Religion's place in marriage debate

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    April 18, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    @Snowdude --

    I'm having trouble getting this to post. Trying again --

    "Google "Gay Parenting: Sound Science"."

    This newspaper article depends on the work of Regnerus and Marks.

    Regnerus compared kids raised in mostly UNstable homosexual homes -- lots of single and divorced moms -- with kids raised in STABLE heterosexual homes. Of course, the kids in the stable homes did better. It had nothing to do with orientation, and everything to do with stability.

    As for Marks, he was specifically **barred** by the court from giving expert testimony in a case related to Prop 8. In pre-court depositions, Marks was forced to admit -- **under oath** -- that he had cherry-picked data in order to reach his conclusions, AND that he hadn't even read all the studies he used for his paper.

    I'll stick with child-development experts who actually work with children every day, thanks.

    "All mental health specialties have professional organizations--NASW, APA, etc."

    Right. Incidentally, both NASW and APA also support gay marriage. :-)

    If you come up with **any** expert professional groups opposing gay marriage, you might get my attention. But bad science and dishonest scientists aren't gonna cut it.

  • Snowdude South Jordan, UT
    April 17, 2013 6:14 p.m.

    Amazon, be careful about putting your trust in "expert" groups. Google "Gay Parenting: Sound Science". You will find data about the nature of studies performed with results on both sides of this issue. All the studies were performed by "experts". However, we often find those experts expressing what is popular rather than what has been rigorously tested to be true.

    I have been in the mental health industry for over 20 years. Many people working in this field tend to be about 3 clicks to the left of liberal. That's not meant as an insult, just ask any therapist and they will verify this is a trend in the industry. All mental health specialties have professional organizations--NASW, APA, etc. If you want to see examples of organizations swaying in the wind depending on what is popular at the moment, these organizations are case studies. Re: homosexuality, each of these organizations has recognized bodies representing the gay community. That's neither good nor bad, but no one should be surprised when most of their positions are gay affirmative. So, when a professional organization makes a statement, don't believe it is unbiased or even accepted by all members.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    April 17, 2013 1:55 p.m.

    @Harmony --

    "What about ancient Rome? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they encourage it? And what happened to them?"

    The ancient Romans and the ancient Greeks both encouraged homosexual relations. These civilizations survived for roughly 1000 years each. That's a lot longer than we've been around. ;-)

    Rome's collapse had nothing to do with sexuality. Edward Gibbon, the author of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, believed that Rome fell in large part because of its increasing dependence on foreign mercenaries and its overdependence on Christianity. He especially viewed corruption in the Praetorian Guard as a primary catalyst of Rome's decay.

    @LoveBoxes --

    "Children need a father and a mother."

    As always, this is a red herring.

    1. More than 100,000 gay couples are **already** raising children in this country. That isn't going to change, with or without marriage.

    2. Gay couples raising children aren't stealing those children away from happy straight homes -- and children in happy straight homes won't disappear when gay marriage becomes legal.

    3. Multiple groups of child-development experts support gay marriage, because they know that gay couples can raise happy healthy kids just fine. NO expert groups oppose gay marriage.

  • Harmony Tooele, UT
    April 17, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    Re: LiveLongAndProsper @ 1:52 p.m. April 16, 2013

    What about ancient Rome? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they encourage it? And what happened to them?

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    I have been told that a same-sex couple sued a church for refusing to perform their marriage. Slavery was an economic issue for millenia before it became a moral issue. Homosexuality has always been a moral issue and now is also clearly a health issue. Abraham Lincoln said that calling a tail a leg does not make the tail a leg. Same-sex marriage is not marriage. If laws are being enacted to allow persons of the same gender to be "married", then laws to prohibit these kinds of "marriage" can also be enacted.

  • LoveBoxesCkTops Kaysville, UT
    April 17, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    The generations before ours have more often considered the coming generation before its own wants and needs. No longer. Children need a father and a mother. I'm grateful that we have one or two public servants left that understand how critical the health of the family is to our survival of our nation.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    @Older: Your point is well taken. My comment was primarily directed to patriot (and the many others) who claim that biology prevents same-sex couples from having children. They neglect the many gay couples who take advantage of the same methods (donors, surrogacy, etc.) available to infertile straight couples. You may be correct that children do best with parents of both sexes, but as I observed, marriage policy is not based on the optimum. Family law allows children to be raised in suboptimal environments through divorce. Agreed-- children do better with married parents. Yet by denying gay parents the ability to marry, their children are condemned to poorer outcomes. This hardly seems in the best interest of the children.

    Sen. Reid argues that civil law should be grounded in religious morality. One might reasonably assume, based on his politics, that he supports initiatives that would outlaw consideration of sharia law in jurisprudence. Yet isn't sharia law the ultimate manifestation of Sen. Reid's argument? If he opposes sharia law, it is only because "their" religion isn't the "right" religion, which puts government in the position of deciding doctrinal truth. We really don't want to go there.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    CJB: "I am not pro gay marriage because I am afraid this would lead to wide spead gay adoption of children."


    Why do you think this would lead to "wide spread" adoption? Gays in Utah may adopt a child right now as long as they are not coupled with another gay. Yes, that is right. Utah believes that a single parent is better than a couple of gays. That, btw, goes against what all the studies are telling us.

    Most other states allow gays to adopt children. In California, gay couples cannot be discriminated against and should have equal access to adoption, per their state constitution. All these couples do NOT have to be married to adopt.

    Any gay couple who want to adopt are already taking advantage of their state laws to accomplish this. They are NOT waiting for marriage laws to change.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 17, 2013 6:48 a.m.

    We All Pick and Choose From the Bible

    For most people, being anti gay marriage because of the Bible would be wrong. The Bible hardly mentions homosexuality, only on a couple of places that I know of. The Bible also mentions that women who are divorced should not remarry unless their divorce was for their husbands infidelity. How many people who are anti gay marriage because of the Bible would go so far as to have a daughter killed because she divorced her husband for other reasons?

    This is what the Bible requires. Adulters are to be stoned. Women remarrying after divorce if the divorce was for any reason other than infidelity are commiting adultery according to the Bible.

    In other words none of us go by what the Bible says fully. We all pick and choose.

    I am not pro gay marriage because I am afraid this would lead to wide spead gay adoption of children. I believe children ought to have a mother and a father, not a father and a father and not a mother and a mother.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    April 16, 2013 10:21 p.m.

    Religion doesn't have a place in the marriage debate. It's just sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong. True, SS couples would like to be accepted by religious organizations, but mainly they want the same laws to apply to them as they do to heterosexual couples. SS couples are not demanding that religions change their doctrines; they are asking religions to butt out of their business.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 16, 2013 9:10 p.m.

    @Older… - please, folks, be careful with the "bronze age" and other labels or negative descriptions… I think it's a fair request.

    You’re right… and based on your argument (and how it was presented) it was misdirected.

    But please understand why I used that term. Most of the “against” arguments I’ve heard are really not arguments at all, but just a bunch of loud rants of disgust. Which at some level I get – the “yucky” factor – but that doesn’t give me the right to deny fundamental rights to others.

    And usually these loud rants are disguised as religious proscriptions citing God’s will or how we should not mess with a time honored tradition - although they fall silent when asked to explain how two gay people getting married will ruin their own marriage.

    And the worst is when the Bible gets brought into it – this always makes me laugh (at the hypocrisy) because no religious person today would advocate stoning a Hindu (graven images) or your neighbor for mowing his lawn on Sunday, but homosexuality (not even one of the Big Ten) is reserved for all their Bronze Age venom.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    April 16, 2013 8:32 p.m.

    My dear Older... No Bronze age for you.. Golden perhaps :)

    If you were to listen to others who have a different opinion than yours. Perhaps, you would see that using objectivity and pragmatism we could agree more than dissagree.

    If life were to be perfect and cookie cutted as you think it should be. Perhaps we would think in the same way. However, life is not what you or I want it to be. Is different, yet, there is still plenty of joy and growths for all of us.

    We ALL human beings are doing the very best we can with the information and abilities we have.

    I know that because now I am older and wiser than before.

  • Older Than I Once Was South Jordan, UT
    April 16, 2013 7:40 p.m.

    One more comment then I'll move on with life--please, folks, be careful with the "bronze age" and other labels or negative descriptions ascribed to those who may not agree with you. For many years, the gay community has (appropriately) requested they not be labeled by others. I think it's a fair request.

  • Older Than I Once Was South Jordan, UT
    April 16, 2013 7:12 p.m.

    Follow up to my last post--let me be clear. I do not question whether gay couples can love their kids. Of course they do. I don't question their good intentions or that in most cases they will do everything in their power to be kind to the children and raise them well. However, one truth remains that can't be refuted regardless of which experts you choose to quote. A mom cannot be a dad. Neither can two moms. Same story with males. Moms and dads enrich their children's learning and upbringing in different ways. It is precisely these differences that help the children learn and relate to others in different ways.

    @Lagomorph, I realize there are many children being raised by gay couples now. I wish them all the best and for the most part I firmly believe their parents love them. But wouldn't it be great if we could give those children the rich experience of being taught by parents of both sexes? I'm not suggesting we will achieve a perfect world. I'm just saying let's not encourage situations that won't have the greatest advantages for children.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    April 16, 2013 7:05 p.m.

    @ Older Than I Once Was
    May be because I'm gay, but I love the name. Automatically I switched the "Older" to Wiser.

    You wrote: "The danger is that we are experimenting with children."

    My question to you is, how many years doing something, still, constitutes an experiment?

    You see.... my daughter was adopted in the year 2000. She is graduating this year from High School. She is getting almost all "A's" in her classes. She has a "C+" in Algebra.

    She has cried, laughed, felt inadequate, and other things that teenagers usually feel.

    She has a "BOYfriend" and now is in the process of selecting a college. Of course as a parent, I'm very nervous about her future. So, I ask you, when is this no longer an experiment?

    As a parent I want to make sure my daughter will do well. At least for my peace of mind, I would like to know that I did all that I was supposed to do.

    Of course, my least for me and my NOT and experiment!!!

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 16, 2013 5:53 p.m.

    patriot: "What I am NOT fine with is the heavy handed federal goverment stepping in and voiding the will of the people."

    See my earlier reply to banderson. I take it you would support the repeal of DOMA, then? State law has implications for federal law in the area of taxes, inheritance, etc.

    patriot: "...Family is about nurturing and teaching your children which cannnot happen in a homosexual environment."

    Many, many gay couples have children*. As someone previously noted, gay parenthood is intentional (and expensive) and a cause for celebration. There are no "accidents" with gay couples. Every child is chosen and desired. You can make the optimality argument, that children do "better" with both male and female parents, but the law is not based on the optimum. Anyone who can master the rather simple mechanics of procreation can legally become a parent, regardless of the best interests of the child. The law allows suboptimal family structures (single parenthood) through divorce. The "hetero marriage equals optimal child welfare" argument fails.

    * The Prop 8 Supreme Court testimony cited 40,000 children of gay couples in California alone. I have seen the figure cited that 30% of gay households have children.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    April 16, 2013 5:43 p.m.

    @Older --

    "Researchers ... a child does better socially, academically, etc. with a mom and a dad."

    This is not quite true in the sense that you mean it.

    Researchers have found that children do better in stable homes with two parents. HOWEVER, research has **also** found that gay parents in stable relationships are just as able to raise healthy children as straight parents are.

    Many groups of child-development experts -- including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and others -- have come out in **support** of gay marriage. NO child expert groups oppose gay marriage.

    The AAP's position statement declares in part: “There is an emerging consensus, based on extensive review of the scientific literature, that children growing up in households headed by gay men or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents" and "“ ‘Marriage strengthens families and benefits child development".

    This issue of "better" is a red herring, anyway. More than 100,000 gay couples are **already** raising children in the US, and they will continue to do so with or without marriage.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 16, 2013 5:07 p.m.

    @ Older Than I Once Was – “that is a social experiment. The danger is that we are experimenting with children.”

    Sure, but I can say the same about pretty much any cultural/societal change, and many throughout history have directly impacted children. So by that standard, none of the examples you mentioned are red herrings.

    But you’re right – this is an issue that should stand on its own merit and not be casually dismissed by people who get their ethics from (and would prefer to live in) the Bronze Age.

    So what is your evidence for same-sex marriage causing harm to children? Have the Mom/Dad studies you refer to teased out all the added benefits of simply having two parents regardless of gender?

    If there is no strong evidence either way, are saying we should not allow gay marriage simply as a precaution? If so – back to the non-red herrings above – how did we ever make it out of the Bronze Age?

  • Older Than I Once Was South Jordan, UT
    April 16, 2013 4:15 p.m.

    LiveLongandProsper, you have pointed out the fallacy of some of the arguments in the discussion--i.e., this is not a discussion about polygamy. It is also not a discussion about interracial marriage, child labor, or slavery. Those are examples of red herring arguments--they are now viewed differently under the law than they once were. Reading the Bible was once punishable by death. While interesting, that has nothing to do with same sex marriage. The argument for legal changes must stand on its own merits.

    Arguments about the affects of SSM affecting other marriages are also irrelevant. Such marriages do not affect mine; but they do have an impact on society. Researchers have illustrated for decades that a child does better socially, academically, etc. with a mom and a dad. While accidents may happen (death, divorce) where that is not possible, gay marriage creates those situations by design. As many have pointed out during these discussions, that is a social experiment. The danger is that we are experimenting with children.

    There are those that will be affected, and they are the individuals without the ability to defend themselves. Society has an obligation to speak in their behalf.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 16, 2013 3:55 p.m.

    banderson: "If I believe gay marriage is immoral, destructive of God's plan, destroys a child's perspective of God, affects societal norms, and changes the future into a dark place, am I a bigot? I am quite against the federal government defining marriage. The Constitution gives the states this role."


    The key phrase here is "If I believe." You may believe whatever you want to, banderson. That is not being a bigot. If you work to suppress those who are American citizens - especially with benefits and privileges that you, yourself enjoy, that may be a little bigotted. One should have empirical evidence that harm would come to you or society with this change before denying another citizen those rights.

    I am not asking what you believe, but to show me the evidence. You made statements of what would happen when gay marriage occurs. I want the evidence that what you said is absolutely true or I am going to pass it off as fear-mongering.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 16, 2013 3:54 p.m.

    @Craig Clark

    Was halfway through typing a comment when I read yours and saw that you stated my thoughts exactly. Well, maybe not exactly…

    Mine was going to be more like – “Theocracy bad, Democracy good.”

    Thanks for your (more) articulate and spot on comment!

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    April 16, 2013 3:34 p.m.

    "....Today, in the name of tolerance for the few, there are demands on religion to close its scriptures, forsake its own constitutional rights and retreat from the public square...."

    No shred of that outrageous allegation has merit. Stuart Reid knows that religion has the same right to engage in the public debate as does any entity or individual. But no one has a right to dictate policy. Laws are enacted by elected representatives. Just because the tide of public opinion is against your side in a cause doesn’t mean you were denied your rights to take part. That’s a childish defense.

  • LiveLongAndProsper Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 16, 2013 3:27 p.m.

    Re banderson (2:44pm) :

    I'm not altogether sure you understand what "objective" means in your post. You seem to be saying it is the same as "subjective" which it is not. Objective is meant to be unbiased and not determined arbitrarily. For example, the $1000 in my example has a set value. You cannot say it is worth more or less than $1000. It simply is worth that much.

    You brought up Polygamy, which most religions have historically accepted. I have not discussed polygamy, but it should be evaluated on its own merits. Does it do harm to anybody? I think great care must be taken for it to not to do so as it involves multiple people and any one of them can be harmed by the change in the relationship of adding another spouse. These complexities are not introduced by only changing the gender allowed in a marital relationship as done in same-sex marriages.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 16, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    you see the big sign - Family is about love. Well that is half right. The other half is that Family is about nurturing and teaching your children which cannnot happen in a homosexual environment. A boy needs a mom and a girl needs a dad for the picture to be complete.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 16, 2013 3:00 p.m.

    this isn't about the place of religion - this is about the rights of the people in each state to create a healthy society to raise their families in AS THEY SEE IT. The people of California might want a gay society - but the people of Utah don't and each state should have the right to vote and pass legislation which models their view of marriage and family. I am fine with allowing states to decide gay marriage. What I am NOT fine with is the heavy handed federal goverment stepping in and voiding the will of the people. What you might view as discrimination I view as protecting my family from a destructive social evnvironment. I can respect your view point and I expect you to respect mine - citizen voting in a free society is the ONLY way and NOT allowing unelected judges with their own self interest to decide for me....but isn't that what California did with prop 8???

  • lcg Bluffdale, UT
    April 16, 2013 2:49 p.m.

    For those who think that legalizing gay marriage does not affect them google
    'What legalizing gay marriage has done to Massachusetts. Agree or not - this is reality in Massachusetts.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 16, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    Livelongandprosper: How is $1000.00 taken from my neighbor an objective measurement if I don't believe that there is anything wrong with it? Objective to you is not objective to someone else. It doesn't matter your reasoning. How about abortion, gay marriage, war? Can these things be objectively 'right'? Are you kidding? Only in America in the 21st century would these be considered as 'right'! How can you possibly say that abortion is a grey area, but gay marriage is not? Is polygamy a grey area? or a host of all sorts of societal relativisms. If you are going to defend your position, you have to be consistent? If you don't believe it harms society (not enough space), then nothing I can write or say is going to cat best.hange your opinion. So, is your 'objective' measurement any better than mine? No, it isn't! So,where do we go for that 'objective' measurement, if not with God. Without god, anything is acceptable. Allowing the state to decide what is right and wrong is a poor and uncivil society

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    April 16, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    Sen. Reid writes in his 4th paragraph:

    "we now have the highest divorce rates ever, with vast numbers of children being victimized because of it; over 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock; millions of babies have been aborted; generations of children are swallowed up by welfare dependency; and the prisons are overflowing"

    My question to Mr. Reid is, are you blaming homosexuals for those actions?

    Homosexuals would rarely have an abortion. Pregnancies in the gay community are in general intentional, expensive, and cause for celebration.

    Homosexuals proportionally "adopt" and save more kids from welfare dependency than heterosexuals.

    "Highest divorce rate ever": We couldn't know that about homosexuals, do we Senator?

    "Prisons are overflowing": Please explain, I fail to see the connection between SSM and prisons overflowing.

    The Founding Fathers were quite critical of organized religion and its dictatorship. Besides, many of their life styles would be considered immoral for our current standards, i.e. slavery, children with their slaves, and others.

  • LiveLongAndProsper Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 16, 2013 1:52 p.m.

    Re: Jeff (10:37am):

    "NO society that encouraged homosexuality over heterosexuality (including same-gender marriage) has EVER survived more than briefly."

    Could this be because there has never been such a society? Contemporary societies that have legalized same gender marriages have promoted marriage equality, not putting homosexuality over heterosexuality. Nobody has ever advocated such a thing to my knowledge, so it is a mystery to me why you would would think this is an example of potential harm done by same gender marriage. It has simply never happened and there is no reason to believe it will happen in the future.

  • One of a Few Layton, UT
    April 16, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    Yet the founding fathers and successive generations were tolerant of religious bigotry (anyone remember how they hated Catholics, Mormons and Jews). Denying women the vote and property rights wasn't a big issue for them. Child labor was good. And of course slavery received a warm welcome. Not to criticize, those who came before. In fact, they established a course of progress wherein our collective morality evolved and continues to evolve. And with every evolution, the flat worlders run around crying about how the sky is falling. Some evolutions work out some don't. Free love of the 60s didn't really pan out but human intimacy is a lot more enjoyable now that it's okay to remove your clothes. Divorce is a problem but so are abusive spouses, so the law tolerates divorce and tries to make life fair. The "homosexual lifestyle" probably isn't any more healthy than free love. But for the life of me, I can't make myself worry about committed partners in a responsible relationship. And through it all, the best argument the flat worlders are able to give for denying a "civil right" is, "God said."

  • LiveLongAndProsper Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 16, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    bandersen (9:58am): I am defining an Ethic to be a moral with some objective measurement of harm. I am defining a Standard to be a moral that causes no harm if it is not followed. If someone steals $1000 from you, then you don't need to believe in God to measure that $1000 and the harm the loss of that money has done to you. Abortion is in a gray area where there are good arguments on both sides of the issue that may be resolved with greater scientific understanding. Same-sex marriage in not in a gray area. Arguments against it follow a religious Standard and not an Ethical objection or are based on fallacy.

    The Golden Rule, or ethic of reciprocity, is more about conduct than about what is in your heart. Jesus expressed this rule as "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law of the Prophets" (NIV translation). This rule has been espoused long before Christianity in many cultures and religions.

  • Harmony Tooele, UT
    April 16, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    Maybe you missed it, but the protestors are crying out for religions to give up THEIR beliefs. You don't tell a person that their beliefs are wrong simply because you think differently. How much are the protestors willing to give up their OWN beliefs? From what I can see, they are unwilling to compromise. How do they expect religion to give them even a passing glance when all they do is complain and offer no possible solutions to this dilemma?
    The constitution protects the right for people to practice their beliefs in peace. It goes both ways.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    April 16, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    The Founding Fathers thought slavery was moral. Many religious people used the Bible to justify slavery and the Civil War. The same arguments about morality and the Bible were made to argue against inter-racial marriage.

    We now view slavery as immoral and see no reason to prohibit inter-racial marriage.

    Some religions support same-sex marriage. Why should the religious beliefs of those who oppose it have precedence?

    The LDS Church considers the use of alcohol as immoral, but there are laws allowing it. Should we do blanket bans on every thing that any religion considers immoral? Or are we just going to treat this one thing differently? And if we are treating this one thing differently, why?

    April 16, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    From the author:

    If society is to be preserved, legislation must be advanced and upheld by the courts to protect the moral well-being of the many, even if a few regrettably suffer as a consequence.

    All I can say about a statement like that is: WOW.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 16, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    There are any number of "Golden Rules". 1-He who has the gold makes the rules, 2- Do unto others before they do unto you, 3-he who has the gun makes the rules, etc, etc, etc. So, which Golden Rule applies?

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    April 16, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    Sexual morality is not merely a religious idea, though all of the largest world religions generally agree on standards of sexual morality and marriage.

    It is in the best interests of any state--even states that reject religion--to control sexuality. Even most proponents of same-gender marriage agree that certain lines should not be crossed (rape and incest should not be decriminalized, for example). The underlying issue is where to draw the line; drawing the line against the encouragement of homosexuality is not purely a religious idea, but religious people certainly have religious reasons for discouraging the practice.

    I believe firmly that, as a religious person, it is my right--even my duty--to maintain the line against a governmental encouragement of homosexuality, and, like Sen. Reid, to try to redraw the line back toward encouraging hetero-gender marriage, discouraging divorce and unwed and underage sexuality, and supporting stable child rearing by mixed-gender parents.

    Further, the argument that because there are no immediate, obvious ill effects from same-gender marriage it should be allowed ignores the historical record: NO society that encouraged homosexuality over heterosexuality (including same-gender marriage) has EVER survived more than briefly.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 16, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    banderson: "I am quite against the federal government defining marriage. The Constitution gives the states this role."

    Then I presume you oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and the proposed federal constitutional amendments that would define marriage as one man/one woman. I also presume you support the extension of federal benefits (such as military family housing, social security spousal benefits, the ability to file joint federal tax returns, untaxed spousal inheritance, etc.) to same-sex couples that are legally married in those states that allow it. State laws can have repercussions in federal law.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 16, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    Interference and division. Clouding reality with superstition. Same role it has played in most arenas.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 16, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    Lane Meyer: How do you define suppression? Doesn't 'suppression' mean just 'disagreement' to you? If I believe gay marriage is immoral, destructive of God's plan, destroys a child's perspective of God, affects societal norms, and changes the future into a dark place, am I a bigot? I am quite against the federal government defining marriage. The Constitution gives the states this role.

    Livelongandprosper: What do you mean by 'morals' and 'ethics'? How can a government promote 'morality' that has no standard? You are promoting what I know is immoral. If so, who decides what is 'moral'? Someone in a cubicle? As far as the Golden Rule, where is there any 'objective' measurement to promote that? If I am not mistaken, the golden rule is something of the heart, not something to be explained and encoded into law. Hearts are important, but not with government. Government only can operate by rules and laws. Even murder, fraud, and stealing are mischieviously (i.e. abortion) defined by political definitions, not universal truths. No, without God, anything is acceptable. Those Defining 'morality' or 'ethics' without Him succumb to a secular notion of what that is,something tyrants are prepared to do.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    April 16, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    Reid favors marriage. What he's clearly opposed to is sex between people of the same sex. If it were impossible for gays to have sex, Reid might favor same-sex marriage. Let him take comfort, therefore, in knowing that gays living together without the benefit of marriage are unlikely to have more sex if they live together as a married couple. In fact, if studies of straight married couples also hold true for gays, married gays would have LESS sex than those who merely live together.

  • LiveLongAndProsper Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 16, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    Whose morality are we going to enforce in law? Jewish morality where it is wrong to eat shrimp? Muslim morality where a woman should cover their head in public? The LDS morality where "strong drinks" should not be consumed? These moral beliefs (Standards) are not universal so codifying them in law would essentially be forcing citizens to follow specific religious standards which is a violation of the first amendment.

    Does this mean that the government should not promote any sort of morality? No, as there are morals (Ethics) that span religious and secular belief, such as the Golden Rule, where harm to a citizen or group can be objectively demonstrated. Thus laws against murder, fraud, stealing, etc are valid within a secular government, such as ours.

    There is no demonstrable harm resulting from the government recognizing same sex marriages so the morality against same sex marriage is a religious standard, not an ethical one. No harm to children or individuals. Traditional marriages are unaffected. The converse is true as there is demonstrable harm to same sex couples and their children so laws preventing their recognition should be repealed.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 16, 2013 8:32 a.m.


    Please show me where this has happening in states or countries that already have gay marriage - where they are trying to change God. I think you have stepped a little too far onto the fear-mongering wagon.

    Tell me how life is different for LDS members in Massachusetts. Tell me how oppressed members are in Canada or Norway. Give me specifics on how gays are changing God in Spain or South Africa.

    Maybe people are just starting to see that the oppression of gays is immoral itself! Maybe people are starting to see that not sharing the benefits and privileges that we enjoy as married citizens is UnAmerican and Unconstitutional.

    Maybe some of us are slow.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 16, 2013 7:46 a.m.

    Self-Evident truths are a saber that cuts deep. Marriage is between a man and women. However, both Democrats and Republicans, and in this case gays, are driven, not for 'civil rights', but for control. Liberty is a foreign concept. Liberty for gays means not just changing society, but changing God, and second, aligning themselves with the power of government to achieve its ends, hardly conducive to liberty in any sense. The hard part is watching Republicans and Democrats jump on board to the Anti-liberty movement.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 16, 2013 6:26 a.m.

    Another article on marriage? Dnews, you do recognize that there are other issues to write about, right?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 16, 2013 5:30 a.m.

    The arguments Reid makes here are the same arguments made against mixed-race marriages. They weren't valid then; they aren't valid now. Bigotry and prejudice weren't valid then, and they aren't vaid now. The purpose of religion is to guide and end enhance the way people live THEIR lives. It is NOT to try to impose its practices and dogma on all of society. It is NOT to act lika a tyranny of the majority. Reid is wrong.