case." Again what proof do you offer to back this up?"Decades
of scientific research show", what research? References please."Other studies have showed" (shown?), what studies. Again references
please.This op-ed is just another one in a long line that offers no
substance only an opinion. More desperation for a cause with ever dwindling
Some studies show that about 5% of the populous is gay. Out of this number how
many do you think will want to get married?And then out of that
percentage how many will have children?Is it really worth predicting
the collapse of western civilization over a "problem" that could affect
one or two percent of the America's marriages?Maybe we should
use more of our collective outrage over children damaged by divorce, hunger, and
lack of proper healthcare.
When I was working on my PhD, I was expected to cite the most recent, and most
comprehensive studies in the field, not older, largely discredited studies. In
this case, the more relevant research was very recently published by Dr. Simon
Crouch, at the University of Melbourne. It concludes that children in same sex
families fare significantly better than children in the general population. May
I suggest that the DN publish an op-ed piece citing this new Australian
"The children, born and unborn, who will reap the consequences of current
political choices."--- Pray tell, what would be those dire
consequence of which you speak? Equality for all Americans? Oh, woe is society
when Equality is a negative "consequence"."Decades of
scientific research show that children need both a mother and a father. "--- Repeatedly debunked.How does preventing LGBT couples
from marrying encourage opposite sex couples to actually marry and raise
children? That is a question you anti-marriage folks (yes, you are actually
anti-marriage) never, ever answer. "Traditional adoption
makes the best of an unfortunate situation for a child. But when same-sex
couples create children through artificial reproductive technology, they create
a separation between the child and his or her parents. "How is
that any different than a straight couple doing the same thing? It still
separates the child from one or more of it's parents.
"...deprive children of their most foundational relationships without any
consent from the children."What about children born in poverty,
did they "consent" to being born into that family/situation? What about
children born into abusive households, did they "consent" to being born
into that family situation? This OPED failes to address these situations, they
seem to be perfectly dandy, but God Forbid a child be raised, without it's
"consent" by two loving parents who happen to be the same gender."David Hunsaker is a marriage advocate and Ph.D student at the
University of Utah."David Hunsaker is NOT a marriage advocate.
He is an anti-marriage advocate.
Every gay couple I know, already had kids from previous heterosexual
marriages that failed.Like the Brady Bunch - only this time
with a Mike and Ike, or Carol and Caroline.Are you
saying that those kids should be denied being a "Family"?BTW
-- Kudos for the plug on Social Justice, now prepare for the
dog-pile by the Tea-Partiers.
Artificial reproductive technology? Gays both bear and sire children from the
normal processes. The low estimate is that there are at least 300,000 children
in same-sex partner households in America. As many states ban adoptions by gay
couples, a small percentage are from adoptions. Most of these children were
produced from prior sexual relationships (yes, many homosexuals have tried to
live a heterosexual lifestyle) or even seek out conception while within a
same-sex partnership. I personally know a woman who has twice sought out
donation (sexually) from the same man and gave birth to two girls. She has a
female partner. Would not these children fare better if they were in a
two-parent family with the protections and benefits of marriage? Preventing
those partners from marriage is forcing those children into what is the legal
equivalent of a single-parent family.
I believe the author's intent was to show that his beliefs ARE supported by
studies, and the fact that humans have existed for thousands of years in
traditional families adds to the cause. Marriage in all aspects is being
redefined and regardless of what is said about it, the whole thing is a big
experiment. It's disappointing to see so much disrespectful dialog on this
subject; no wonder so many people are quiet about their support of traditional
marriage. Anyway, I also support marriage between one man and one woman
and I'm not ashamed of it. Well said, David Hunsaker!
Children do best when raised by their married biological mother and father.That's why I was encouraged when a decade ago Utah voters
overwhelmingly passed Proposition 4, that outlawed divorce. I was pleased when
Utahns poured millions of dollars into California's Prop 9 campaign to
eliminate divorce there as well. I was ecstatic to see the bakers and
photographers rally to withhold their services from divorcees (un-Biblical, they
said). Even the pregnancy resource centers stopped advising girls to put their
babies up for adoption and the adoption brokers closed shop.Oh,
wait--none of that happened.Gays make up about 5% of the population
(plus or minus). One in three or four gay couples have children, so maybe 1-2%
of kids are in gay households. Straights constitute the balance, and about half
of straight marriages end in divorce, so figure 40-48% of kids are in broken
homes.Simple math suggests that the greatest return on investment
for improving child welfare comes from reining in divorce rates and improving
straight family function. SSM has a trivial effect on overall child welfare.
So why the vastly disproportionate political effort against SSM?
Fantastic article! The author did a great job defending children. Some
situations that children are in we cannot control, but the author does a good
job explaining how this policy is one place we can defend children's
Great article. It brings back common sense to a nation reeling with social
trends.As someone who has spent most of his life in the academic
world, and heavily involved in scientific research myself, I know it's
difficult to find sources that are not biased in some form. Hence, no matter
what research is quoted, I would question the motives of the research and how
strong the correlations are. The closer we get to the edge of man's
understanding, the muddier things become and less clearly we understand. I say
this simply to state that in my opinion, the research is still pretty shaky in
both directions.Hence, each of us will have to rely on common sense
and our own conscience until the waters clear. And my conscience says that
procreation is important to mankind, natural procreation only happens between a
man and a woman, and we should advocate such unions.
The moment anything contrary to the LGBT agenda is posted, people from all over
seem to flock to the article to denounce and ridicule the authors (see previous
Deseret News articles). I would ask all those who tear down this
viewpoint to define the word "marriage". It has been defined for
millenia and every successful culture and society has been built on marriage
being between a man and woman.Next to those whose attacks would be
phobia, etc. etc. I have VERY close family that is in a Massachusetts
"married" gay relationship. I love them dearly and disagree.The research is FAR from being a "settled" science. Both sides have a
vast amount they cite. Are people really wanting to play Russian Roulette with
our society?Lastly, I wish to say that ALL have an equal right to
marriage. Just some people want to change the definition. So what do you want
it defined as? For those who claim that it is a violation of "Rights"
as gauranteed by the 14th amendment. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed
Baker v. Nelson, a same-sex marriage case filed in Minnesota, "for want of a
substantial federal question."My 5 cents!
When I was in college -- We were taught to enter a study with NO
preconcieved notions, observe and record the FACTS and data, and then, draw conclusions based on those observations.This appears to
be a "solution", looking for a "problem".Like,
cherry picking random studies to satisfy one's opinion or boost an
agenda.Science doesn't work that way.Grade: F
@WyomingWoman;Please explain, in detail, how denying marriage to
same-sex couples promotes a child being raised by a mommy and daddy (hint: you
can't because it doesn't).@ReallyTallGuy;Guess
what? I too, support marriage between "one man and one woman" right
along with my support for marriage equality. What you really should say
(because it IS the truth of the matter) is that you OPPOSE marriage for LGBT
couples.@SLMom;He defended children's rights?
Really? All he actually did was say that children shouldn't be raised in
SS households. He didn't "defend children's rights" or he
would have said children shouldn't be raised in poor households, broken
households, abusive households, etc. Not once did he mention the child's
right to be raised in a rich, stable, non-abusive household. Not once.@factoid;My conscience tells me that discrimination is bigotry and
I find it interesting that the author fails to name even one of the many studies
he references that supposedly support his claims - while at the same time
conveniently ignoring many of the more recent studies which discuss the
similarities between women and some gay men (being attuned to cries, etc.) and
men and some lesbians (discipline voice inflection, etc.) and of course the fact
that generalizations such as "all mothers do this" or "all fathers
do that" are blatently untrue. This editorial is yet again an
example of singling out LGBT couples and expecting them to meet standards that
no other couple is being denied marriage for not meeting. If you
wish to make standards for marriage generally applicable, then they must apply
to everyone. All perspective couples must be held to the same standards - in
this case, the couple must show parenting compatabilty. Couples who fail the
test will be allowed to live together and have children and raise them together,
they just can't be married.
You live in a state where single gay people can adopt but a gay couple cannot.
Your statistical averages would show that children do better with two parents
than one. There's also disparities in outcomes from race, income, state,
religion... but you don't care about those averages. It's the
inconsistency that exposes the excuse finding.
Where do you draw the line?Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman = natural
children = traditional marriage proven as the bedrock of societies past.------------------ draw line here?Marriage = 1 man + 1 man =
no natural children, but true love.------------------ draw line
here?Marriage = 1 man + 2 men = we all love each other. Why limit to
one partner?------------------ draw line here?Marriage =
1 man + 1 other mammal (choose your favorite) = Would you separate me from my
one true love of my life?------------------ draw line here?Marriage = 1 man + 1 computer = I spend time with those I love!------------------ draw line here?Marriage = 1 computer gamer + 1
computer gamer = you don't need to meet in person to love each other. Cyber
relationships are the future!------------------ draw line here?So, where do YOU suggest we draw the line? It's a slippery slope in
the name of true equality.
What a bunch of codswallop. The author claims to be an advocate of social
justice for children. Yet, he completely neglects to even mention the two most
pressing social justice issues for children: poverty, and inequality of
opportunity.Does he support early public education? Improving
public K-12 schools? Bolstering the teacher corps, even if it costs more?
Nutrition programs, parent education, child welfare agencies, more social
workers, Medicaid, free periodic wellness checks, how about vaccinations?
Including HPV? Lowering tuition at state colleges so more students can at least
have the opportunity? Does he support free childcare so parents can
go to work or school and get out of poverty?What about public
housing? Children shouldn't have to live in run-down, unsafe houses,
exposed to lead, asbestos, vermin, fungi and worse. These are the
real social justice issues for children. Banning same-sex marriage accomplishes
nothing for these.
@factoid wrote: "It's a slippery slope in the name of true
equality."As a Ph.D. candidate, presumably David Hunsaker is
well-versed in logic and logical fallacies (if not, then shame on American
education for depriving him of that learning.) If he were here, he'd be
happy to inform you that it is fallacious to assume that just because one thing
is happening, that your imaginary consequences must inevitably result. And
still, you continue to hang onto those risible arguments because logical
fallacies are literally all you have.
I think the writer is probably right - that the best relationship is one of
heterosexual parents - one man - one woman - with biological children. That
said, conventional marriage has produced a fantastic amount of wreckage. What
them? Why do so many "conventional" marriages fail? Is it because of
homosexuals trying to be hetero in a conventional marriage? This could be part
of the problem but economic pressures are the biggest obstacle to marriage of
any type.Does the writer know any SSM families? I doubt he does. I
think he would feel differently he did. But I'll let him answer that
question.From what I know I believe that SSM can be good. As I have
said in these blogs, let's not let best be the enemy of the good. Children
need stable families. If SSM allows such I say let's do SSM and get on to
Before we get going... can somebody define "Social Justice"... so we are
all talking about the same thing?There are several definitions of
"Social Justice". I want to make sure we are all talking about the
same one.IMO "Social Justice" is not the same as "Equal
Rights". You can have equal rights... and still not have what some refer
to as "social justice".To some "Social Justice"
means we all have the same income, the same stuff, the same standing in society.
That will never happen. I can't imagine me and Brad Pit having the same
social status (or income for that matter). Is that "Justice"? Some
would say yes, some would say no.To some... "Social Justice"
means "fair distribution of wealth, equality of opportunity, and no gross
inequality of outcome".That will probably never happen in ANY
society. For one thing, you would have to define "FAIR" in a way that
EVERYBODY agrees... I've never found ANYBODY who can do that.So
let's decide what "Social Justice" means... and we can discuss it
without talking past one another with different definitions in mind.
Hunsaker says he believes in equal opportunity for happiness and also thinks
children should be reared with their biological father and mother. In that
case, he would be campaigning for gay marriage--as long as the parties involved
didn't raise children. Wouldn't he?
IMHO -- I will conceed for the sake of the "Children"
arguement what is best, by order:1. 1 man, 1 woman - committed,
life-long relationship, married couple.2. 2 men -or- 2 women - committed,
life-long relationship, married couple....but, ONLY because of
the social stigma and the ridicule those child will still have to endure by
those who remain intolerant.But -- But SSM is not about
"children", or even S-E-X.It's about a legally binding
contract, between two people who love and care for each other, and
who want all the legal rights that sort of relationship deserves.The
birds and the bees can have sex and off-spring without being
"married".and oppostie sex humans who can not have sex or
offspring can be married.Since "marriage" itself really has
nothing to do with sex or children, with-holding it from those seen as
"different" has everything to do with bigoty.
@marxist,Nobody blamed the failures of conventional marriages on
SSM, so you can drop that strawman.There are MANY reason for the
failures in conventional marriage (money, infidelity, selfishness, couples
drifting apart, etc). But I doubt ANYBODY thinks homosexuals are the reason
conventional marriages fail in America today.The contention is not
that SSM causes conventional marriages to fail... it's just the
redefinition of the term "Marriage" (to some people).The
problem is... many people (polls indicate most people) still see homosexual acts
as "sinful" (even if they don't object to allowing SSM and the
re-difinition of "marriage" to include those couplings). And THAT
isn't going to change.... even IF we re-define "Marriage".Some people are going to see homo-sexual sex as "un-natural" (just as
some still see polygamy, marriage to close relative, old person marrying very
young person, and other less conventional couplings as
"undesirable").Even if we change the definition of
"Marriage" and the law or the State recognizes these marriages...
doesn't automatically mean these concerns go away. I suspect they will
The fact is that the traditional family is failing, and it it's failure the
children are innocent bystanders that could be called "collateral
damage". The cause of the failure is not the sex preference or the number
of parents, it is the economic system that prevents even two incomes from
supporting a family. When the necessities of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness cannot be attained, all bets are off regarding children, and the
marriage contract. Somehow we must bring business back to its
primary function of supporting the societal group. As human labor becomes
obsolete, we have to find an different way of getting income into the hands of
people. Especially those people involved with children. It is hard
to believe that a mother could send her child thousands of miles away on just a
chance of survival. But then, I have heard that during the great depression in
America that children were turned out of their homes because their parent(s)
could no longer provide for them.
To "Tiago" regardless of your friend's orientation it is best that
he delay marriage and dating until after the children are grown up and out of
the house.To "liberal larry" the latest CDC study found that
less than 3% of the population is gay. See "Health survey gives government
its first large-scale data on gay, bisexual population" in the Washington
Post. Of those less than 25% have children either from prior relationships or
through adoption. So, we are giving special status to less than 1% of the total
US population.To "nonceleb" don't you think it would be
even better for those children if they were raised by a father and a mother so
that as they mature they know how their gender fits into a heterosexual
relationship? Shouldn't they have the firsthand experience of having a
father that will let them explore their limits while they their mother seeks to
protect them? Why would any reasonable person intentionally deny a child both a
mother and father while that child grows up?
Redshirt1701 says:"So, we are giving special status to less than
1% of the total US population."No, Red, you are giving EQUAL
status to a minority that is approximately 2%+ of the US population. Equal
treatment, sir, is not "special status". You have really gotten your
Orwellianisms down pat.
Ironically, Utah leads the nation in the percentage of GLBT citizens with
natural children (26%). Perhaps the reason for this is the importance placed
upon marriage by our local culture.While at BYU, I had a religious
counselor suggest that I might overcome my lesbian identity by marrying a man. I
dated (heterosexually) for many years, trying to gin-up just a portion of the
attraction I felt for women; it never happened. I consider myself lucky not to
have succumbed to the siren call of heterosexual marriage.For
heterosexuals, it may indeed be a "sin" to enter into a homosexual
relationship. I sincerely believe that for me it would also be a "sin"
to marry a man for whom I have no physical/emotional attraction.A
few years ago, I legally married my SS companion in a neighboring state. We are
aging and have numerous end-of-life decisions before us. Tragically, Utah will
not recognize our legal SS marriage from another state, so we are left in a
legal limbo where we have no certainty that our dying wishes will be honored.
Mr. Hunsaker, if you believe in social justice, please support us in our quest
for marriage equality.
@Redshirt1701: You object to "giving special status to less than 1%" of
people. Put another way, you're seeking to deny normal status to, and
discriminate against, a small but clearly defined segment of the population.You also ask, "Why would any reasonable person intentionally deny a
child both a mother and father while that child grows up?" This is a cute
rhetorical flourish, but it doesn't address reality for any actual child.
It doesn't even address the issue of marriage. The question of
what family or circumstance a child will end up in: with one natural parent, two
natural parents, a natural parent and a step-parent, one adoptive parent, two
adoptive parents, in an orphanage, or the foster care system, has little to do
with same-sex marriage. It's determined by other things, including family
law, adoption rates, abandonment rates, remarriage rates. The only intersection
with permitting same-sex marriage is because an unmarried person cannot be an
adoptive parent of their partner's child. That's it. Period.
Denying them marriage doesn't change the child's circumstances, it
merely denies her additional stability and protection.
Laura Bilington: "In that case, he would be campaigning for gay
marriage--as long as the parties involved didn't raise children.
Wouldn't he?"An interesting experiment would be to
introduce the gay analog to 1996's SB89, which passed by overwhelming
majorities in both houses and was codified in law as UCA 30-1-1(f). Several
legislators who voted for it are still sitting (almost wrote "serving"
but reconsidered). This bill amended Utah marriage law to allow first cousin
couples to marry, provided that they could not have children. Now suppose a
legislator introduced a companion amendment to allow same sex couples to marry,
provided that they, too, could not have children. The alleged negative
consequences of SSM on children are mitigated by the procreation retriction.
Could the legislators explain how they could support one but not the other?I couldn't support such legislation myself because I support a more
expansive view of marriage equality. Gay couples with children are the most
compelling reason to support marriage equality-- those children need the
security and benefits that accrue to married parents. But it would be fun to
see what sorts of crazy rationalizations the opponents could devise to justify
To "Ranch" actually you are not giving a minority equal treatment. They
are getting special treatment. Your ilk is looking to have love a qualifier for
marriage. By calling gay unions marriage, you are now creating more inequality
to people that want to form polygamous marriages and have their relationships
legitimized.You want to call a watermelon an apple because they are
both round. The unions of 2 gays cannot ever equal the marriage of 2
heterosexuals. That is just a fact that your ilk refuses to accept.To "A Quaker" would you give a blind person a driver's license so
that they can be "normal"? Since the best situation for a child to grow
up in is a home with their biological mother and father that are married to each
other, why encourage anything less? Do you tell your child to eat their
vegetables or do you just shrug your shoulders and tell them to take a
vitamin?If you just want them to have the same rights as a
heterosexual couple, that should be taken care of through legal means other than
RedShirt thinks that having two opposite sex parents means that children will
"know how their gender fits into a heterosexual relationship". This
includes "firsthand experience of having a father that will let them explore
their limits while they their mother seeks to protect them".RedShirt, you scare me.Children do NOT need parents who teach them
rigid gender roles. Children need parents who encourage them to spread their
wings--while putting limits on them for their safety. This is true whatever the
sex of the parent and it is true whether the child is two or sixteen. It's
easier with two parents rather than one. It's true, no matter what the sex
of the parent or parents. It sounds as though you think it's
OK to discriminate against a group as long as it's under 2% of the
population. May I respectfully remind you that Mormons in the US fit into that
There really are integral differences between the sexes. Little boys are wired
differently from the time they start crawling to little girls & many many
studies back this up. These differences are a natural and normal part of this
life and in the role of parenting. Mothers and fathers are not meant to be
interchanged and those who are not able to have their mate due to divorce or
death are at a disadvantage and have a more difficult time than if they were
part of a mother/father team raising children. This so called evolution is not
universal and marriage needs to be defended for one man and one woman as the
basis of the most fundamental and most effective unit of our society to insure
that as many children as possible have this advantage.That being said,
there is no reason to withhold benefits from those who choose another life
style. Civil unions or partnerships can do just that and reserve marriage and
adoption for those who try to provide a mother and father for each child. If
equality really is the issue there are other ways. However, gay marriage is just
the camel's nose of much more.
"You want to call a watermelon an apple because they are both round. The
unions of 2 gays cannot ever equal the marriage of 2 heterosexuals."Legally, the marriages ARE the same in 15 countries (soon to be 16), 2
of the constituent countries of the UK (soon to be 3), 19 US states and the
district of Columbia.And before you say, "they might be
*legally* equal, but...", *legally* equal is what we want.PS:
@Redshirt1701"Your ilk is looking to have love a qualifier for
marriage." Which it already is and much preferred to your ilk
[sic] looking to make reproduction a qualifier (but only for LGBT). "By calling gay unions marriage, you are now creating more inequality to
people that want to form polygamous marriages and have their relationships
legitimized."One has nothing to do with the other, but you knew
that."The unions of 2 gays cannot ever equal the marriage of 2
heterosexuals."It currently does in 19 states and will in all
others eventually--Utah included."Since the best situation for a
child to grow up in is a home with their biological mother and father that are
married to each other, why encourage anything less?"Yet you and
the other anti-SSM crowd are doing absolutely nothing to promote this ideal you
throw about--except when it comes to gays and lesbians. Clearly, you have no
real concern for the welfare of children; your only interest is in preserving
the special rights afforded you.
Some research has been discredited by more recent studies, but has also been
re-enforced by others. Some recent studies supporting the LGBT position are
biased, questioning the parents on their view of outcomes, while ignoring the
view of the children and providing no long term comparisons between children
raised in SSM homes and traditional families. The most comprehensive study
supports the position of this author, but admits shortcomings due to the small
sample size. Bottom line... there needs to be more research.That
being said, virtually all research supports the need for children to be raised
by a mother and a father. Children without fathers are more likely to be
sexually promiscuous, without mothers they lack empathy. The list goes on. Are
we as a society really willing to do a massive social experiment on children to
try and prove SSM couples make equal parents? This type of thinking is both
frightening and appalling.Also, SSM divorce rates are as high as
traditional marriages, so we must quit comparing same sex marriages with
traditional divorced. Children in stable traditional homes do better, children
in any divorced home is a tragedy.
Here is the problem with removing children from homes with divorced parents:
Divorced parents, so long as they remain divorced, do not enjoy the government
benefits of marriage. The question is one of incentives. We already
de-incentivize divorce (arguably not enough), should we not also de-incentivise
other family forms that disregard a child's right to a mother and father? I
get that children don't actually have rights to a decent upbringing, but
should they? Is that not key to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
The author professes that marriage is defined as a "mother and a father
committed to each other and raising their own children with all of the benefits
that accompany that arrangement." I don't think that
"definition" means what the author thinks it means. If this article was
meant as satire it was brilliant, if it was meant to be taken seriously, what an
I thought conservatives were all about "Free Market", Getting
Government OUT of our lives, and allowing the BEST solution to win
on it's own merits.I say, SHOW me!If SSM are below
50% in divorce, If SMM show LESS domestic abuse.If SSM shows better,
more stable, and more productive children -- than say, a single mother of 4,
[and take all away her Government assistance]...THEN will those
opposed to SSM concede they were wrong?Prove all things, hold fast
that which is good.
@ReallyTallGuyYou speak of disrespectful dialogue.I find
it disrespectful to have my LGBT family members, friends, and co-workers
repeatedly spoken of as if they're inherently immoral, deviant, and
inferior when nothing supports this except "my god said." But those on
the anti-equality side use this as permission to insult them, dismiss them, and
speak condescendingly of them as having made up maladies like "the challenge
of same-sex attraction."I find it disrespectful to persist with
pieces like this op-ed that merely restates old, fully rebutted arguments, and
alludes to research even the State of Utah has distanced itself from because it
has no credibility. It's insulting to the intelligence.The
fact is that every argument that has been advanced on the anti-equality side has
been constructed after the fact because when the challenge came, it was found
that there really was no rational justification for the discrimination and
"God said" doesn’t count in the court of law.So maybe
the silence you hear isn't people feeling cowed. May it's recognition
of and respect for the truth.
ShugoroPlease cite us the study you claim supports the LTE position.
I would love to read it.
To "Laura Bilington" you scare me. You think that a boy growing up with
2 moms will have any understanding of what it means to be a man? You have the
audacity to think that you understand what it means to be a man? Children do need parents to teach them rigid gender roles. Will you ever have
ability to understand an empathize with a teen boy with raging hormones and
desires that women don't have? Can 2 gay men raising a daughter really
empathize and understand what she is going through when she begins to
menstruate? The honest answer is no.To "Understands Math"
just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Some countries
allow fathers to kill their wives and children. Should we legalize that here
too?To "my_two_cents_worth" reproduction is not a qualifier.
Only gender and not currently being married the qualifier. (Hint:
non-reproductive cousins can get married in Utah.) Right now marriage
certificates are given out based on measurable things, like the couple
comprising 1 male and 1 female, and no current marriages being in place. How do
you quantify or measure love?
@my_two_cents_worth"One has nothing to do with the other, but
you knew that."That's simply not true. It has everything to
do with the other. The point of my previous post was to show that if we
don't draw the line HERE (marriage = 1 man + 1 woman), then there IS NO
PLACE TO DRAW THE LINE without "depriving" someone of their
"rights." This is totally obvious. If you redefine marriage to be
between two men or two women, what's to say that 3 men or 3 women
can't have a similar relationship? And then there's no stopping.I stand by traditional marriage. Anything else has proven in
civilizations past to degrade societies.Those who do not learn from
the past are bound to repeat it.
Laura Billington, I don't think RedShirt was advocating for
ridged gender roles (be calm on that count), but rather acknowledging the unique
gifts both bring to a child's life that are missing with two same gender
parents. Some of us believe, like walking with a left foot and a
right brings balance and steadiness vs.two right or left feet, (walking is
possible but much more cumbersome) a child does best with a mom and a dad,
complimentary opposites. It diminishes womanhood to say that a woman
can do the exact same job as a man in the raising of children. I am a woman,
not a man. I can never be the parent to my children that my husband is. And he
cannot offer what I bring.
Hooray for commonsense! Children deserve our best and that is to be raised in a
stable home with a mother and a father!
The ideas expressed in this editorial have already been put on trial in 25 court
cases in the last year and found wanting."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." DeBoer v Snyder cv-10285 (March 21, 2014) Meanwhile, I suspect that if the State of Utah tried to enforce the
author's vision of "social justice" on anyone other group there
would be an immediate outcry. Its hardly social justice to single out one group
for discriminatory treatment that isn't visited on anybody else.
@Redshirt1701"Your ilk is looking to have love a qualifier for
marriage. "No, we're looking to have gender not be a
qualifier for marriage since that's the difference between no same-sex
marriage and allowing same-sex marriage. "you are now creating
more inequality to people that want to form polygamous marriages "I think people need to stop pretending to care about groups that they really
don't sympathize with."Since the best situation for a child
to grow up in is a home with their biological mother and father that are married
to each other,"That's an average (if I can even grant you
that average as true), and in this context it is also a stereotype. You want to
brand entire swaths of parental situations as either good or bad but that's
not how it works. You want to punish all same-sex parents knowing full well that
some will be better than some opposite-sex married parents.By the
way, we're talking about marriage. Children are not a requirement for
marriages. Your issue is with adoption/in-vitro/surrogate law.
Is ANYBODY going to define what they mean when they say "SOCIAL
JUSTICE"???It has a LOT of different meanings in different
contexts. If we don't know which definition you're using...
we're just talking in circles.
This person hit upon a point I haven't seen in many other places. People
ask, "What is the harm in redefining marriage? How does it affect you?"
Using the past as prologue, we can look at the most recent example
of when we fundamentally changed marriage: no-fault divorce. This change, also
supposedly in the name of liberty, caused social upheavals still reverberating
in all parts of our culture. It changed marriage from an institution of
permanence designed to raise children in a stable environment to an institution
of sexual/emotional convenience for the parents. Today we spend
billions on criminal courts, child-support enforcement, direct aid to
single-parent families, behavior-modification medications, daycare and a general
loss of efficiency of the educational system because of this change. Social
trends have also contributed to a lower child/adult ratio, childbearing and
marriage later in life, if at all, and a rise in many types of emotional issues
caused by childhood trauma. All with minimal positive outcomes to balance these
disasters.The Great Social Experiment has failed. Now we want to go
even further towards societal destruction and dissolution? A sad time in a
To all who say you support marriage between one man and one woman: When this is
all over and same sex marriage is legal,one man and one woman will still be able
Tradional marriage:"Son, it's time you took a wife. I have
been talking to Farmer Jones, and he is giving me 3 pigs, 6 hens, and a cow. You
will be marrying his daughter Zelda."Here is yet another
propaganda piece in the DN, telling us that happiness and fairness to children
comes only by following the 20th Century ideals of the lds.I wish
the DN and its writers would give more effort to helping the readers understand
what is going on in the world, and reminding them that God's plan might be
broader than they currently believe.
I'm confused as to why my mother in law was allowed to remarry recently.
Widowed and in her 70s, I don't see any children springing from her new
marriage. Why would the state allow such a union if it won't produce
Some very good point that are completely lost on those who care only that
homosexual couples are indistinguishable from heterosexual couples, despite the
glaringly obvious and incontrovertible difference that nature itself has
bestowed.As mentioned in the article, the problems with this
particular state of denial, like many others having to do with the family, will
be born mostly by the children. Children who, because their homosexual
"parents" insist there is no special value in the diversity of parenting
by both mother and father, will be left with an unecessary hurdle to overcome.
But, the homosexual "parents" will feel perfectly fulfilled having
defied both nature and the once prevailing social norms. The children will fend
Some have pointed to "recent studies" that they claim discredit the
studies cited by the authors. However, even advocates of same sex marriage
among those researchers admit the limitations of those studies. Take this quote
from the Washington Post for example:"Benjamin Siegel, professor
of pediatrics at the Boston University School of Medicine, said there are limits
with such research. He told BU Today last year that none of the studies has been
a randomized, controlled trial and that all studies on same-sex parenting are
small since there aren’t as many same-sex parents."So the
studies cited by the author have not been discredited as some have claimed.
Perhaps it is those responders who, in the words of one of them, need to be
What is offensive , appalling and down right despicable , is the undermining of
the role of a mother and father in a child's life. What gay marriage has
done, is end a child's right to have both a mother and a father. It denies
the indispensable functions that mothering and fathering provide. No one has a
civil right to take away the rights of others. This business that
gay marriage doesn't harm anyone else is a lie. It's like saying how
banks acted during the housing bubble doesn't affect individuals. This is
simply not true. Everyone is affected by it.
re: Open Minded Mormon[This appears to be a "solution",
looking for a "problem". Like, cherry picking random studies to satisfy
one's opinion or boost an agenda. Science doesn't work that way.]If Uncle Ruperts propaganda channel had a social science program that
was the equivalent of Stossel; this 'study' would be front &
Re: Redshirt1701 "Children do need parents to teach them rigid gender
roles."Like Mommy bakes bread and cookies in the home, and Daddy
goes out of the home to slay game for supper? Children indeed need two parents
but I hope they, the parents, don't do what you insist on.I am
heterosexual, have a family but I am super flexible about forcing them into to
any kind of life stereotype. I grew up in the 50's when such stereotypes
were very rigid. If you were male and not an avid participant in contact sports
you were a "sissie" or fairy. It took me a number of years to dust off
this nonsense. Rights for LGBT are a big part of hetero liberation also. SSM
is progress. The farther away we can get from the 1950's the better.
I care deeply about social justice and am all for the children and what is
ultimately the best for them, now and in the years to come. Society is not
perfect, and not every child will be raised in an ideal setting, but we should
do all we can to support and sustain the ideal in an imperfect world. I also
believe in and am an advocate for marriage as it is now defined and has been for
centuries...even millennia. Thank you, Deseret News, for publishing this great
explanation of how marriage and justice do, indeed, go hand in hand.
"What gay marriage has done, is end a child's right to have both a
mother and a father. It denies the indispensable functions that mothering and
fathering provide."So then why does Utah allow single parent
adoption? Allow single gay parent adoption? Why are single mothers allowed to
keep their children? Here's a thought, why don't you try and outlaw
all of those and see how far your argument gets in the courts. And after that,
let's have a law that requires anyone wishing to get married pass a
"will they be good parents" test, cause right now? Even serial killers
can get married. This "think of the children" argument is so
disingenuous. If that was really the state's interest and the true belief
of everyone fighting against marriage equality, there would never be any kids in
the foster care system, all of you would be fighting to get them into those
perfect two parent homes.
I love how the DN brings in a PHD student in business to hold up as an authority
on this issue. to bad his claims fly in the face of the research. As a social
scientist with an advanced degree and over twenty years experience who has
studied this issue for some time I can tell you the research is very clear on
this issue, including longitudinal studies like the one out of NYU that goes
back over twenty five years. The research consistently shows not only do
children not have to have a mother and a father but that they actually fair just
as well as their counter parts and they actually fair slightly better in some
areas when raised by committed same sex couples. So following this business
students failed logic we should outlaw heterosexual marriage and only allow same
sex marriage. Luckily as other have already pointed out we do not restrict
marriage to only the ideal situation for raising children since there is little
chance that all children can be raised in the ideal situation and still deserve
as much stability as they can get, even if that is a heterosexual couple.
@ factoid"Those who do not learn from the past are bound to
repeat it."Religion has been known to be wrong about a few
things over the years...@ JeanieYou're assuming
little variation within the genders when we now know there is actually a great
deal. Don’t box people in. @ jeanie and samhillChildren's role models are not confined to those they find in their
homes. And thank goodness, in many instances.@ FJArouet"So the studies cited by the author have not been discredited as some have
claimed."The opinion from the Michigan trial in which this
research was given a full airing is publicly available to all who care to inform
themselves (DeBoer v. Snyder). Utah’s legal team did, thus the reason
they backed away from the Regnerus study that this op-ed alludes to in Para. 6.
(Funny how the author didn’t cite the source.)@ Bendana"This 'think of the children' argument is so disingenuous.
If that was really the state's interest and the true belief of everyone
fighting against marriage equality..."...they would be FOR
Clearly the author is an opponent of social justice, and seeks to harm not just
gay couples but also any children they might raise.I can see why
Justice Kennedy was particularly disgusted by the views the author expresses.
I appreciate the views expressed in this article. It is well established that
children learn their own role identity and experience innumerable benefits by
being raised in a home with a father and a mother. While many situations today
cause children to end up in homes where one or both of their own biological
parents are missing, is that reason for us to redefine marriage and do away with
preserving the ideal for them? Children need adults to protect marriage between
a man and a woman, not create even more situations where they cannot be with
their own parents.
Sorry repubs, but you used your Supreme Court victories on legalizing bribery as
free speech and taking away birth control from women.Now, it's
our turn to win a few Supreme Court cases! Gay marriage is coming and there
ain't nothin that's gonna stop it!You got citizens
united!And we'll get gay marriage legalized!Hope
StandAloneSouth Jordan, UT"What is offensive , appalling and
down right despicable , is the undermining of the role of a mother and father in
a child's life. What gay marriage has done, is end a child's right to
have both a mother and a father. It denies the indispensable functions that
mothering and fathering provide. No one has a civil right to take away the
rights of others." --- The comments on this article really take
the cake! So many, like this one, are full of imagined and ridiculous
consequences, conclusions not born from fact, and thinly disguised contempt for
fellow citizens who are different. I have to assume that the writers are older
people in smaller towns, because pretty much every younger person or city
dweller is aware of Gay people in their own lives, and would not make up such
malarkey about them.Jesus told us to walk in the other guy's
shoes. He did not tell us to disdain those children of God who do not walk the
same path as we do.
@Pepper2Poor people should not be allowed to have children. Single
mothers or fathers should not be able to keep their children.Why
dont we keep things consistent? I live in a country with gay marriage and it has
done absolutely nothing to my marriage or my family.
If the government can step in and redefine "marriage," what's to
prevent them from stepping in and redefining "family," "mother,"
"father," etc? This has cultural ramifications for generations, and
people are saying "kids rights" shouldn't be part of the
argument???By saying a kid doesn't need a mother or father,
parental rights are the next thing to go. We're setting a precedent here.
Let your kids grow up believing mothers and fathers aren't necessary at
all. Brave New World, here we come...
This article is a perfect example of why SSM will eventually win out..most
probably at SCOTUS.Marriage is not about children. Children may or
may not be about marriage (Utah doesn't think so). The obvious presence of
and legality of non procreative marriages destroys the concept that marriages
that can't produce a mother and a father nonsensical at first look. If you want to say a child should only be raised by a mother and a
father that is a whole other argument and one that it's adherents lost a
long time ago.
To "Marxist" no, not that.More like how can you expect a
woman to be able to empathize and understand a teenage boy's aggressive
desires? Can a woman fully understand how a boy processes his emotions when
that girl he was dating dumps him?How would you expect a man to
empathize and understand what a girl is going through as they enter puberty?
Can a man ever fully understand how a scared girl feels as her body is changing?
Can a man fully understand the inborn desire of a woman to care and nurture her
children?Those are the rigid roles or differences that a man or
woman cannot ever cross. They cannot cross them because a man will never be a
woman and a woman will never be a man.
So long as 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and MORE than
half of all children are born outside of wedlock,...the "Gays
can't get married because we're doing what's best for the
'children'", traditional marriage advocates are just blowing
a bunch of hot air.
Many, if not most of the children of divorced parents can testify to the
negative effect that it has had on their well being. That being true, time will
tell what effects it will have on a person raised by gays.
If the Government can re-define "marriage" to fit their liking.... can
they also re-define "religion"... and say "Religion" only
includes X, Y and Z, the rest we can regulate and control. And there goes
Religious Freedom down the drain.They can say you still have
religious freedom (because they still allow you to do X, Y and Z). But they
may leave out important parts of your religious freedom... so those parts are
gone.It's the same with marriage. Marriage is mostly a
religious thing (to me). The State has some interest in it, but it's
mostly between God and the Couple (not the State and the couple).It's been re-defined to the point that marriage has almost NOTHING to do
with you and God anymore.Maybe we should have religious-marriages,
and Government-marriages. Those who feel they don't need a religious
marriage can get a government marriage at the justice of the peace. Those who
want a religious union instead of a government sanctioned union, can be married
in a church/temple ceremony/covenant. Or you can do both (if you feel the need
The problem with studies from both sides is that we don't have a lot of
data to go off of. Recent studies showing children fare better are limited in
that children who have been raised by two men or two women are in a large part
still very young. The average child age in the Australian study was 4.Let's talk about studies that show children are worse off. Every study I
have read recruits participants whose homosexual parents had them either out of
wedlock (and out of a committed relationship) or within a heterosexual
relationship that later ended in divorce. Then the researchers compare those
children to children who grew up in a home with two parents who never divorced.
This is not a fair comparison. And in fact when you compare these children to
other children of divorced parents they fare the same.The conundrum
is: we don't know the long term outcome for children of committed same sex
parents. None of the studies can say what the outcome is. We won't know for
several more years when young adult children of same sex couples in more
progressive countries exist for study.
@samhill"As mentioned in the article, the problems with this
particular state of denial, like many others having to do with the family, will
be born mostly by the children."Marriage is the union of two
adults. It doesn't involve nor require children (parenting does). If you
"care about children" your issues are with adoption, in-vitro, and
surrogacy since those are the only way gay couples can have kids (the kids from
previous heterosexual unions option would be gaining a step-parent). So...1. Utah allows single people to adopt, including of course single gay people,
but two people of the same-gender adopting is the line in the sand?2. You
want to regulate in-vitro fertilization that severely to prevent a same-sex
couple from accessing something that a single person can?3. You want to
put limits on surrogacy?
Studies show that kids do worse on average for test scores if they come from
poor families, families from Mississippi, and you could surely find disparities
with race and religion as well, but I don't see any of you arguing that
they shouldn't be able to marry or have kids. This whole average thing is
only used against gay couples. Why? Because it's an excuse. The real reason
you don't support same-sex marriage is because you think it's an
abomination, but that won't fly in the courts anymore so you need another
reason, and you've found one that sounds good to you, except you don't
apply it to its logical conclusion or with any degree of consistency. And
that's why it's an excuse, not a reason.
Well said David Hunsaker. It's about time we shifted the terms of the
debate from the desires of adults to the needs of children.
@LouBird;Then the needs of the children MUST ALSO superced teh
desires of the (straight) adults.1) if a heterosexual does not have
a decent paying job: No marriage/children2) if a heterosexual does drugs:
no marriage/children3) if a heterosexual has a criminal background: no
marriage/children4) if a heterosexual has mental health issues: no
marriage/children5) ...After all, LouBird, if you're
going to claim to do "what's best for the children" when it relates
to LGBT people, then for consistency, you MUST do "what's best for the
children" when it relates to heterosexual people as well. Otherwise,
you're not sincere about "what's best for the children" and
you're only against LGBT people.
2 bitsAllowing those who do not follow you're religious
sensibilities the ability to have a legal same sex marriage, does not alter in
anyway your ability to worship or believe as you wish.What you seem
to be arguing is that nobody should be permitted a different belief or, indeed,
a civil practice, at variance with your sensibilities.Just who is
asking whom to conform to their religion? And where does that drive us?
Theocracy, I think. I wish you would have the intellectual honesty to admit
that is your goal.
RedShirt asks "how can you expect a woman to be able to empathize and
understand a teenage boy's aggressive desires?"
Aggressive desires?? Was this teen taught to run roughshod over other
peoples' feelings? And which sex taught him that? "Can a
woman fully understand how a boy processes his emotions when that girl he was
dating dumps him?" This is different from when a girl is
dumped..how?"Can a man ever fully understand how a scared girl
feels as her body is changing?" The person who
told you that girls feel "scared" was ...who?"Can a man
fully understand the inborn desire of a woman to care and nurture her
children?" I can't speak for you, RedShirt,
but my husband does quite well with caring and nurturing. In any
case, you have all these scary scenarios when you have a single parent
situation. Are you advocating for taking children away from single parents?Children are far more likely to be molested by fathers and stepfathers
who belong to conservative Christian churches than by men who attend churches of
liberal denominations or no church at all. Does the welfare of these children
Same sex marriage is not as simple as gay rights advocates would have us think.
This issue is much more than a question of equal rights. Legalizing
same sex marriage demands other changes in society that are much further
reaching. Those consequences haven't been fully realized yet, but are
raising complex legal issues including erasing gender from our legal system -
introducing "party a" and "party b" to replace mother &
father, husband & wife. There are numerous examples of
government forcing businesses to provide service for same sex weddings when
there are many others available and willing; testing businesses to see if lewd
behavior of extreme same sex advocates will be allowed; requiring schools to
teach children at a young age that same sex behavior is not only acceptable, but
encouraged; encouraging youth to question their gender identity; invading the
privacy of gender based restrooms. When government gets involved
with defining equality, there are unknown consequences that are far reaching.
Lets be kind to our gay brothers and sisters and treat them with respect without
having government dictate the boundaries. Civil unions can provide the rights
while leaving marriage for one man and one woman.
To "Laura Bilington" thanks for proving my point.You think
that everything running through a boy's mind is taught. You completely
ignore the all the hormones that come into play and mess with their mind for a
few years.When you went through puberty, who was able the empathize
best with you, your Mom or your Dad?I did not say actual care and
nurturing, I said that DESIRE to care and nurture children. There is a
difference between learning a skill and having an inborn desire to do
something.You know that according to the DOJ when a gay couple
co-habitats that they are at nearly twice the risk of experiencing violence. Do
you hate the LGBT community that you want them hurt more, is that why you push
You always leave the gay children! What about children who are gay. I was a
child once, and yes, I knew I was gay as far back as I can remember! Before I
fully understood it! I also remember feeling fear! Tell me, do you think it is
healthy for gay children to be taught all of their lives that something is wrong
with them? Guess what, that is exactly what happened to thousands of us! Tell
me, do you ever speak to any of us about what it was like? No! You do not! Why?
Because we don't count to you! You say that you care and yet you have the
nerve to leave out anything that a gay person may have to say about it! Who
protects the gay children? Who protects them from the awful things that people
will teach them that they are? No more! It is so insulting to see all the people
who will degrade human beings just because they are gay! No! It truly is
@Zabet;Civil Unions were banned in Amendment 3 right along with
marriage. You would have to revoke A3 and get it re-voted to change it; you
can't do that these days. You wouldn't compromise w/CU's then,
we're not accepting a lesser version of marriage now that you're
losing the equality fight.If you are going to open a business, you
are expected to obey the laws regulating that business; including
anti-discrmination laws. All the arguments for "religious conscience"
as a reason to not serve LGBT couples are proven false over and over again, as
those businesses still serve adulterers, fornicators, thieves, liars, murderers,
etc. If you're going to use "religious conscience" as an excuse,
the very least you could do is be consistent about it.@RedShirt;Did you know that when a straight couple cohabitates, there is more
violence? You should support marriage then.
@RedShirtI searched for this DOJ study and could not find it. Can
you please provide the title of their report and its publishing date so I can
read it?In the mean time... twice as likely compared to what?
Compared to remaining single? Compared to heterosexual cohabitating couples?
Compared to heterosexual married couples?Thanks in advance for
providing further information for review.
@Zabet"Lets be kind to our gay brothers and sisters and treat them
with respect without having government dictate the boundaries."Sorry but that ship sailed with amendment 3 when the people of Utah decided to
us the force of law, government , to restrict/ dictate the boundaries of
@2 bits: "If the Government can re-define "marriage" to fit their
liking.... can they also re-define "religion"... and say
"Religion" only includes X, Y and Z, the rest we can regulate and
control. And there goes Religious Freedom down the drain."Hobby
Lobby case. The religious right is cheering and celebrating because
"abortion."The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology
filed an amicus brief that was very clear that none of the four items were
actually abortifacients. All four, according to the expert opinion of doctors
and scientists, prevent conception, not cause abortion.SCOTUS
ignored the science and ruled in favor of the sincere belief. Stop and let that
sink in.They set a precedent that the federal government can now
ignore science and facts and determine policy based on "sincere
belief."Are you afraid yet?
Mr. Hunsaker argues that "decades of scientific research show that children
need both a mother and father." But that's not what Utah's
attorney told the Court of Appeals at oral argument on Amendment 3. The
attorney stated that the science on same-sex parenting is "inconclusive"
rather than settled. (Opinion at p. 56) Perhaps Mr. Hunsaker should have
consulted with the state's legal team before he wrote his column.Mr. Hunsaker also claims that the "people who will ultimately pay" as
a result of same-sex marriage are the "children, born and unborn, who will
reap the consequences of current political choices." On this point, he
should have read the Windsor decision that the Supreme Court issued last year.
The Court concluded that restrictions on same-sex marriage "humiliate tens
of thousands of children now being raised by same sex couples." (113 S.Ct.
at 2694) The Court also wrote that these restrictions "bring financial harm
to children of same-sex couples." (113 S.Ct. at 2695) So these children
pay (and pay dearly) not because of same-sex marriage, but because their parents
can't get married under the laws of Mr. Hunsaker's state.
Koseighty said "I'm confused as to why my mother in law was allowed to
remarry recently. Widowed and in her 70s, I don't see any children
springing from her new marriage. Why would the state allow such a union if it
won't produce children?"Let me take a shot at this
koseighty; simply said your mother in law was allowed to marry because Redshirt,
MR, and all of the other so called traditional marriage supporters are wrong.
Once again they are dead wrong about marriage. Marriage has no
procreation qualifiers, maximum age limit qualifiers, No race qualifiers, and no
intention qualifiers. You can get married if you want to join two fortunes, if
you want to cohabitate with a companion and you think it morally requires
marriage, if you want to have children and again you think that morally requires
marriage. You can even marry for love and love alone in 19 states. So why do
the other states qualify whom you love before you can marry when they make no
other qualifiers except minimum age. Pure and simple bigotry all wrapped up in
religion, tradition, and ignorance.
I gave the wrong citation to SCOTUS! The quotes from the Windsor decision
appear at 133 (not 113) S.Ct at 2694-95. Sorry about that, fellow legal eagles.