Susan Roylance: UFI says same-sex marriage is not inevitable

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Sept. 2, 2013 1:34 p.m.

    @ Cindy: You state, "I believe our founding fathers were inspired by their Creator when they wrote the Constitution. This document wasn't written just for their day it was written for all time. When we take something that is plain and simple and change it to meet our wants, that is when we open a whole can of worms."

    You then state, "Also, the Bible states that it is marriage between a man and a woman."

    Have you actually read the Constitution? If you have, you will understand why the second half of your comment is ironic when compared to the first half of your statement.

    It is unconstitutional for Congress to make laws respecting (favoring) the teachings of a religion. It is very plain language. A law cannot be made to prohibit something just because some religions consider that something to be a sin. There must be a non-religious reason for the prohibition.

    If your religion preaches against drinking, smoking, getting a tattoo, or having a same-sex relationship, that is their right - and you get to choose to follow those teachings. But you cannot demand the law favor those teachings by prohibiting those activities.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 31, 2013 5:42 p.m.

    Cindy Ayres says:

    "People have a right to live how they wish to live, but when they try to make changes to law to enforce it on all people there is something wrong."


    Is somebody trying to force you to marry someone of the same sex? No? Then nobody is trying to "enforce it on all people". On the other hand, by changing the law and legislating that marriage can only be one-man/one-woman, YOU are "enforcing" your beliefs on others. That, Cindy, is what Jesus referred to as "hypocrisy" (and he had a lot to say about hypocrites).

    BTW; The USA is not a theocracy. Whatever the bible says is irrelevant.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Aug. 31, 2013 5:33 p.m.

    @Cindy --

    "Also, the Bible states that it is marriage between a man and a woman."

    1. This country is not a theocracy. Your Bible doesn't get to decree how the whole country will live.

    2. It's natural that the Bible only talked about marriages between men and women. In Biblical times they didn't have any sort of reproductive technology, nor even much in the way of adoption. The Bible talks about things that were relevant to people living in that time period.

    But since you're so focused on the Bible, here's a passage for you to think about.

    When Jesus was talking to his disciples about marriage, the disciples asked him if every man should marry a woman. Jesus specifically listed three classes of men who should NOT marry women.

    He said: ""For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Matthew 19:12)

    And guess who those "eunuchs who were born that way" are?


  • Cindy Ayres Salt Lake City, ut
    Aug. 31, 2013 4:39 p.m.

    I believe our founding fathers were inspired by their Creator when they wrote the Constitution. This document wasn't written just for their day it was written for all time. When we take something that is plain and simple and change it to meet our wants, that is when we open a whole can of worms. Also, the Bible states that it is marriage between a man and a woman. Is that difficult to understand? Apparently. People have a right to live how they wish to live, but when they try to make changes to law to enforce it on all people there is something wrong.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 31, 2013 3:09 p.m.

    I remember when I was trying to decide if I was gay or straight (as it's clearly a choice). It was a 50/50 possibility of which one I would choose. I decided I wanted to be married so I chose to be straight.
    At least that's what I'm supposed to believe. That it's somehow a choice.
    The sooner society treat homosexuals with the respect they deserve, the better we'll be. Gay marriage harms absolutely no person. There is no good reason to violate civil rights and stop gay marriage.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 30, 2013 6:39 p.m.

    @ cjb: Children don't have that now - and allowing same-sex marriage will not create any situations that do not currently exist - they will just allow those in those situations who also happen to have homosexual parents to have the same legal protections as children with heterosexual parents.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 30, 2013 2:33 p.m.

    That said, .. a child should have a mother and a father. not a father and a father not a mother and a mother.

    If homosexual marriage is allowed it should not interfere with this.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 30, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    @ Mike R: I would like to introduce you to the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    As you are so fond of stating, the Constitution limits what the Federal Government can do and rights are inalienable and are not given to us by government but exist in spite of government.

    The Ninth Amendment clearly states that just because a right is not mentioned by name in the Constitution does not mean the right does not exist.

    The Tenth Amendment clearly states that powers not prohibited to the states or the people belong to the states or the people. Since the Constitution does not prohibit states or the people from defining marriage, they have the power to do that.

    The Constitution does require states to treat similarly situated people the same. This would be the Article IV, Sections 1 and 2, the Fifth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment.

    You may disagree with all the SCOTUS rulings that say you are wrong, but that won't make you right.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 30, 2013 11:41 a.m.

    @George F & Mike R;

    I'm sorry that you're unable to understand that "all" citizens means ALL, not just those you agree with.

    Mike R;

    No matter how much you twist the Constitution to fit your ideas, it will never say that it is okay to deny some citizens the rights that YOU ENJOY.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 30, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    First off, there's no child requirement to get married. Secondly, Utah allows single gay people to adopt so you're all hypocrites on the children needing two parents thing anyway.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Aug. 30, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    @Mike Richards --

    ""No person can use the Constitution to "prove" that they have the right to marry someone of the same-sex or someone of the opposite sex."

    Multiple SCOTUS courts have declared marriage to be a civil right.

    For instance, in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) -- "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)."

    Notice that the rulings cited ranged from 1967 all the way back to 1888. I seriously doubt that all of those justices really needed to be thrown out of office. ;-)

    "The Article 4, Section 2 is also being "twisted"."

    States already recognize marriages from other states, even when those types of marriages aren't permitted within state borders -- for instance, first cousin marriages in states that don't permit them.

    Do you really want to tell all those married cousins that they are no longer married, simply because they crossed state lines?

  • Jeffsfla Glendale, CA
    Aug. 30, 2013 9:19 a.m.


    "While not every couple has children, every child has a Mom and a Dad. Same-sex marriage automatically “divorces” children from one of their natural parents."

    I am really sorry but you should be more worried about all the "divorces" which occur from your so called "traditional" families. Straight people have done an abysmal job at marriage and rearing children. Stop picking on SSM marriages and their children. Your claims of protecting children are "hollow" at best and laughable at least.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 30, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    Those who twist the Constitution to "prove" that it supports same-sex "marriage" would twist any document to "prove" their point.

    The 14th Amendment speaks about a person in the singular context, i.e. "no person". It says nothing about "marriage". It says nothing about what constitutes "marriage". It says nothing about the sexual orientation of those who want to "marry" each other.

    The Article 4, Section 2 is also being "twisted". If it is read properly, it will show that citizens who break the law are subject to being delivered to face punishment in the State where that crime was committed.

    Marriage is NOT defined in the Constitution. No person can use the Constitution to "prove" that they have the right to marry someone of the same-sex or someone of the opposite sex. Any judge who twists the Constitution in an effort to justify political correctness to any special interest group should be removed from office. The Court cannot legislate. The Court cannot "make up" laws.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Aug. 30, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    "If I am able to convey a message that softens even one heart towards the benefits and blessings of family life, then I have helped make one home happier." We proponents of gay marriage could not have said it better!

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Aug. 30, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    @Kei --
    "Same-sex marriage automatically “divorces” children from one of their natural parents. "

    That's ludicrous.

    1. biological children from previous straight relationships -- already lost one parent when a previous relationship broke up. Denying gay marriage won't give them that parent back.

    2. adopted children -- already lost both parents when they were given up, or their parents died, or the state removed them from previous homes. Denying gay marriage won't give them their parents back.

    3. In vitro fertilization -- wouldn't even *exist* if the gay couple hadn't made a conscious decision to "create" them. The father often isn't even KNOWN (sperm bank), much less available for parenting duties.

    4. surrogacy -- again, wouldn't even *exist* if the gay couple hadn't made a conscious decision to "create" them. The birth mother has no intention of raising that child as a full time parent.

    Marriage does not "divorce" the child from its biological parent in ANY of these cases.

    Gay couples are not stealing children from happy stable straight homes. That is merely paranoia, hysteria, and homophobic propaganda.

    "Decades of research" show that children do best in stable homes with two parents, REGARDLESS of gender.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 11:48 p.m.

    @ George F & RanchHand: Actually, the SCOTUS DOMA decision is based on the due process and equal protection principles of the Fifth Amendment. The decision goes on to state, "... the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved."

    @ Tekakaromatagi: Many adopted children seek their biological parents. Using your reasoning we should prohibit adoption. We would also need to prohibit divorce and single parenthood. Without these additional bans, your argument against same-sex marriage is not logical.

    No two marriages are exactly the same. To say that same-sex marriages are different than heterosexual marriages and therefore should not be called marriage is equivalent to claiming that trees with needles are different than trees with leaves and therefore one of them is not a tree. Just because they have differences does not mean they are not the same genus.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 11:28 p.m.

    Would somebody please explain to me how allowing homosexuals to marry would in anyway be a threat to my hetro sexual marriage.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Aug. 29, 2013 10:34 p.m.

    I keep running into news articles or encountering people who grew up without either their mother or father and they were angry that they had didn't have that parent. Most recently, I read about someone who went up the Orinooco river to an indian tribe living in the jungle to find his mother who was from that tribe. If, we as a society, stop saying children have the right to a mother and a father, we have to be prepared for the fallout.

    We can legally redefine marriage and then pretend that two men or two women who marry are the same as a husband and a wife. That is a delusion.

    If it doesn't walk like a duck and if it doesn't quack like a duck, then it isn't a duck.

  • George F Salt Lake , UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 10:01 p.m.

    To Ranch Hand : Sorry, your narrow interpretation of the US Constitution doesn't work for me. Please show me where the US Supreme Court has upheld same-sex marriages under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 8:47 p.m.

    @the truth;

    There are over 1100 legal benefits associated with legal marriage. Those "protections" are the ones referenced. If the law provides benefits to opposite-sex couples it MUST provide the same benefits to same-sex couples. That is "equal protection" (and you know that very well).

    Does getting a marriage license allow the government into your bedroom? If not, why would it allow them into ours? Your reasoning is faulty in that regard.

    I'd prefer the government regulate marriage rather than religion. There are just too many differences amongst relgious groups to manage the issue properly.


    "The perfect is the enemy of the good".


    Same-sex marriages have been around for millenia. Please review some real history (Native American, Chinese, Italian, Greek, among others). Provide references for your "decades of research"; most honest research indicates that you are wrong.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 29, 2013 8:27 p.m.

    Children need emotionally, physically, and economically stable homes. They need a nurturing environment and consistency.

    Same sex marriage has been legal in MA for nearly 10 yrs now. How are things going?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 8:13 p.m.

    @ Kei: Not every child has a mother and a father - some children have donors. Nadya Suleman's kids for example.

    What you present is a false dichotomy - no child being raised by same-sex parents is in a situation where it is same-sex parents or heterosexual parents.

    The question is married parents or unmarried parents. Even without same-sex marriage, children are being raised by same-sex parents. Why deny those children the stability of married parents?

  • Kei ,
    Aug. 29, 2013 6:57 p.m.

    While not every couple has children, every child has a Mom and a Dad. Same-sex marriage automatically “divorces” children from one of their natural parents.

    In addition, same-sex marriage has only been legal in the entire world since 2001, and in the U.S. since 2004. In social science terms, that’s pretty new. So new that there hasn’t been enough time to show how it affects children in the long run. On the other hand, decades of research show that children do best with a married Father and Mother in the home.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 6:46 p.m.

    I'm a BIG fan of diversity and recognize the benefits of having the diverse parentage of both a father (male) and mother (female) perspective in a child's life.

    That is the optimal environment for nourishing people both spiritually and socially, but, sadly, not the one in which many children are raised.

    Despite the fact that we'll probably never achieve the ideal of having every child raised by loving mothers and fathers, like many other ideals, it's something we should always strive for.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 6:37 p.m.


    All the amendment talks about is equal protection, meaning a law created must apply to all or it is protection to all.

    Which law is not being applied to you? Please state the specific law.

    More importantly, why do you want the government involved in your marriage, and by extension your bedroom?

    Would not be better to get the government out of the marriage business altogether? What business is it of theirs is it the first place?

    Get them out and you and/or your church can do what ever they please, now that is true freedom unlike more government involvement and entanglement.

    If a law is created the gives benefit to married people over single people and vice versa, then that law should be ruled unconstitutional.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 5:51 p.m.

    @George F;

    Article 4 -
    Section 2 -

    "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

    Amendment 14 -

    "... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Could you please indicate where it says: "unless the citizen is a homosexual"? I'm having difficulty finding that clause.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 4:50 p.m.

    When he makes one family happier! Do any of you know the kind of pain you inflict on a gay person beginning with their childhood? I remember my Dad holding my hand. I was a child and I can't remember exactly what sparked the thought, but i knew I was different! For years I have longed for spiritual talks with members of the Church, but because of their belief in who I am, they turn away or they tune me out! When we try and tell people that we are not what they say we are, we are accused of attacking the Church or person we disagree with. We are not animals. We are aware of ourselves and God! Family! Would one of you please tell me when I haven't been a part of a family! I will tell you when! It is when you don't want us there! We have always been a part of the family. So many years of pain that never had to be but because others have to know more, they inflict the pain. Thank God I wasn't born into some of these families! My parents love their gay children!

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Aug. 29, 2013 4:39 p.m.

    Two observations:

    1 - If the anti-equality folks now base their hope on "courageous judges" (read "activist") who "act on the large body of evidence" for denying SSM then, I'm sorry to report, but SSM is inevitable. If that truly is the best argument from opponents of equality, it is only a matter of time, even in Orem.

    2 - Until opponents of equality can unequivocally point to specific evidence indicating that SSM has a net negative affect on families then they cannot call themselves defenders of the family. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Indeed, as noted by Justice Kennedy in the Prop 8 case, there are roughly 40,000 children in CA whose parents were denied full citizenship and legal protections under the then-effective ban on SSM. So, if we're actually keeping score, that would be 40,000 specific instances of the UFI et al being anti-family just in one state Multiply that across the nation and there is only basis to label these people anti-family; their overt goal is to deny certain families the right to exist, there is no other way to describe them.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Aug. 29, 2013 3:33 p.m.

    "to retain a policy that recognizes that children are entitled to be raised by a married mother and father." -- Duncan.

    "If I am able to convey a message that softens even one heart towards the benefits and blessings of family life, then I have helped make one home happier" -- Soelberg


    When will these people learn?

    Gay marriages do NOT steal children from happy stable heterosexual homes. The children being raised by gay couples do not have any happy stable heterosexual homes to go to.

    Gay couples are already raising children, with or without marriage. Gay marriage will not change that.

    Gay marriage builds families. Anyone who cares about happy stable families should SUPPORT gay marriage.

    I am continually flummoxed by the willful blindness of people like these.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 2:34 p.m.

    @spring street
    And even if it did, one could just use similar averages in studies to justify taking children away from poor or minority households which I would hope nobody is advocating...

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 2:00 p.m.

    From the article, "'The other possibility is that courageous judges, acting on the large body of evidence favoring the concept of marriage as the union of a husband and wife....'"

    Except for the fact that no such body of evidence - large or otherwise - exists.

    If you have to distort the truth to prove your point, perhaps there is a fundamental flaw in the point you are trying to prove.

    All any study has proven is that stability is good for children and that involved parents are better for children.

    There is no study that shows that the gender of the parents matters.

    (Before you cite the Regnerus Study, keep in mind that the problems he found were in unstable households (divorced parents who had never remarried) and very few of the participants in his study actually lived in a home where there were two same-sex parents - occasionally, the parent that had a same-sex relationship was the non-custodial parent so the child never lived with them at all. Regnerus himself has stated that his study should not be used to determine the validity of same-sex marriage or parenting.)

  • George F Salt Lake , UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 1:57 p.m.

    To RanchHand: To the best of my knowledge, the US Supreme Court has never upheld same-sex marriage under the Equal Protection Clause.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    It's not inevitable, but it is a good idea, so let's get on with it.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    May I introduce the Sutherland Institute and UFI to the US Constitution; specifically the Equal Protection clause?

    It seems they've never read the document.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    "We know our movement is doomed, but we really can't bring ourselves to say so."

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    If the interest is in promoting family life then stop trying to tear down families.