Marriage and social justice go hand-in-hand when in comes to raising children

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • DaveSJ Bainbridge Island, WA
    July 19, 2014 10:22 p.m.

    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.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 19, 2014 6:01 p.m.

    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.

  • DaveSJ Bainbridge Island, WA
    July 19, 2014 12:37 p.m.

    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.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 18, 2014 9:40 p.m.

    @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?

  • intervention slc, UT
    July 18, 2014 5:16 p.m.

    "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 marriage.

  • Mickie SLC, UT
    July 18, 2014 1:38 p.m.


    I 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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 18, 2014 1:37 p.m.


    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.


    Did you know that when a straight couple cohabitates, there is more violence? You should support marriage then.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    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 disturbing!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 18, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    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 for marriage?

  • Zabet Spanish Fork, UT
    July 18, 2014 12:00 p.m.

    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.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 18, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    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

    "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 concern you?

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 18, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    2 bits

    Allowing 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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 18, 2014 11:02 a.m.


    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/children
    2) if a heterosexual does drugs: no marriage/children
    3) if a heterosexual has a criminal background: no marriage/children
    4) if a heterosexual has mental health issues: no marriage/children
    5) ...

    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.

  • LouBird Provo, UT
    July 18, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    "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?

  • Mickie SLC, UT
    July 18, 2014 9:19 a.m.

    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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 18, 2014 9:02 a.m.

    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 to).

  • Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID
    July 18, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 18, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 18, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    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.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 18, 2014 7:41 a.m.

    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.

  • MercyNLovelie USA, CA
    July 18, 2014 4:00 a.m.

    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...

  • UT Brit London, England
    July 18, 2014 2:25 a.m.


    Poor 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.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    July 18, 2014 1:42 a.m.

    South 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.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    July 17, 2014 11:54 p.m.

    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 you're happy!

  • liesel Provo, UT
    July 17, 2014 10:50 p.m.

    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.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    July 17, 2014 10:36 p.m.

    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.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 17, 2014 10:30 p.m.

    @ 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...

    @ Jeanie

    You're assuming little variation within the genders when we now know there is actually a great deal. Don’t box people in.

    @ jeanie and samhill

    Children'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 marriage equality.

  • intervention slc, UT
    July 17, 2014 8:50 p.m.

    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.

  • Bendana 99352, WA
    July 17, 2014 8:03 p.m.

    "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.

  • Pepper2 Springville, Utah, UT
    July 17, 2014 7:43 p.m.

    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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2014 7:19 p.m.

    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.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2014 7:18 p.m.

    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 & center.

  • StandAlone South Jordan, UT
    July 17, 2014 6:52 p.m.

    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.

  • FJArouet Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2014 6:20 p.m.

    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 "intellectually honest."

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2014 6:14 p.m.

    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 for themselves.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    July 17, 2014 5:18 p.m.

    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?

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    July 17, 2014 4:42 p.m.

    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.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    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 to marry.

  • James E Tooele, UT
    July 17, 2014 4:24 p.m.

    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 once-great nation.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 17, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2014 4:06 p.m.

    "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.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    July 17, 2014 3:59 p.m.

    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.

  • frisbeemathgirl Payson, UT
    July 17, 2014 3:33 p.m.

    Hooray for commonsense! Children deserve our best and that is to be raised in a stable home with a mother and a father!

  • jeanie orem, UT
    July 17, 2014 3:12 p.m.

    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.

  • factoid Ogden, UT
    July 17, 2014 2:57 p.m.


    "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.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 17, 2014 2:53 p.m.

    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?

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 17, 2014 2:48 p.m.


    Please cite us the study you claim supports the LTE position. I would love to read it.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 17, 2014 2:45 p.m.


    You 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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    July 17, 2014 2:39 p.m.

    I thought conservatives were all about "Free Market",
    Getting Government OUT of our lives,
    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.

  • pbunny Salt Lake, UT
    July 17, 2014 2:33 p.m.

    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 embarrassment.

  • SLC guy Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    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?

  • Shugoro Driggs, ID
    July 17, 2014 2:22 p.m.

    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.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 17, 2014 2:19 p.m.


    "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.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    July 17, 2014 2:18 p.m.

    "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: Congratulations, Florida!

  • family girl Spanish Fork, UT
    July 17, 2014 2:08 p.m.

    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.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 17, 2014 2:08 p.m.

    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 numerical category.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 17, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    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 redefining marriage.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2014 1:37 p.m.

    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 their position.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 17, 2014 1:28 p.m.

    @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.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    July 17, 2014 1:19 p.m.

    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.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 17, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    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.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 17, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    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?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 17, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 17, 2014 11:46 a.m.


    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 remain.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    July 17, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    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.

    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.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 17, 2014 11:37 a.m.

    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?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 17, 2014 11:07 a.m.

    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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2014 10:41 a.m.

    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 other problems.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    July 17, 2014 10:32 a.m.

    @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.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 17, 2014 10:11 a.m.

    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 Ogden, UT
    July 17, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    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.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    July 17, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    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.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 17, 2014 9:31 a.m.


    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).


    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.


    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.


    My conscience tells me that discrimination is bigotry and is wrong.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    July 17, 2014 9:20 a.m.

    When I was in college --

    We were taught to enter a study with NO preconcieved notions,
    observe and record the FACTS and data,
    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

  • afewthoughts utah, UT
    July 17, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    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!

  • factoid Ogden, UT
    July 17, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    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.

  • SLMom SLC, UT
    July 17, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    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 rights.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2014 8:51 a.m.

    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?

  • ReallyTallGuy Payson, UT
    July 17, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    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!

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2014 8:41 a.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    July 17, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    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,
    Carol and Caroline.

    Are you saying that those kids should be denied being a "Family"?

    BTW --
    Kudos for the plug on Social Justice,
    prepare for the dog-pile by the Tea-Partiers.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 17, 2014 8:19 a.m.

    "...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.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 17, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    "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.

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    July 17, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    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 research?

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    July 17, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    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.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    July 17, 2014 7:48 a.m.

    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 support.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    July 17, 2014 7:47 a.m.

    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 single forever?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 17, 2014 7:32 a.m.

    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 research.

  • nmgirl Los Alamos, NM
    July 17, 2014 7:12 a.m.

    Great article!! That was so clear and well-spoken. I totally agree. Thank goodness for common sense!

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    July 17, 2014 7:11 a.m.

    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.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 17, 2014 6:39 a.m.

    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 honest scholarship.

  • WyomingWoman Kaysville, UT
    July 17, 2014 5:53 a.m.

    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!

  • DHScientist SLC, UT
    July 17, 2014 5:45 a.m.

    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.

  • UT Brit London, England
    July 17, 2014 2:49 a.m.

    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.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    July 17, 2014 12:23 a.m.

    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.