Utah Pride Center to act in support of effort to end Defense of Marriage Act

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • theOtter Lafayette, IN
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    “Marriage equality”? Last I checked, we already had “marriage equality.” Members of the Utah Pride Center have just as much right to marry as heterosexuals do; they’re just also subject to the same legal definitions as everyone else, which, last I checked, was the definition of the word “equality.”

    What the Utah Pride Center is trying to do is redefine the word “marriage” to include whatever they think it should mean. That has nothing to do with equality or lack thereof; it’s just arguing to redefine a word that already has a legal definition.

  • TruthisnotPudding Teague, TX
    Feb. 5, 2013 8:42 p.m.

    Science demonstrates that reproduction has to happen faster than people are dying or else our populations decrease and we cease to exist as a society. A society based on traditional marriage between one man and one woman has shown to be the only way to achieve this--nothing else produces the growth required to sustain a nation, a group, or society. History says that if we have a large amount of loose running social policies, we're an easy target for our enemies. So, I guess that means that the fact that a few people may 'want it really bad' is no moral or logical justification to change our society.

    A better recommendation would be for those who are most passionate about this--those that feel it is essential to their happiness that marriage can mean other ideas--should go to areas of the world where the social policies support their beliefs. They will be happy, and no longer fighting 'an up hill battle' against a population that holds to the values that have prospered them.

  • TruthisnotPudding Teague, TX
    Feb. 5, 2013 8:15 p.m.

    The Defense of Marriage Act preserves an essential building block of our society. If it is decided that marriage doesn't actually mean what it has for centuries--a contract between one man and one woman, then there will be nothing to prevent the term from meaning a contract between any number of variables. For example, if the term could be 'changed' to include a contract between two women, what's to say about the four people that have tenderly shared their lives, children and beds together for decades. Are they not also 'married' then? And don't forget about the woman who has lived 10 faithful years with the most intelligent canine companion--each looking after the other with unworldly affection and care. She demands that her relationship is 'marriage'. Hmmmm...a kind of 'Pandora's box' huh?
    We must protect the DOMA because it supports the function and continuance of our society. We simply cannot base our contracts on 'alternative sexual orientations'.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2013 11:47 p.m.

    Gay Ca. veteran sues over denial of benefits’ – By Jessica Gresko – AP – Published by Dsnews – 02/01/12

    ‘The lawsuit announced in Washington involves a 12-year veteran of the Army, Tracey Cooper-Harris. After leaving the Army she married Maggie Cooper-Harris in California in 2008. Two years later, Tracey Cooper-Harris was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and she has received disability benefits through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs as a result. But her application for additional money and benefits that married veterans are entitled to was denied.’ – article

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2013 11:46 p.m.

    'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09

    '...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'

    And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive, Power of attorney and emergency contact information...

    Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond.

    They were together for 18 years.

    The Defense of Marriage act serves no purpose, except to deny and demean LGBT Americans.