No need to redefine marriage to fix policy problems

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Maudine SLC, UT
    March 18, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    @ Badgerbadger: There are many things that are legal even though some religions disagree with them. Does that mean that those whose religions proscribe them are endorsing them? Of course not. If you were to argue that because smoking is legal it is endorsed by the LDS Church, no one would buy that argument. No one believes that shopping at stores that sell tobacco and alcohol means that you support the use of those products.

    And marriage is not required for the adoption and raising of children. In some states, such as Utah, you cannot be living with someone (same gender or opposite) and foster or adopt a child - but you can do both as a single person regardless of your orientation. Once an adoption is complete, the child cannot be taken from the parent just because a romantic partner moves in.

    Additionally, if all inequalities were to be removed with the exception of the use of the term "marriage," same-sex couples would have the same rights to adopt as heterosexual couples.

    Same-sex marriage doesn't infringe on your rights, and you don't have the right to use your religion to infringe on others' rights.

  • jaredc Kearns, UT
    March 18, 2013 6:16 a.m.

    Great article!

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 17, 2013 8:28 p.m.


    Better for EVERYONE how?

    How is gay marriage going to force you to change you religious beliefs? Why does your religious beliefs take pressed ce over mine and the rights of gay people?

    The fact that you will not allow other religions that believe in gay marriage does however seem to be taking a way their religious freedom. Why is that All right?

    So according to your logic any desire by anyone gay or straight that cannot have children on thief own are forcing others to allow adoption is that right?
    Again why does your religious freedom trump those of us who's rig ions believe gay people should marriy.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    March 17, 2013 5:49 p.m.

    Those seeking for a marriage definition that includes homosexual couples are seeking a variety of things. One of those is equality in the monetary issues as outlined in this article. This article points out that those legal monetary issues could easily be resolved in ways that would be better for EVERYONE without redefining marriage. That seems like a good thing to me. (I see that there are those posters who are eager to punish others.)

    But there are 2 golden prizes that are also at stake in the push for legalization of homosexual marriage. The big prize is to FORCE religious people to endorse homosexual behavior, so that those engaged in sin can feel good about themselves. It is a fight against religion, the first amendment, and against God, or nature if you are atheist. Which brings us to the other golden prize, the right to adopt children. I find it astounding that people who want children choose a life that will never give them any, so they want to FORCE society to fix it for them.

    The right to sexual preference does not trump freedom of religion. Fix the financial legalities, leave marriage alone.

  • ender2155 Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 17, 2013 5:34 p.m.

    Marriage as we know it HAS changed drastically from how it has been perceived for millennia -- both in the number of people allowed in one and the reasoning behind it. I don't hear much anymore about a man giving a woman's father 3 oxen and a calf in exchange for his daughter so their two houses can be joined, so to claim the definition of marriage is static is specious at best.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    March 17, 2013 2:11 p.m.

    Bad letter.

    I hope we do the opposite of what they suggest. Just give them marriage and rights and benefits already. Then, use your free agency to decide whether to get married to a hetero or homo partner. I'm all about free agency.

  • George New York, NY
    March 17, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    Once again the authors prove the point that gay rights advocates have been making all along. Anything short of full recognition of gays to marry falls short of equal treatment under the law.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    March 17, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    Okay, so to avoid having to recognize marriage equality, you want to get rid of estate taxes? In other words, to prevent gay people from being able to affirm their love the way straight people can, your proposal is to give Paris Hilton a tax break.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    March 17, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    So, instead redefining marriage to include same-sex unions, your solution is instead to protect marriage by removing any and benefits associated with it and allowing any and all relationships equal access to those benefits....

    Yeah, that makes sense! Lets keep marriage special by making it indistinguishable.....

    When you have to reach that far and perform mental gymnastics that strain your brain to that level, it is probably time to accept that you really don't have a valid argument.