Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Take heart and stand for traditional marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2012 12:21 a.m.

    I appreciate the recognition that Obama still thinks it should be left to the states. I find it interesting though that an editorial titled in part "stand for traditional marriage" never really gave reasons to stand for it. Plus it's kinda relative, I support marriage between a man and a woman, heck I want to have one of those myself someday. Nobody's voting on banning mixed-gender marriage though so it's not hard to stand for since nobody is standing against it. Yes I know what is being meant... okay so there's got to be a reason to be against same-sex marriage, and it has to be a constitutional reason too since religious reasons for laws are unconstitutional (that's why sharia law is unconstitutional).

  • aceroinox Farmington, UT
    May 20, 2012 1:05 a.m.

    Very well put, Deseret News. Unfortunately, there are few in the media with the courage to stand up for traditional marriage and for the family. The family is, in fact, the fundamental unit of society. Upon it rests everything else that is good and wholesome. In order to be conceived we each required a mother and a father. Nature decreed it thus. Who are we then to change the natural order of things, to deprive a child who has no choice in the matter to be raised without either a mother or a father?

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    May 20, 2012 1:57 a.m.

    A better direction for anyone that has a heart would be to support love and commitment where ever it exists. This editorial sounds like something from Little Rock AK in the '60's. Somehow I just can't understand how someone else's happiness will diminish mine.

  • bblackh1 LOS ANGELES, CA
    May 20, 2012 3:43 a.m.

    There are going to be LOTS of "events" and "happenings"
    before this next election. I wouldn't put too much stock
    in anything either candidate decides to support in the
    next 6 months. That "event" was to rally support from the
    left-wing of the Democratic party for Obama for 2012.
    Next week, it will be Seniors being targeted for a big
    campaign. The following week, it will be something else.
    And Romney will be giving luncheons all throughout the
    Deep South trying to rally support from the non-denominational
    born-again christians. It is all part of the campaign process.

  • Gramajane OAKLEY, ID
    May 20, 2012 6:23 a.m.

    Thanks for the valid points and we will continue to stand for traditional marriage as being the union of a man and a woman. To me anything other than that IS other, and should not be called or treated the same. If some want to act in other ways that is their choice, but I wish they wouldn't continue to try to impose such a distortion on the rest of us by using the force of laws, to include them when it is biologically impossible for such a union to multiply.
    In reading of nations like Japan now are selling more adult diapers than baby ones and the crisis coming of not enough new generation to even just replace their parents it is eye opening. Then like in China or other countries who have restricted births of girls, by using abortion, what will happen in that generation to their population?
    How important the laws of nature ( God ) are to the welfare of the planet! It seems some want to protect "nature", save owls and lizards etc but can't seem to care about saving our own species ?
    Some cry over stranded whales but what about adopting abandoned downs babies?

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    May 20, 2012 6:26 a.m.

    Obama made this announcement purely for political reasons just as he was leaving for a big fundraiser in California in which many of his big bundlers are gay. They were putting heavy pressure on him to come out and he did.

    At the same time, his announcement didn't take one step toward implementing anything. It was only a statement. He hasn't done one thing for gay marriage. This move was NOT courageous or sensitive. It was purely political.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2012 6:29 a.m.

    It is telling that this editorial offered no evidence supporting the denial of this basic civil right except through a vague appeal to religious authority and popular prejudice.

    This is not surprising - the opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing other than religious tradition to rely on - all rational, testable claims in support of their opposition fail badly under legal scrutiny.

    My heterosexual marriage is neither diminished nor threatened by a same-sex couple celebrating their love and mutual commitment by getting married. Neither is yours.

    Civil right aren't things you vote on. That's why they're called "rights."

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    May 20, 2012 6:46 a.m.

    Like all the other editorials, court cases, and other arguments against marriage equality, this editorial completely fails to make the case. There is no compelling argument for denying marriage equality for same sex couples.

    Indeed, this editorial presents a false choice. Being in favor of traditional marriage does not require one to be against same sex marriage, nor vice versa.

    As a person who has enjoyed the blessings of "traditional marriage" for several decades, I support and believe in traditional marriage. But I also support same sex marriage for those who love in a different way than I do. Legalizing same sex marriage does not weaken traditional marriage, it only extends the blessings of marriage commitment to others who do not currently enjoy those blessings.

    How is that a threat to my marriage?

    It is not.

  • Okaythen Kearns, UT
    May 20, 2012 7:03 a.m.

    I just can't go along with this one. I know good, valuable people that this affects, and I believe in my heart that it's not a choice. This position seems cruel and unChristian.

  • Rand FLAGSTAFF, AZ
    May 20, 2012 7:23 a.m.

    What you failed to mention about the North Carolina vote is that the voters who did turn out are not representative of the population. A number of polls show the majority of Americans are OK with gay marriage, while those opposed are rapidly becoming a minority. It's just that many of those who do not actively oppose gay marriage were not motivated enough to show up for the vote. And don't get too proud; the North Carolina initiative also restricted same-sex civil unions, which most voters did not realize before casting their vote. A well-informed demographic, yes?

    Unlike abortion, acceptance of gay marriage has been a very rapid shift, and one that social conservatives will likely lose in the future, just like the Civil Rights movement. So prepare thyself, the world is changing around you.

    BTW, I've yet to hear any argument that convinces me that civil marriages between members of the same sex in any way diminishes traditional marriage. Nothing but illogical slippery-slope arguments and unfounded religious regurgitations.

  • cns St George, Utah
    May 20, 2012 7:25 a.m.

    The editorial is somewhat naive. The closer same-sex marriage gets to being a fundamental civil right the closer it will become to being constitutionally protected. At that point the states and the voters will lose the ability to define marriage
    and the judges will decide. An amendment to the Constitution is highly unlikely.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 20, 2012 7:53 a.m.

    Admittedly same sex marriage is a weird idea. But take heart? Please explain why
    anyone needs to. Please explain how if gays are allowed to marry how anyone's
    Traditional marriage would be at risk.

  • Ridgely Magna, UT
    May 20, 2012 8:26 a.m.

    What this article fails to mention (and other Robert George based editorials) is the support for marriage equality in the Research Triangle and urban areas of North Carolina, and the now almost cliche voting differences between older and younger voters. Marriage equality for gays and lesbians has support from the young, educated and urban demographics, while the older, rural demographic voted against it. This split suggests an inevitable change over time.

    Perhaps that is why anti-gay marriage advocates like Mr. George and conservative editorials like this one, ignore how few "traditional" marriages and intact families actually exist. Rather than tackle the HUGE problems impacting traditional marriage like divorce, financial insecurity, and so on, they just focus on denying civil marriage protections to a politically vulnerable minority group.

    To quote Doug from the Pixar movie "Up".....Squirrel!

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    May 20, 2012 8:32 a.m.

    Same sex marriage is no threat to traditional "one man one women" marriage. But, if same sex marriage is denied either by legislation or by popular vote, there is unequal treatment under the law, a clear violation of constitutional principles.

    Let's be honest, opposition to same sex marriage is largely rooted in the notion that homosexual conduct is sin, and that condoning same sex marriage promotes sinful activity. There is also the question of where it all ends - an important issue in this state's culture. If the law allows same sex marriages, how long will it be before someone raises the issue of legalizing polygamous relationships? And,who might not want that can of worms opened?

  • Radically Moderate SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 20, 2012 8:35 a.m.

    Thank you for highlighting the President's Moderate tone. Unfortunately, far to many people, especially on the pro-gay marriage side, even make an attempt to understand the real and valid concerns of the people on the other side of the argument. Compromise is only possible when understanding and compassion are present.

  • Fibonacci Centerville, UT
    May 20, 2012 8:37 a.m.

    Setting religious arguments aside, I think there are good secular reason for not changing the definition of marriage.
    1. I think it's important that we continue to incentivize traditional 1 man - 1 woman marriage. Plenty of studies have shown that this is the optimal environment for raising our future taxpaying citizens (children). We also incentivize people to purchase homes, high mileage cars, or energy efficient improvements on our homes. It doesn't mean that society abhors those that chose not to do those things, it just means that society wants to incentivize behavior that is in the best interest of society as a whole.
    2. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, altering the definition of marriage would create a legal "slippery slope" that would provide legal footing to force society to begin incentivizing other marital permutations such as incestuous relationships, polygamy, poliarmory, beastiality, and eventually (once the "age of consent" is lowered in the law books) pedophilia. I believe that those who say this wouldn't happen are naive.

    I for one say - please don't tamper with the definition of marriage.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    May 20, 2012 8:51 a.m.

    I believe in marriage as being a contract between a man and a woman. I don't, though, support governmental regulation of marriage. Two people can't be married without government approval. A person can't perform a marriage without government approval. Marriage is a social contract, and I believe the definition of marriage should be left to social groups. It doesn't bother me that the definition of marriage might vary from one social group to another social group. I believe that social groups should be free to define marriage however they want, and people considering joining a social group can consider that group's definition of marriage when they contemplate whether they should join that group or not.

    Government does, I believe, have a concern about civil rights of people, and I think that civil unions, or similar agreements, are a valid way for government to provide for civil rights.

  • toshi1066 OGDEN, UT
    May 20, 2012 8:54 a.m.

    How about we take heart and stand for fairness, love and happiness?

    My marriage will never be threatened because two men get married. I love and trust my husband, and he loves and trusts me. Nothing in our life or marriage will change because two men or two women got married. Nothing.

  • Old Wanderer Smithfield, UT
    May 20, 2012 9:26 a.m.

    How does same-sex marriage affect my hetero-sexual marriage? It dosn't affect my marriage, but it affects me in other ways. If same-sex marriages are allowed then my bishop/minister must perform these marriages just as he performs traditional marriages. If our churches are used for traditional marriages and receptions then they must be opened to celebration of same-sex marriages.

    Same-sex marriages will, if allowed, alter some of our traditiona and even our places of worship.

    as we have been told many times, "hate the sin, but love the sinner".

  • Cherilyn Eagar Holladay, UT
    May 20, 2012 9:42 a.m.

    For those who believe that legalizing SSM has no impact on supporters of marriage between a man and a woman, let me cite two examples in two separate posts:

    First: Catholic Charities has closed its adoption services because the law is a "no discrimination" law, meaning it was required to abandon its religious tenet to place children for adoption in SSM homes, which it refused to do.

    This is a religious liberty issue. That SSM will affect YOUR marriage is entirely a red herring argument.

    To be continued...

  • Cherilyn Eagar Holladay, UT
    May 20, 2012 9:48 a.m.

    Second: In states where SSM is legal, schools are required to teach these alternative lifestyles in sex ed courses, violating the First Amendment rights of parents who believe SSM is immoral.

    The unintended consequence of allowing kids to "opt out" is a discriminatory practice itself. And the kids on the playground simply share what they've learned anyway.

    So we must ask, what is the purpose of school: social engineering, or to learn to read and write and to become literate? Or is it to teach the student a moral foundation?

    I believe it is both. So when the accreditation committee comes to a church-owned school such as BYU and declares its Honor Code “immoral” here lies the dilemma.

    In its core, education is a religious endeavor. To force one religion - the state's secular religion - on all children is discriminatory and violates the US Constitution.

    To be continued…

  • On the other hand Spanish Fork, UT
    May 20, 2012 9:54 a.m.

    @Cats, I don't suppose your man Romney has ever made an announcement purely for political reasons.

  • JimmyJackJohnJones Jonestown, TX
    May 20, 2012 9:55 a.m.

    Divorce is the biggest threat to traditional marriage. Infidelity could also be considered a threat to traditional marriage. To continue to say that gay marriage somehow "threatens" traditional marriage is just ignorant. Like saying my neighbor watching porn in his house threatens the traditional physical relationship my wife and I have. What people do in their own homes and lives doesn't threaten those who are not involved.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    May 20, 2012 9:57 a.m.

    Oh, I do stand for traditional marriage - because I stand for marriage equality.

    Take heart, DesNews, and stand for civil rights. This editorial says absolutely nothing except that we should support popular prejudice for no good reason.

  • Cherilyn Eagar Holladay, UT
    May 20, 2012 10:00 a.m.

    Final entry:

    Schools must teach reading, writing, and computation skills, but nothing can be taught in a moral vacuum. And it is not the government’s job to teach social engineering, which can only be a secular religious view.

    Because the majority of young people accept SSM, somehow that justifies SSM. This is another fallacy - “argumentum ad populum.” Simply because a majority agrees on a policy does not make that policy a moral or correct or wise policy. Schools obviously need to restore the teaching of logic.

    The public school must also give full disclosure and to identify itself as teaching a religion - secular humanist religion - that it may be counter to Judeo-Christian religious beliefs.

    Religion aside, before this nation embarks on a full-scale experiment, accepting SSM on TV and film and in the schoolroom, where are the long-term examples in history where acceptance and promotion of SSM has been successful to the stability of society and especially how it has produced a growing population necessary for prosperity?

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    May 20, 2012 10:15 a.m.

    Again, the editorial board is looking in the rearview mirror for the future of Utah. Being able to see what the future holds, should be of paramount importance to an editorial board. If you can't see what will be fair treatment for everyone in Utah's future, I would suggest a little broader travel to overcome your xenophobia. The happiness of all people should be openly valued by a state wide newspaper.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2012 10:18 a.m.

    @Old Wanderer
    "If same-sex marriages are allowed then my bishop/minister must perform these marriages just as he performs traditional marriages. If our churches are used for traditional marriages and receptions then they must be opened to celebration of same-sex marriages."

    That's completely false. Just look at the Boston, Massachusetts LDS temple. They've had no issues with the matter of the church limiting temple marriages to only those LDS couples who are deemed temple worthy. Gay marriage would not change this.

    @Cherilyn Eager
    Catholic Charities in Massachusetts had the option to not place children in same-sex households, but to do so they would've had to not take gov't funding. LDS Family Services does not take government funding so they've been able to continue like before. If you take state funding then you have to follow state non-discrimination policy.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    May 20, 2012 10:23 a.m.

    When I was growing up, a "super majority" of states banned interracial marriages. The reasons were remarkably similar to those who object to gay marriages. There were appeals to the Bible, and the insistance that such marriages would undermine society. Today a ban on interracial marriage would be unthinkable. The same will be true of gay marriage bans.

    I believe that fear and ignorance will give way to hope and compassion. The rising generation has grown up in an age where gays are no longer inclined to dwell in the shadows out of fear of violence. More Americans know them as friends and neighbors, not as frightening caricatures in the popular culture of rapidly receding age. In ten years a super majority of Americans will be in favor of gay marriage. In a generation it will be common place. Society will not crumble. We have always become stronger by rejecting prejudice, whether it be against blacks, gays, or Mormons for that matter.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    May 20, 2012 10:28 a.m.

    Let's be honest. It is reasonable to suppose the real opposition to same sex marriage is based on a literal reading of the story of Sodom & Gommorah and a fear that the United States of America will be destroyed if SSM is legalized.

    That is the irrational belief undergirding religious opposition to same sex marriage. Admit it.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2012 10:32 a.m.

    Cherilyn: "First: Catholic Charities has closed its adoption services because the law is a "no discrimination" law, meaning it was required to abandon its religious tenet to place children for adoption in SSM homes, which it refused to do. "

    You're missing the critically important legal point. Catholic Charities was accepting public funds, and in doing so they agree to abide by public laws regarding discrimination against people based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

    If Catholic Charities want to abandon their claim to public funding, they can be as restrictive in their policies as they want.

    You misrepresent the issue when you claim that religious liberty is in any way at stake here.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    May 20, 2012 10:38 a.m.

    Here is the REAL traditional marriage. The wishes of the woman do not matter. The father treats his daughter as chattel and decides who (or when) she marrys. The prospective husband has to ask (and have) her father's permission to marry her. She has no say whether she wants, or doesn't want to, marry the prospective husband -- her wishes are not considered, and the father and prospective husband impose their will on her. The marriage is often used to ratify and cement a bargain/treaty between families/countries. There is no need to "protect" or "defend" this traditional form of traditional marriage.

    Participants in same-sex marriage do not threaten "traditional" marriage. They are not "wired" to engage in, or have any interest in, "traditional" marriage. The REAL threat to "traditional" marriage comes from people like Brittany Spears, who do not value "traditional' marriage in the first place.

    The best way to handle this, and stabilize society in the process, is to made "civil union" the regular registered relationship regardless whether the relationship is same-sex or opposite-sex, and allow the couples to obtain a "marriage" from whatever religious organiation to which they belong, if they choose.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 20, 2012 10:40 a.m.

    I too oppose same sex marriage although the argumunts put forth by the opponents of it are
    quite weak. Let me help this cause with. the
    following argument which should have been
    obvious from the beginning.

    Children should have a Father AND a Mother. Legal acceptance of gay marriage makes
    it less likely that during any adoption process
    children can be sent exclusively to hetero sexual
    couples

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2012 10:46 a.m.

    As for the anti-religious on previous articles who complained that my arguments weren't secular enough... here's some medicine for you:

    1) I maintain that it takes a man and woman to create a child.

    2) I maintain that as a species the biologically-sound choice is promoting traditional marriage.

    3) I maintain that state-recognition isn't a right, and we the people authorize our government.

    4) I maintain that the equal protection of the laws doesn't redefine principles but applies the same law to everyone- that in not denying any citizen the right to hetero-marriages, the clause is satisfied.

    5) I maintain that an intentional 'dysfunction' of the union biologically required to reproduce will result in other human dysfunctions as such a union is by design unable to adequately succor or nurture children biologically and psychologically according to their needs.

    6) I maintain that while life sometimes necessitates substitutes a mother's love for her own infant is psychologically ideal.

    7) I maintain that men and women have different traits to offer, that biologically and psychologically children benefit most from the succor of both.

    These aren't wild and outlandish. Denying them is.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    May 20, 2012 10:47 a.m.

    to Cherilyn Eagar 9:42 a.m. May 20, 2012

    You mis-state the Catholic Chaities case. They could hae continued to disciminate against gay couplies all they wanted; they just couldn't get public money if they chose to discriminate They were never "required to abandon [its] religious tenet to place children for adoption in SSM homes". Nothing kept them ffrom applying their own standards to their adoption policies. They chose to play politics instead of just go the way they always had without public funds.

    They made their choice; the blame, if any, for that choice is theirs. No religious liberty issue was involved.

  • UTAH Bill Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2012 11:11 a.m.

    I think the goal of traditional and gay is the same - building a strong family. Allowing gays to marry would not weaken families, it would strengthen them. For, many gay couples have children and those children, like any, need stability and care. An example: In many states it's difficult to ensure children of a gay partner. If the issue really is about taking care of family, then allowing gay marriage is the Christian thing to do.

  • inthebooth Murray, UT
    May 20, 2012 11:12 a.m.

    Someone correct me but how can you say marriage is a civil right? What about little sister or dog?

  • oponion Salt Lake, UT
    May 20, 2012 11:28 a.m.

    Ms. Eagar, uuummm, so what? So the Catholic church realizes that adoption services must follow the laws and they realized that they weren't? How does this fact prevent anyone finding another adoption service? Try choosing love, acceptance and inclusivity and I promise that instead of ruining your life and society as you know it, it will make you happier (not to mention the world being a better place). Let's move on to more important issues.

  • isrred Logan, UT
    May 20, 2012 11:29 a.m.

    "Simply because a majority agrees on a policy does not make that policy a moral or correct or wise policy. Schools obviously need to restore the teaching of logic."-Cherilyn

    That's a pretty good point to be making on an editorial that argues that because 30+ states have voted on this that not recognizing marriage equality MUST be good policy.

  • county mom Monroe, UT
    May 20, 2012 11:58 a.m.

    What if we nolonger allow the government to define marriage? What if every couple that is of legal age, whatever their sexual orientation, can be joined in a union at the court house. They are then joined in a legal union and have all the same rights. Then they can have whatever cerimony they wish in what church they choose and call their union whatever they want. That would leave "Marriage" to man and wife as defined by God in the Bible.

  • Mlawrence Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2012 12:28 p.m.

    This debate has been going on for years. For years I have asked the question, how does marriage equality in any way, threaten or cause harm to anyone? And for years, nobody has answered that question. I hear "threats to traditional marriage" threats to the family over and over, yet the threats only exist in the imaginations of those who seem threatened. Same sex marriage has been in practice in Massachusetts for eight years now. Not one family has been ruined, not one church has been harmed, not one traditional marriage has dissolved. This perceived are non-existent. It's time to change the dialog.

  • fran246 West Roxbury, MA
    May 20, 2012 12:40 p.m.

    Old Wanderer, how about this: This is how they do it in Europe. Everyone must be married civilly first. Then, those who wish can have a really nice, done by your bishop in your church old fashioned religious marriage ceremony. Your place of worship will not be defiled.

  • GuitarMan1975 Draper, UT
    May 20, 2012 1:50 p.m.

    My first issue is with the notion of 'Traditional' marriage. There is no such thing. There is a suggestion of it from one of Paul's epistles, but the bible is rife pleural marriage, concubines, and handmaidens. Our modern notion of traditional marriage is based on more of a business arrangement. Marrying for love only became a regular occurance in the world in recent decades. 1 man 1 woman may be a good option, but that is based on what has evolved within society, not edict or even facts.

    I think there is one solution. If people and their social or religious groups want to own their own definition of marriage, let them. The LDS church already does this with thier Temple Marriage, which supercedes the law and theoretically grants you the possibility of an eternal partnership.

    That said, their needs to be a civil contract in place available for every consenting adult who wishes to be wed to another person. Civil Union seems like the best option for that.

  • mecr Bountiful, UT
    May 20, 2012 2:12 p.m.

    It really worries me when people start seeing things as natural. It also worries me when we want to make people's law above God's law. As christian, it worries me we are trying to please others and we care less about pleasing God. This is an opinion of an educated, middle-age person. More importantly, being rural and not educated does not mean ignorant on principles and values. I have seen many educated people with no moral compass.

    And yes, what Obama did was a simple political maneuver. Saying he agrees and later saying it is up to the states was the same as Ceasar washing her hands.

  • fran246 West Roxbury, MA
    May 20, 2012 2:25 p.m.

    I'd ike to clarify my comment. The civil ceremony would constitute the "marriage." The religious ceremoney would be a blessing of sort for those who wish it, but the civil cereomony would confer all the rights and responsibilities of what we call "marriage."

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    May 20, 2012 2:51 p.m.

    I appreciated Cherilyn Eager's comments. It is easy to say that because gay people get married, it can't affect my heterosexual marriage.

    The problem is and has already been demonstrated in several areas --- there are other impacts that are felt. Parent's in New England being jailed for keeping their elementary school children home from school the day same sex mechanics was discussed. Parents can keep their children home during heterosexual based sex education topics, but not homosexual topics. "Equal?" "Fair?" No, too often such agendas which seem plausible and fair enough on the surface have undertones which are not so easily seen. Remember Nancy Pelosi's philosophy "We have to pass this legislation to find out what is in it."

    No, lets investigate the ramifications first.

  • Stephen Kent Ehat Lindon, UT
    May 20, 2012 3:23 p.m.

    Dear County Mom,

    "What if we nolonger allow the government to define marriage? What if every couple that is of legal age, whatever their sexual orientation, can be joined in a union at the court house. They are then joined in a legal union and have all the same rights."

    Consider this:

    MARY: Hi!

    CLERK: Hello. How may I help you?

    MARY: My name is Mary. This is my husband, John. And this is our financee, Joan. We'd like you to issue a marriage licence. Joan is bisexual (the "B" in "LGBT") and she is "of legal age" (as county mom requires) and wants to marry "whatever [her] sexual orientation," and thus "have all the same rights" as anyone else.

    CLERK: Uh, no. Can't do.

    MARY, JOHN, and JOAN: Well, then, okay. Here's a summons and complaint. We'll see you in court.

    * * * *

    The Provo Daily Herald's editorial opinion this past Friday essentially threw in the towel, claiming same-sex marriage is inevitable. If the legislative history of this sort of inevitability is any indication, traditional heterosexual marriage has a bright, happy future. Though it has many assaults, from within and without, it will endure.

  • Normal Guy Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2012 3:59 p.m.

    You don't have to dislike gays to vote against gay marriage. I remain friends with my gay co-workers despite their knowledge of how I vote and my knowledge of how they vote.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    May 20, 2012 4:15 p.m.

    To those who claim that SSM will not affect religious freedom, there are already examples of religious freedom being affected...One example: In New Jersey a Church who allowed couples of all religions to use their facilities for weddings were told they could no longer keep the facility open unless they allowed same-sex couples to have their weddings there as well--a clear violation of religious freedom.

    Catholic Charities is a valid example as well--they were forced to shut down rather than violate their religious freedom. That is immoral and against the interests of many children who needed help.

    A homosexual relationship will NEVER be a marriage, worlds without end, and no law will ever change that. We can make laws that say a horse is a dog, but a horse will never be a dog no matter how many laws are passed.

    I don't care if those who oppose gay marriage are on the "wrong side of history." It only matters if we are on the right side of God.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    May 20, 2012 4:18 p.m.

    Cats

    I think President Obama's decision not to defend the DOMA is one thing he has done. Further, his choice to let progress go forward as it happens in state by state is a step forward --- versus when Pres. Bush would go and public statements saying that every time a step validated same sex marriages it was a threat to traditional --- i.e. heterosexual marriages. President Obama has never said same sex marriages were a threat.

    I think I would take - even if it's political - his backing of same sex marriage then a decision not to ever back same sex marriage. I'll take backing now as supposed to never. Question - haven't all rights been won - politically?

  • Normal Guy Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2012 4:31 p.m.

    God created marriage as between men and women thousands of years ago. Society has agreed with this format and set up laws around it for centuries. Only denying an individual access to this kind of marriage is to deny their civil rights. Denying individuals the right to marry any gender they want isn't to deny anyone their civil rights. Instead, allowing individuals to marry any gender they want would be creating rights that no one has ever had.

    The argument that states once disallowed inter-racial marriages is not relevant to this discussion. Inter-racial marriages between men and women are identical to traditional marriages in every way since they have the ability to procreate, they provide children with a father and a mother, etc. Same-sex marriages do none of this.

  • aceroinox Farmington, UT
    May 20, 2012 5:03 p.m.

    There are myriad reasons why same-sex marriage weakens the family, but chief among them all is the impact on children. As David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute on Human Values, notes: “One can believe in same-sex marriage. One can believe that every child deserves a mother and a father. One cannot believe both.”

    Children brought into a same-sex marriage home have no choice in the matter. Their God-given right to be raised by both a mother and a father has been summarily taken away. Granted, we have situations of divorce or early parental death that create this scenario, but when we establish government policy it is incumbent upon us to look out for the rights of these children who cannot speak for themselves. For those who are advocating legalization of same-sex marriage, which of your parents would you have foregone?

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2012 5:27 p.m.

    cjb
    Children should have a Father AND a Mother. Legal acceptance of gay marriage makes
    it less likely that during any adoption process children can be sent exclusively to hetero sexual couples.

    LDS4
    Even if every adoption agency in the country only gave kids to straight couples, gays would still get children through surrogates or IVF, previous heterosexual realtionships, foreign adoptions, "inheriting" kids from dead or disabled siblings, etc... IOW, gays will ALWAYS have kids. We now need to ask ourslves whic course of action is best for those kids -

    A. Give their parents marriage so that the kids will have the benefits and protections that kids from straight familes get (2 parents who can make medical decisions for them, visit them in the hospital, give them insurance, receive visitation and child support in case of a parental divorce, etc...).

    B. Deny the parents marriage and thereby deny those benefits and protections to those kids.

    So the bottom line is whether we homosexuals so much that we are will to punish innocent children in order to back up our claim that we we love families? HUH? REALLY?

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    May 20, 2012 5:39 p.m.

    Voice of Reason,

    It is completely unreasonable and unethical to use any one or all of your assertions as a basis for civil law.

    The ramifications of all that you "maintain", taken seriously, would have to be extrapolated in so many unethical, impractical, and unacceptable ways than could possibly be listed here.

    I continue to question your moniker.

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    May 20, 2012 5:54 p.m.

    @Cats:

    "He hasn't done one thing for gay marriage."

    Whoa! Have you missed all the stories in the last 3 years?

    After centuries of gays not being allowed to serve openly in the military, Obama pushed for, and obtained from Congress, the change to allow gays to serve openly in the military. That was followed up very closely by allowing gays in the military to be married.

    You are right, though. He hasn't done ONE thing for gay marriage. In fact, he has done SEVERAL things for gay marriage.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    May 20, 2012 6:01 p.m.

    ehat,

    Nobody is talking about plural marriages. That appears to be something only religious people can concoct.

    What part of "couples" don't you understand?

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    May 20, 2012 6:27 p.m.

    The most common argument I am hearing on this board by the pro-gay marriage group is:

    "Does heterosexual marriage either diminish or threaten same-sex marriage?"

    Let me ask a follow-up question.

    Is being a mechanic diminished or threatened by changing the definition of a horse to mean a large animal with a trunk that used to be called an elephant? Probably not, but why change the definition?

    Is being entitled to Social Security diminished or threatened by changing the definition of "taking a census" to mean counting aliens from Mars? Probably not, but why do something outlandish?

    Why do we want to change the definition of "room-mate" to be "marriage"? I think it is great that people find companionship. But "marriage" specifically means a man and a woman forming a special lifelong partnership. It does not have anything to do with same-gender relationships.

    The only purpose I have observed in the call for changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex partnerships is to give them moral standing in the community. It is specifically an attempt to redefine morality, and to force people who abhor this to be required to legally accept it.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    May 20, 2012 6:38 p.m.

    The United States is headed for Sodom and Gomorrah. When it becomes a welcome site across this country is when this nation shall fail to stand as it once did. We are no longer the richest country in the world, nor the most powerful. This is impart to the drop of our morals and the morality of this the United States. Everything will effect you. Probably not in this life but in the life to come. The Lord WILL NOT recognize a same-sex marriage nor should we. Today we do not call it a marriage of two individuals living together nor are they offered the rights of marriage until they actually marriage. The same should hold true for anyone who is outside a marriage of man and woman.

    Until people understand that just because it feels good doesn't mean it is good. The commandment to multiply and replinish the earth is in fact still in effect. A same-sex couple can not have children except man intervene. It is UNNATURAL as anything can be.

    The Lord has spoken and so shall we. We must take a stand or else all mankind is finished.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2012 7:04 p.m.

    ulvegaard
    Parent's in New England being jailed for keeping their elementary school children home from school the day same sex mechanics was discussed.

    LDS4
    Sorry Wolffy, but I want to see a reference on this. I ain't buyin'.

    A voice of Reason
    1) I maintain that it takes a man and woman to create a child.

    SO?

    2) I maintain that as a species the biologically-sound choice is promoting traditional marriage.

    OK, but since gays raise kids too, shouldn't we promote SSm to protect those kids and promote families?

    3) I maintain that state-recognition isn't a right, and we the people authorize our government.

    The Supreme Court said otherwise. It also deals with Equal Protection and Due Process.

    4) I maintain that the equal protection of the laws doesn't redefine principles but applies the same law to everyone- that in not denying any citizen the right to hetero-marriages, the clause is satisfied.

    The Saudis say the same thing. No citizen is denied the right to worship at a mosque.

    ..to be continued...

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    May 20, 2012 7:06 p.m.

    Observations: 1) Denying a marriage license to gays or lesbians will not in any way keep them apart. I believe they will continue to seek out each other and share their love. It is not making those relationships illegal. They still would have every right to love and live with whomever they wish. They simply shouldn't call it marriage because instinctively, even kids know two of the same gender don't get "married". That defies logic (and biology)

    2)The definition of "traditional" marriage has fluctuated but it has NEVER in the history of mankind included two of the same gender. Marriage whether arranged by the families, whether the wife is seen as a slave and nothing more, whether the couple has children or not, whether the participants are 17 or 107 has ALWAYS included at least one of each gender. SSM never has been a variable.

    3)Heterosexuals have indeed already weakened and messed up the purity of marriage, but two wrongs don't make a right. When making soup and rotten ingredients are added by accident or on purpose, adding MORE rotten ingredients isn't going to improve the soup.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2012 7:11 p.m.

    5) I maintain that an intentional 'dysfunction' of the union biologically required to reproduce will result in other human dysfunctions as such a union is by design unable to adequately succor or nurture children biologically and psychologically according to their needs.

    Not every straight couple has the demure nurturing mom and the no-nonsense dad. Gays and lesbians are diverse personality wise with some being more masculine and some more feminine. There are also factors that are more important in raising kids than having diverse parenting styles. Smoking vs. non-smoking, Stay-at-home parent vs. daycare, nutritious meals vs. the nearest drivethrough, etc... When all of the factors are considered, many gays provide a much better environment than many straights.

    6) I maintain that while life sometimes necessitates substitutes a mother's love for her own infant is psychologically ideal.

    What about infant born to lesbians conceived via IVF? Should that kid suffer due to the state not granting him the same protections it does to other kids?

    7) I maintain that men and women have different traits to offer, that biologically and psychologically children benefit most from the succor of both.

    See #5 above.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    May 20, 2012 7:13 p.m.

    And one more observation:

    SSM may not negatively affect or destroy my own marriage of 27 years, but it most definitely would taint and weaken the Institution of Marriage. It would muddy the water and confuse the definition of what marriage means, the nuances, the understanding that children have of what to expect about what marriage means. It would confuse and weaken future generations of marriages. It simply isn't in the best interest of children. Same sex marriage is fundamentally about selfishness and about attempting to normalize something that as I said before -defies logic, reason and biology.

    Now many keep saying there is NO logical reason to prohibit same sex marriage. The reasons are there and are abundantly clear. They just need to be read and considered rather than ignored.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    May 20, 2012 7:39 p.m.

    "Parent's in New England are being jailed for keeping their elementary school children home from school the day same sex mechanics was discussed."

    Source?

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    May 20, 2012 8:23 p.m.

    Cherilyn Eagar,

    Religion does not get a free pass. So you are right. When SS marriage is ruled constitutional because denying it can't be justified, religions will be put in a tough spot to defend their current positions. I agree with you on this.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    May 20, 2012 8:44 p.m.

    @VOR
    What is outlandish is that despite the fact that it has been pointed out to you time and again that science and the facts do not support your arguments you continue to make the same ones over and over. Go back and read any other thread you have posted on on this subject and you will see everyone of these arguments have been addressed and proven false before. repeating the same failed logic over and over is not going to make it factual.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 20, 2012 8:51 p.m.

    re:Cats
    The two examples you cite involved use of public funds. Can't discriminate and use public funds.

    New Jersey doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, so it had nothing to do with whether same-sex marriage was legal or not. The New Jersey church was allowing public use of its pavilion AND getting a special local tax exemption. When they denied a gay couple use of the pavilion, they merely lost the tax exemption for the pavilion.

    LDS family services in Massachusetts doesn't place children with gay couples and they have not had to stop their services. Catholic charities received state funding for their services (and actually had placed 1 or 2 children with gay couples--until it came to light in the Boston Herald newspaper). Catholic Charities could continue to facilitate adoptions as the LDS church does--without state funding.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2012 9:19 p.m.

    A Scientist,

    The burden of proof is on you. You claim that I or my opinions are unethical and your argument is 'but there are too many reasons to list here'. It isn't scientific, logical, or even worth consideration.

    I offered those reasons solely to satisfy those who seem to think I can't argue anything without a religious premise. I still hold that there is not, nor should there be a "no religious reasons allowed" sign in the voting booth. Michael Sandel, a Harvard professor of philosophy and one of the most demanded philosophy professors in the world- has explained with more than adequate secular and Aristotelian reasons why it is only logical to invite religious arguments on this issue and on others.

    But alas, it appears the anti-religious will not accept the terms of my argument and when I provide rhetoric according to their own terms I am termed unethical and not explained how or why.

    We live in an age where the LDS Church is continually proven, even daily. Labeling the truth as something else doesn't hide it. It can't be hid. Moral safety only comes through accepting it, not denying it.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 20, 2012 9:20 p.m.

    In this debate about denying somebody the privilege of marrying who he or she loves, I would like to quote somebody that many of you claim to follow:

    "Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me".

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    May 20, 2012 9:38 p.m.

    Really?? What does that have to do with same gender marriage? Big disconnect there.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 20, 2012 9:41 p.m.

    re:ulvegaard
    "The problem is and has already been demonstrated in several areas --- there are other impacts that are felt. Parent's in New England being jailed for keeping their elementary school children home from school the day same sex mechanics"

    Not true.
    The facts:
    Parker(s), Wirthlin(s) v. Town of Lexington (and various school administrators)
    There was NO discussion of sex or sex mechanics in the classroom. In 2005 kindergarten student Jacob Parker brought home in his book bag a called "Who's in a Family" which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and two same-sex families. The book said nothing about marriage. Jacob's father requested the school inform him ahead of time if/when any discussion of homosexuality relationships might take place. The school district required pre-notification to parents ONLY for discussions involving sexual education. The family met with school administrators several times and Jacob's father was arrested when he refused to leave the school until his demands were met.

    The families filed suit, lost at both the District Court and Court of Appeals.

  • silas brill Heber, UT
    May 20, 2012 9:54 p.m.

    [... that people who have faith commitments to scriptural guidance on families and who appreciate the powerful outcomes afforded by biologically intact families should take heart.]

    You confuse people who have faith commitments with people who wish to make their "faith" conscription for all citizens.

    [ As we have seen in California, unelected judges are playing decisive roles as they assess whether clear majority support for traditional conjugal marriage somehow runs afoul of constitutional protections.]

    Judges are unelected per the Constitution. Got a problem with that?

    [ But the elite media's truncated story of a tectonic shift on this profoundly important concern flies in the face of the way these issues are working themselves out at the grass-roots level. ]

    You, the Deseret News, is the "elite media." What's happening at the grass-roots level is increasing acceptance of homosexuals and same-gender marriage. Your painting of NC as some educated, cosmopolitan nexus is curious. I challenge the Des News to break down to demographics of North Carolinians who voted. I bet the financial analysts in Charlotte and the scientists in the Research Triangle may not have voted the way you think.

  • George Bronx, NY
    May 20, 2012 9:55 p.m.

    @VOR

    As has been pointed out to you before, your arguments are not necessarily ethical or unethical just unsound.

    1) and 2) are you really so unaware of modern science to believe the only way to create life is directly between a man and women?

    3) and 4) the ninth and fourteenth amendments as well as several judges disagree with you.

    5), 6) and 7) funny the AMA, APA, NASW and APS (all the experts on humans physical and psychological needs) and all the credible research disagree with you.

    Now if you magically have found some actual credible secular evidence to support these claims we would all like to see it, if not then maybe you should stick with your religious arguments.

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    May 20, 2012 9:57 p.m.

    @lds4gaymarriage:

    "What about infant born to lesbians conceived via IVF?"

    Governments have policies. Medical doctors have codes of ethics.

    The people of our society rejected their forefathers several years ago when they started chanting the mantra, "You can't legislate morality," and as a result we have a growing number of situations where people are being immoral.

    For as long as our government has been involved in such things, until very recently, it has forbidden such things as allowing same-sex couples to adopt. Similarly, the medical profession required that a woman could only be a recipient of IVF when she was married -- yes, to a man.

    As society has continued to decline, these policies have been thrown out the window by left-wing extremists.

    We need to return to the days where both the Government and the Medical profession treat a child as a person of value, rather than as a doll for one or two non-married persons use as an emotional security blanket. This would mean that they would require a woman to be in a stable heterosexual marriage before allowing either adoption or IVF.

  • factsplease SLO, CA
    May 20, 2012 10:16 p.m.

    re:ulvegaard
    "Parent's in New England being jailed for keeping their elementary school children home from school the day same sex mechanics"

    FALSE

    The father of a child was arrested when he refused to leave the school grounds after a meeting with the school superintendent involving a book his child brought home from school discussing different kinds of families--varying in type from 2 parent to single parent to animal families, including same-sex families. The book did not discuss sex or even marriage in any way, shape or form. The father was requesting the school pre-notify him of any discussion involving same-sex relationships. The school refused, citing it was only required to notify parents involving sex education and maturation programs.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 21, 2012 7:27 a.m.

    What I see here is an editorial that promotes discrimination of American Citizens, basing it's reasoning on Religion. (Note to DN editors, America is NOT a Theocracy, we have the First Amendment to prove it).

    I see a number of people using lies to justify discrimination against American Citizens. If it is necessary to lie to promote your agenda, is it really the agenda you should support (does God need you to lie or is he the "God of Truth"?)

    I see a number of people floundering, trying desperately to find non-religions means to justify discrimination. Many are using "slippery slope" arguments. Can dogs/cats/trees sign a marriage license?

    This whole editorial is just sad.

  • Terry Marasco Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2012 7:36 a.m.

    Popularity is not necessarily justice. If Utah and North Carolina were allowed to vote on whether or not to allow African Americans to vote in the past they would have voted it down.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2012 7:52 a.m.

    Cats
    In New Jersey a Church ... Catholic Charities ...
    LDS4
    Those have been addressed ad infinitum. You sound just like anti-Mormons bring up the same old things.

    Normal Guy
    The argument that states once disallowed inter-racial marriages is not relevant to this discussion. Inter-racial marriages between men and women are identical to traditional marriages in every way since they have the ability to procreate, they provide children with a father and a mother, etc. Same-sex marriages do none of this.
    LDS4
    If producing children is a requirement, let’s ban post menapausal women, the sterile and infertile from marrying. Be consistent.

    sjgf
    @lds4gaymarriage:
    "What about infant born to lesbians conceived via IVF?"

    Governments have policies. Medical doctors have codes of ethics.

    LDS4
    The child possibly came from a rape or from sex with a man just to get pregnant. The child possibly was her dead sibling’s and now she is raising it or was adopted privately or from overseas. Gays will always get kids and denying same-sex marriage simply denies innocent children the rights and protections straight couple’s kids get automatically. Why are you supporting this war on innocent children?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 21, 2012 8:38 a.m.

    Voice of reason;
    1. So what? This says nothing about families or living arrangements.
    2. Biologiclly speaking..90% of the species has no interest in co-habitating with someone of the same sex..so the procreation of the species is just fine, even if every gay person were married to another gay person.
    3. All marriages need to be state sanctioned..(we authorized that). Try getting married in the temple without a state license.
    4. You did just Define the principle of marriage as hetrosexual..and then gave everyone access. Your definition is the point of all of this.
    5. Just a re-statement of 2
    6. Pure speculation and your opinion. If you follow your opinion however, wouldn't you have to ban all adoptions as not ideal.
    7.Again so what? A substantial number of children are raised in households without a mother and a father and thrive. How does this have anything to do with same sex marriage?

  • Logic101 Salt Lake, UT
    May 21, 2012 8:39 a.m.

    I support traditional marriage

    AND

    I support gay marriages.

    It is not hard to support those things that make us a better country - and treating every citizen as an equal - even if you do not believe the same things - makes us better people.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    May 21, 2012 8:48 a.m.

    I don't understand why conservative folks who want more freedom and less governmental influence in their lives support both federal and state governmental control of marriage. Government controls the definition of marriage. Government controls who can get married. Government controls who can conduct marriage ceremonies. Can some conservative folks explain why they support government regulation of marriage?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2012 9:24 a.m.

    @aceronix
    "For those who are advocating legalization of same-sex marriage, which of your parents would you have foregone?"

    A silly question since I'd have two parents in both situations. Let's not forget that Utah allows single people to adopt.

    @Bill in Nebraska
    "The United States is headed for Sodom and Gomorrah. "

    Why are you referencing a story where there are no consenting same-sex relationships and the only supposedly moral guy in the story offered his daughters to attackers (which to me would've meant he just lost his ticket out of town)?

    "The Lord WILL NOT recognize a same-sex marriage nor should we."

    Doesn't matter. The Constitution is the law of the land, not the Bible.

    "The commandment to multiply and replinish the earth is in fact still in effect. "

    Gay people are gay. I know...shocking isn't it? They're actually more likely to plan on having kids one way or another (adoption, having a surrogate mother, etc) if they're married than if they're not. Plus we've done enough multiplying, haven't you read the water issue articles here the last week or two?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2012 9:38 a.m.

    @O'really
    "It would muddy the water and confuse the definition of what marriage "

    Alright (insert name of hypothetical 5 year old son/daughter I'd be explaining this to) marriage is when two adults who love each other very much decide that they want to spend the rest of their lives together. So they have this big party where they make that promise.

    There, that was pretty easy.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2012 10:04 a.m.

    *'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011

    'For the first time since Gallup started studying the issue in 1996, the polling organization found a majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex marriage.
    Fifty-three percent of Americans answered yes to the question...'

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    May 21, 2012 10:31 a.m.

    I'm still waiting for a solid reason to prevent two people who love each other from marrying and raising a family. Many knee-jerk conservatives here site the evils of letting two of the same sex from adopting. I can give you real world examples of the ONLY people adopting children with chronic health issues, the children over a year old and mixed-race children are same sex couples. So what really is better for those children? Also, do you really think that if same sex marriage is allowed that your wife or husband will immediately leave you for a person of the same sex? Please turn off your right wing radio and start thinking.

  • lehiaggie Lehi, UT
    May 21, 2012 11:23 a.m.

    I couldn't help but respond to the following statement...

    "To continue to say that gay marriage somehow "threatens" traditional marriage is just ignorant. Like saying my neighbor watching porn in his house threatens the traditional physical relationship my wife and I have. What people do in their own homes and lives doesn't threaten those who are not involved."

    To say that one member of society does in private doesn't affect anyone else is very naive. The very example cited does not consider many elements of the damaging affects of porn and how it not only affects those closest to them but many times neighbors and larger members of society.

    We are not just individuals. We belong to a society whether we like it or not. We have a responsibility to that society. The choices we make affect that society for good or ill.

  • Logic101 Salt Lake, UT
    May 21, 2012 12:55 p.m.

    "We are not just individuals. We belong to a society whether we like it or not. We have a responsibility to that society. The choices we make affect that society for good or ill."

    -----------

    And may I add that a society that discriminates against a segment of that society just because the majority feels, believes, has prayed about or simply feels better than those in the minority already has a very ill community.

    "If you have to make a law that hurts a number of people, just to prove your morals or faith, then you have no true morals or faith to prove."

  • Instereo Eureka, UT
    May 21, 2012 1:06 p.m.

    I find it odd that the Constitution protects rights and when we interpret that to include groups previously excluded from sharing those rights, we have people demanding a constitutional amendment that denies rights. So we would end up with a "Yes but" constitution granting rights for some but denying them for others. The best thing we can do it in the name of God and we know how we see eye to eye on Him or is it Her.

  • isrred Logan, UT
    May 21, 2012 1:15 p.m.

    "The commandment to multiply and replinish the earth is in fact still in effect."

    And God's declaration "It is not good for man to be alone" preceded the multiply commandment. God sought a SUITABLE HELPER for Adam...they looked through all the ANIMALS first and found no suitable helper for him so God mad a woman (a SUITABLE helper for a man tasked with fathering an entire species).

    A woman is NOT a SUITABLE helper for a gay man any more than a lion would have been a suitable helper for Adam.

    God did not say "It is not good for heterosexuals only to be alone".

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2012 1:27 p.m.

    The Supreme Court defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

    When might you ask? Ironically in Loving vs Virginia.

    While defining marriage as a civil right, the same court also defined the union in question when stating that marriage was "fundamental to our very existence and survival". According to that time, it could have meant nothing else.

    If the same constitution before and after Loving vs Virginia accepted outlawing polygamy and gay marriage, then the same constitution must be altered to accept it now.

    Gay proponents frequently argue that "the same constitution allowed slavery, do we still practice that?" But I'm not even saying the constitution is morally perfect perfect. While morally wrong, slavery was IN FACT lawful. Here's an educational lesson for everyone: This is why we have the power to ammend the constitution! No one wants to do that anymore, because they want to be dictators of this country and make all the laws themselves. People don't want democracy anymore. Otherwise, they wouldn't be trying to convince the judicial branch to illegally invalidate my vote based on rights that the founding fathers and the people in this democracy never put there.

  • Logic101 Salt Lake, UT
    May 21, 2012 1:48 p.m.

    A voice of Reason

    We do NOT live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. We have a constitution that protects the minority from the whims and tyrany of the majority. To amend the constitution to allow the majority to subjucate a minority to a second class citizenship would be a travesty of what we have stood for as a country.

    One does NOT vote on whether or not a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen can have all the rights and privileges that other citizens are enjoying. THAT is un-American and, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 21, 2012 1:49 p.m.

    @VoR;

    Food is also necessary for "our very survival"; therefore all food must be "male and female". Water, even more necessary than food must also be "male and female".

    Do you see how that line can be interpreted?

    Your problem is that you just don't like sharing.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 21, 2012 2:07 p.m.

    I find it so incredibly ironic that conservatives who say marriage is all about L-O-V-E,
    Take it completely out of the equation as to defining marriage, and instead devote 100% of their time and attention to defining marriage solely by S-E-X.

    I bet their minds would be changed if they reversed their thinking [i.e., a LOVE centered committment, rather purely Sexual.]

    I know that's how I view and define my heterosexual marriage.

  • lehiaggie Lehi, UT
    May 21, 2012 2:19 p.m.

    "If you have to make a law that hurts a number of people, just to prove your morals or faith, then you have no true morals or faith to prove."

    If I choose to not stand up for my morals and faith just because someone else thinks my beliefs short sited, backwards or discriminatory, then I have no true morals or faith to prove.

  • Logic101 Salt Lake, UT
    May 21, 2012 3:12 p.m.

    lehiaggie: "If I choose to not stand up for my morals and faith just because someone else thinks my beliefs short sited, backwards or discriminatory, then I have no true morals or faith to prove"

    -----------

    Please stand up for your morals! I want everyone to do just that!

    You missed the part about making "a law that hurts a number of people." Why can't you believe and support your morals WITHOUT passing laws that harm others? Why can't everyone believe and live as they want to, as long as it does not HARM another?

    I do not care about what you believe and you should not care about my beliefs as long as we can live together in this great country. But as soon as I start passing laws that force you to live the laws of my faith, I have crossed a boundry and have started to infringe upon your rights.

    As my mother used to tell me, "your rights end where the other person's nose begins."

    Many people are living in states and countries that accept gay marriage. They are not fighting nor pushing each other to live a certain way. Why can't we?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 21, 2012 3:40 p.m.

    @vor
    I am sorry VOR but your interpretation of the court ruling is a huge assumption especially by someone that always demands that anything not spelled out word for word in the constitution is not a right. It of course could possibly have not that the legal protection, rights and responsibilities given by marriage are fundamental to our very existence and survival right? no of course not it must be your interpretation. oh wait you have now more proof of your interpretation then I do of mine. what was your point of bringing up this case again? I have ot give it to you though it was at least somewhat of an original try.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 21, 2012 3:55 p.m.

    sorry htat should have read it of course could not possible have been that the legal protections,......

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 21, 2012 4:08 p.m.

    @vor
    so because the judges did not rule the way you wanted them to they are illegally invalidate your vote? this is where once VOR's arguments have once again been disproved we move into the your a victim stage. It could not possibly be that you are wrong could it? If not you do remember that constitutional lesson you provided above? If you truly represent the majority as you think you do you can work to have a constitutional amendment changing to reflect your views on this issue rather then p[laying the victim when you are not allowed to just take others rights away.

  • George Bronx, NY
    May 21, 2012 4:27 p.m.

    @VOR
    So "fundamental to our very existence and survival" equals ",marriage between man and woman?" do you have any evidence to support your interpretation or is this like all your other secular claims?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 21, 2012 4:51 p.m.

    I guess I need to explain my post a little more. Jesus taught in a particular sermon that he considers the way we treat even the "lowest" of people in society as an indicator of how much we truly love him. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, ye have done it unto me."

    Are we treating certain people with less dignity than they deserve? Do we vote to deny them the rights or privileges that others are allowed just because we don't agree with their lifestyle? If so, we may need to look deeper into our convictions and maybe change our ways.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    May 21, 2012 7:06 p.m.

    Now you call it "marriage equality, do you?" You used to call it "same-sex marriage." The truth is that for a majority of citizens in the 30 states where the people have defined marriage as between one man and one woman, we just don't like to have our language hijacked. Marriage is what it is. It isn't what it isn't. And what it isn't is a relationship between two of the same sex. Never has been. Saying it is doesn't make it so. Some of us could stand for a new word to be coined that becomes defined as "a commitment of fidelity between two lovers of the same sex." Make one up. You are free to have a word; just not the adulteration of a word that means so much to the rest of us. How about "gammorage?" Thus you wouldn't be offending anyone.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 21, 2012 7:42 p.m.

    I'm ok with gay marriage. Religious groups have too much power.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 21, 2012 8:11 p.m.

    @lehiaggie;

    The best way to stand up for your morals is to live them. Forcing others to live by your morals only shows your insecurity in them, and is not moral but rather, is immoral (didn't God choose Jesus' plan rather than Satans' because Satan would "force" others to be moral?)

    @Linus;

    Don't be so sure.

  • George Bronx, NY
    May 21, 2012 8:21 p.m.

    @linus
    please forward us your bill of ownership and we will leave the word alone for you to define however you wish until then you have no more claim to it then anyone else.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 21, 2012 8:41 p.m.

    "We're not in trouble because gays want to marry or women want to have some control over when they have babies. We're in trouble because CEOs are collecting exorbitant pay while slicing the pay of average workers, because the titans of Wall Street demand short-term results over long-term jobs, and because of a boardroom culture that tolerates financial conflicts of interest, insider trading, and the outright bribery of public officials through unlimited campaign "donations."

    Our crisis has nothing to do with private morality. It's a crisis of public morality -- of abuses of public trust that undermine the integrity of our economy and democracy and have led millions of Americans to conclude the game is rigged.

    What's truly immoral is not what adults choose to do with other consenting adults. It's what those with great power have chosen to do to the rest of us."

    Robert Reich: "Of Bedrooms and Boardrooms"

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    May 21, 2012 11:30 p.m.

    Nobody has a problem with "traditional marriage." Keep your traditional marriage. Nobody will stop you. What bothers gay rights activists is people trying to force gay people to not live their life they way they feel is best for them.

    I know it's hard for someone who is religious to understand, but what is actually happening is that the religious freedom of homosexual individuals is being taken away by those who would proscribe a better lifestyle for them.

  • Incite Full Layton, UT
    May 22, 2012 6:21 a.m.

    Everything these days is about the gays. I think with all the attention they've garnered, regardless of whatever the outcome of the political battles, they've gotten what they wanted--which has little to do with marriage and more to do with a desperate cry for attention.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 22, 2012 7:14 a.m.

    Truthseeker
    SLO, CA
    8:41 p.m. May 21, 2012

    ==================

    Agreed!

    I'm going to cut and paste your excellent comment!

    Read the Book of Mormons people.

    THAT is was the greater wickedness that ultimately destroyed the Nephites,
    it had nothing to do with sexual immorality.

    God destroys the wicked, by the wicked.
    In this case, the unbelieceing and immoral Lamanites destroyed the even
    MORE wicked Nephites - who had the gospel, but rejected it, shunned the poor, allowed the Gadianton's to take control of their civilization to get gain, $$$, per Mahan Economics 101.

  • JP71 Ogden, UT
    May 22, 2012 9:16 a.m.

    This is how same sex marriage will be detrimental society. The natural purpose of sex is to procreate. Man and woman come together to procreate and create a family unit. This unit is an incubator for children to grow and develop. It is scientifically proven that children without a father or mother in the home are adversely affected. The father and mother each provided separate and distinct nurturing for children that is essential for their development. The family unity with a father, mother, and children are the building blocks of a productive society. Same sex marriage naturally excludes a father or mother. Society will naturally degrade as children do not have a father and mother in the home. We have already seen this in societies with large amounts of fatherless families. To say that what someone else does in there does not affect me is false. No man is an island. The financial collapse was brought about by people making poor financial decisions that they thought affected no one but them.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2012 10:04 a.m.

    The disintegration of the family will devastate us. Believe that or not, we're all consigned to the consequences of our actions. That is very real.

    ---

    spring street,

    What I maintain is what Rehnquist solicited in dissenting from Roe v Wade- that in order to cite constitutionally and lawfully binding doctrine as existing in the constitution, one has to be able to point to where it can actually be read. Privacy and gay marriage cannot be found anywhere in the constitution. While I can easily point to where the court referenced the heterosexuality of marriage- in qualifying marriage as a union associated with reproduction, being "fundamental to our very existence and survival".

    Furthermore-

    The court may not have predicated marriage as a patented heterosexual union for legal precedent to exist. But in stating that marriage was "fundamental to our very existence and survival" the court at very least qualified the archetype of marriage that they were ruling on at the time.

    Therefore, while the court didn't necessarily establish a definition of marriage- they equally didn't establish a basis or precident for gay marriage either- thereby invalidating gay marriage proponents' frequent and inappropriate exploitation of Loving v Virginia.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 22, 2012 10:08 a.m.

    Is traditional marriage important to the majority of America? I have my doubts.I know that I am in the percentage that feels traditional marriage with a father and mother is CRITICAL for our society to survive however America has deteriorated drastically morally over the past decade and I think America is dangerously close to becoming Europe. Traditional marriage is worth fighting for but it may not be 50% or more of Americans that want it. I personally think America has fallen off a cliff morally as well as many other ways. America has more government dependent people than ever before and that number is growing. Americans have fallen in their values and work ethic and I'm not sure we can say that we are a great nation any more - at least as a majority and that is really sad for our children and grand children.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    May 22, 2012 10:20 a.m.

    These stories of churches supposedly being forced to permit same-sex weddings do not tell the entire story. The truth is that they were renting these places as a public business, a for-profit business. Since it was no longer a non-profit religious institution, but rather a for-profit wedding hall rental business, they had to abide by the state laws that they not discriminate in their business based upon sexual orientation.

    If you wish to keep your church as a church, and not a way to make profit, then you will not be required to accept such things.

  • George Bronx, NY
    May 22, 2012 1:44 p.m.

    @VOR
    you have not sighted the bases for your claim that the court sights heterosexuality , I am very very familiar with the loving case and I do not recall any reference to heterosexuality. Again you cannot claim something as a fact when you do not provide actual support for your claim. Again I would like to see some facts to support your claim that they courts where speaking to heterosexual marriage as the archetype of marriage since the loving ruling clearly does not state for even elude to such a conclusion. I really do not understand what you think you are accomplishing by continually trying to make secular claims you cannot support.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    May 22, 2012 2:01 p.m.

    I have no reason to disbelieve this woman's story. She strikes me as credible from what I have read and the interview I saw on youtube.

    It's puzzling to me that so many brilliant minds can think in terms of numerous dimensions, imaginary numbers, multiple universes, etc. and yet find the concept of a spiritual dimension coinciding with this physical one just impossible to believe.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    May 22, 2012 4:20 p.m.

    The above comment obviously goes with a different article. Oops as Rick Perry would say ;)

    Comment I meant to post:

    My heart goes out to gay people. As I see it, somehow their wires got crossed through no fault of their own and consequently life has got to be a bit more difficult. I can't imagine someone telling me I should stop being attracted to the opposite sex so I appreciate the struggle a gay person must feel. I've always treated gay people with respect, including friends, clients and relatives. But I stop short of saying that homosexuality is a perfectly fine alternative to heterosexuality.

    There should be accommodations for those who choose to live in same-sex unions, but society should not be obligated to recognize them as legally indistinguishable and absolutely no different from traditional marriage.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    May 22, 2012 4:41 p.m.

    Yes take heart and stand for traditional marriage .... for yourself! Leave everyone else to their own pursuit of happiness. Why is this not acceptable?

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    May 22, 2012 4:47 p.m.

    Isn't this article supposed to be in the opinion section? Or is the DNews endorsing this across the board as their policy?

    Are opinions allowed in professional, objective journalism?

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    May 22, 2012 5:22 p.m.

    Redefining any legal term after thousands of laws have been past with that term is disingenuous and deceitful. It should never be allowed. It undermines our entire legal system. If two men want to have visitation rights in a hospital, let's write a law that allows it. But to redefine the term marriage is ludicrous. It just so happens that California already had domestic partner laws that gave same-sex partners the exact rights that married partners had. That was the sensible thing to do according to our legal system. However, after those laws were past, same-sex organizations cried discrimination as an attack on the term marriage, which has been defined one way for thousands of years and was the definition in the minds of the legislators when they past thousand of laws.

    Consider this: you sign a contract to buy a car from a car dealer. The dealer changes the definition of "car" to include "go-carts" and delivers a "go-cart". Silly, right? Why would we allow the definition of a legal term to change after signing the contract?

    Frankly, if this was really about civil rights, the LGBT community should be happy in CAL.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2012 5:59 p.m.

    JP71
    Same sex marriage naturally excludes a father or mother. Society will naturally degrade as children do not have a father and mother in the home. We have already seen this in societies with large amounts of fatherless families.

    KJK
    Kids being raised by 2 same-gendered parents are still better off than kids being raised in fostercare or by a single parent. 2 Gays raising kids may not be ideal, but it's better than the alternative. Society is better off because gays are raising kids rather than letting them languish in foster care.

    AVOR
    Therefore, while the court didn't necessarily establish a definition of marriage- they equally didn't establish a basis or precident for gay marriage either- thereby invalidating gay marriage proponents' frequent and inappropriate exploitation of Loving v Virginia.

    KJK
    Loving ruled that a subjective unneeded restriction on marriage (race) was unconstitutional. Bans on same-sex marriage likewise use a subjective unneeded restriction and therefore Loving DOES set a precedent for challanging such bans. Lovings proponents, including the original decision which the Supremes overturned, used religious doctrine as justification for their position as do SSM opponents. Loving is ideally suited to overturn SSM bans.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 22, 2012 7:18 p.m.

    I have YET to hear 1 conservative say that "marriage" is about LOVE and COMMITTMENT.

    It's always a very focused one topic = sex, Sex, SEX.

    My hetrosexual marriage is all about Love, Friendship, Companionship and Committment, period.

    Nothing else really matters.
    Anything else is an extra.

  • Linguist Silver Spring, MD
    May 22, 2012 8:42 p.m.

    I am a person of faith. My partner of many years and I were married, by a rabbi, in a mainstream Temple, before God and our families. It gave social and religious standing to what was already, for many years, the most important aspect of our shared lives. We are married as our faith defines us.

    People are free not to believe in God the way we do, of course. And religions may carry out different rites and set their own conditions for those rites. That's about faith, though, and I think we have to respectfully acknowledge that we may all never agree, nor do we have to.

    We are fortunate that in our country, no one's faith is more important under the law than anyone else's. That protects all of us. Now we are looking to protect our most important relationship civilly so that we are not legal strangers to one another. We share a house, a car, a mortgage, bills, decisions about what to have for dinner and decisions about life and death.

    Heterosexual couples get to protect their most important relationship with a single CIVIL marriage contract. We need to protect ours as well.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    May 23, 2012 7:43 a.m.

    This is very simple. Marriage is between one man and one woman. That's it. That is the definition of marriage.

    Gay marriage, civil union- Is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It might include others genders. That is what it is.

    Polygammy is- One man and two or more wives

    etc.

    The arguement is why change the definition of marriage to include other relationships that do not fit the definition of marriage? Gay proponents want some of the same rights and benefits that come with marriage (ie hospital visits, health benefits, financial benefits etc)

    It's very simple. Give Gay married people or civil unions those benefits and tax breaks.

    That is equal.

    If they feel that is not equal then why do we call men 'men' and women 'women', why not combine them and call them by the same term?

    Simple. They're not the same. You're comparing apples to oranges.

  • Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID
    May 23, 2012 8:34 a.m.

    Obama has not "shifted" his stance on marriage between one man and one woman, he has, as has been charged against Romney - "flip Floped." His populous 'out' was mentioning State Rights. But, make no mistake just as he declared in his first election for political advanage his belief in a man/woman marrige - he has, for political resons, gone with the prevailing winds that are tearing at the moral fiber of traditional marriage, declaring his "rethinking."

  • als Atheist Provo, UT
    May 23, 2012 9:42 a.m.

    A voice of Reason wrote:

    "The disintegration of the family will devastate us."

    Nobody is proposing the "disintegration of the family" legislation.

    Nobody is proposing that "traditional" marriage be outlawed.

    Nobody is proposing that all marriages have to convert to same-gender marriages.

    Nobody is threatening traditional marriage nor traditional families. Making marriage and legal family bonds available to MORE people than are currently allowed can only strengthen marriage and family.

    Nobody has yet shown otherwise.

    The beginning of reason is getting your premises right in the first place.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    May 23, 2012 10:25 a.m.

    @als Atheist,

    It's no use arguing with Voice of Reason. His voice rarely has real logical reasoning and is usually verbatim what he's been told at church. Little evidence, a lot of faith. That's about all the reason you're going to get out of that voice.

  • Ted's of Beverly Hills Las Vegas, Nevada
    May 23, 2012 10:41 a.m.

    I'm opposed to it on grounds of faith, morality, and standards.
    I have no "scientific proof" as such for my position; yet, I'm not afraid to hold my view, either.
    There will always be those who oppose, and the more people who accept will not change the fundamental issue that is a moral wrong; moreover, I can love the individual who loves someone of their own gender equally to those who love someone of the opposite gender.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 23, 2012 12:37 p.m.

    Ted's of BH;

    What makes you think that your morals are even moral?

    It would seem that morality indicates that glbt people should be able to marry the person they love rather than just "live with" that person. Morality would indicate that it is wrong for a glbt to marry a heterosexual and for a heterosexual to marry a glbt. That is what is "moral", imo.

    Morality is relative to the subject, culture and mores of the individual as well as society. Your own morals would indicate that you should marry an opposite sex person since that is who you are oriented towards. It would also indicate that it would be immoral for me to marry someone for whom I find no attraction (i.e., the opposite sex).

    It follows that for me to marry someone of the same sex is moral for me yet immoral for you, and vice versa. For me to marry the opposite sex would be immoral and for you to marry the same sex would be immoral.

    I hope I expressed that clearly.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    May 23, 2012 12:57 p.m.

    @RanchHand

    "What makes you think that your morals are even moral?"

    Haven't you figured it out yet? The LDS moral code is the one true moral code and the law of humanity. That's why! They have the only correct morals. They have the truth.

    I call it ethnocentrism. Judging everyone else else as inferior to their own standards. Real lack of cultural sensitivity and understanding.

  • Walter Bellhaven Las Vegas, Nevada
    May 23, 2012 1:21 p.m.

    @LValfre
    If you'd like to argue the semantics of "seeing things as they really are, and as they really will be," I'm certain we could find a forum to do so.
    Ironically, your strawman that LDS are the only ones opposed to re-defining the marriage standard, is disingenuous.
    You unfairly soapbox with little consistency.
    Of course we believe we have the truth.

  • Stephen Kent Ehat Lindon, UT
    May 23, 2012 2:23 p.m.

    For those of you who are writing comments here about the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Loving v. Virginia and how you think it does or does not apply to the same-sex marriage questions, please Google the following words and read the amicus brief submitted in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dealing with that matter:

    lynn wardle stephen ehat loving ninth circuit

  • Vaughn J Kearns, UT
    May 23, 2012 2:33 p.m.

    The media (Liberal or otherwise) seem to take the proponents view of this issue. Considering that Homosexual Marriages (Technical terms) would represent less than 2% of the population there is an awful lot of attention to this issue.

    I believe that Homosexual Marriages should be classified as Civil Unions and allow those of us that were married under the Heterosexual Marriage concept to keep that separation. This would give them the same legal standing, social commitment, etc. It would not suggest that they can produce biological related families, with stable environments for the progeny of the unions, that has been the reason for Marriage through the years. Why should those that desire to be in these relationships need to create such a furor for those of us in the traditional Marriage.

    There has been information published in the early 1900's that defined marriage as being between man and woman for the intended purpose of creating a family unit.

    Why do so many people begin to consider letting Homosexual marriage be equated to the same statue as Heterosexual marriage simply because of the use of "politically correct terms" of Same Sex Marriage.

  • haggie Visalia, CA
    May 23, 2012 2:44 p.m.

    Marriage is a religious institution. Created by religious instsitutions to form a man and woman into a partnership. The Government came along as a matter to legally form partnerships for birthing and rearing children and to ensure that such unions were not incestual. Obviously the institution of marriage has its problems. When the do something is needed to seperate the relationship, the most important would be co-created offspring. A court typically weights a host of infomration and makes a legal decision on the disposition of the assets (including children) and liabilities. So marriage has a moral value (religious) and a legal value (license) centered primarly around offspring. However, same-sex couples can not, and I repeat CAN NOT, produce children in and of themselves. If consenting adults want to hang out and be buddies and share stuff, whether hetero or homo, then form civil contracts of what you want to share. Stop trying to justify your un-natural relationship by correlating ones opposition to your marriage request as an infringement on your civil rights. It is no more an infringement on your rights as it is to control guns, drivers, etc, etc, etc,....

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    May 23, 2012 4:22 p.m.

    Stephen Kent Ehat,

    I have read the amicus brief for the appellate court, and I have also read the dissenting opinion of the Mormon judge in that decision (Smith, who practiced law literally in his own private Idaho).

    Both the amicus brief as well as the dissenting opinion were prime examples of Wardle's legal incompetence, and only very thinly veiled his religious prejudices.

    None of them reflect well on BYU's ersatz law school, and much of Wardle's work should be considered simply embarrassing by intelligent people.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 23, 2012 5:08 p.m.

    We are living in interesting times.

    Our society and the whole western world is changing its attitude toward homosexuality.

    The Washington Post reported today that their latest poll, after President's Obama support for SSM, indicates that 53% of the total population supports SSM. Also, perhaps more interesting is that 59% of African Americans support same sex marriage.

    The title of this article may be confusing, "Take Heart and Stand for Traditional Marriage"

    What traditional marriage? the one when parents used to marry their children for social or economic benefit. Or the one where people who love each other decide to make a civil contract to join their life until the death of one of the spouses?

    Child rearing, gender roles, patriarchy, matriarchy, are all terms that mean or are applied quite differently today than 20 or more years ago.

    I believe SSM will have a positive effect in society. Families created by love instead of social conformism will make stronger marriages and more honest individuals and society.

    No need for double life, no need for shame and depression for not fulfilling the natural standards and expectation of somebody else.

    Be free to achieve your full God given potential.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    May 23, 2012 5:18 p.m.

    @cns

    The editorial is somewhat naive. The closer same-sex marriage gets to being a fundamental civil right the closer it will become to being constitutionally protected. At that point the states and the voters will lose the ability to define marriage
    and the judges will decide. An amendment to the Constitution is highly unlikely.

    The only way that can happen is if all the states can be convinced to support gay marriage.
    If the Federal judges decide, that puts the nation in a constitutional crises since that violates the 10th amendment.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    May 23, 2012 5:51 p.m.

    The idea that we should "take heart" and continue to defend "traditional marriage" is a worthy one.

    A prevalent strategy of proponents of same-gender marriage is to attempt to discourage advocates of tradtional marriage with the idea that we should all give up, that same-gender marriage is inevitable, that same-gender marriage is the last stand for civil rights.

    The fact that, though non-binding polls show support for same-gender marriage, binding polls oppose it should show those of us who would defend tradtional marriage that fear tactics do not work in the voting booth. If constitutional amendments are necessary, we may press for them and win, even if we are told to give up before we begin. If we are bullied into lying to pollsters about our true feelings about same-gender marriage, we need not be bullied into abstention in the voting booth where our true opinions count.

  • awsomeron Waianae, HI
    May 23, 2012 10:46 p.m.

    Maybe if I was on the Mainland I would think differently, but I am not so I don't.

    I would Not Vote for Same Sex Marriage. As a matter of fact I voted against it.

    Same Sex marriage was shoved down out throats by the Hawaiian House and Senate and signed by the very liberal duely elected Gov. of Hawaii. That being the case I accept the law and the Rules as just that the law and the rules. If it comes up again I will Vote against it.

    Will I go in the streets and fight for it to be changed. Very most likely not and if the so called Christ Centered People are being mean to the Gay Protesters I am likely to cross the street. What I am most likely to do is stay home.

    Reason: I see not further harm to the basic fiber of Hawaii. I also see some happy people and my neighbors son just got married. I was invited I did not go. my wife and kids went.

    Mostly No One Dies.

    Mostly I would rather fight tooth and nail against Abortion where Thousands of Babys do die.

    A matter of priority.

  • LanceThruster Los Angeles/LA, CA
    May 24, 2012 11:52 a.m.

    It is telling to note that NC did not take laws against interracial marriage off the books until 1975. I think those opposing same-sex marriage will be on the wrong side of history as well. Anyone who thinks the expression of love in a committed relationship by others is somehow a threat to their own values and marriage needs to watch the doc "Loving vs. Virginia."

    If you can still defend the bigotry that tried to keep that couple apart, then no amount of appeals to decency should be expected to sway you here. The LDS at one time felt put upon in restrictions against polygamy. These pairings are far more "mainstream" than multiple marriages were, yet I doubt LDS would want those demonized in a similar fashion. After all, it was a tenet of the founder, J. Smith.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    May 24, 2012 12:47 p.m.

    @Lance: When are love and sexuality equivalent? If, in your urge to redefine words like "marriage," "love," and "gay" you suddenly find yourself redefined into a corner (do you really believe that anyone in a committed relationship should be allowed to marry?, and,if not, how do you have the right to make that distinction and deny the right to others?), don't say that we didn't warn you; and don't be surprised that history is NOT kind to you.

    If all marriages were same gender, history would end in one generation.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 24, 2012 2:02 p.m.

    @ Jeff

    You wrote: "If all marriages were same gender, history would end in one generation"

    Well, not necessarily. Many Gay men donate their sperm to fecund the eggs of Lesbian friends and... Voila! babies are born.

    Many men and women are bisexual and many have same sex relationships and other times heterosexual relationships and marriages. More babies are coming our way.

    Gay men and Lesbian women love children and they reproduce. May be not in the "traditional" way but they do.

    However, more interesting is your statement "if all marriages were same sex". How would that be possible? Homosexuality and Heterosexuality is part of our genetic code. It is not a choice.

    Besides, your statement is less valid than saying " If all women were sterile, history would end in one generation" or, "If all Nuclear weapons the world has explode at the same time, history would end in one generation"

    Those are big and hopefully never occurring "ifs", but more likely to happen than your fearful statement about same sex marriage.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 24, 2012 2:36 p.m.

    Not 1 conservative has asnwered my question:

    Is marriage about Love, or Sex?

    No one gets married just to have sex and have babies, yet - that seems to be the impression every single conservative uses in this debate.

    People get married out of love.
    People having loveless one-nighters with no strings attached don't get married.

    This is true whether one is Homo or Hetero sexual.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    May 24, 2012 4:21 p.m.

    @ Baccus0902

    You suggest, first, that same-gender marriage would be fine because we could survive on technology--assuming, of course, that all lesbians would be willing to bear children. (If not, I suppose we could force them, couldn't we?)

    You then suggest that bisexuals might have heterosexual marriages, but that proves my point. I said that if all marriages were same gender, humanity would end in one generation (unless, of course, we force the lesbians to reproduce--your suggestion, not mine).

    If "gay men and lesbians love children and want to reproduce," why engage in non-reproductive sexuality? And why marry into forced infertility?

    Are you suggesting that only homosexuals who can prove genetic homosexuality should be allowed to enter into same-gender marriages? You seem to suggest that bisexuals may not be allowed to enter into any but reproductive relationships, though they should be allowed to cheat if they want (because, after all, they are "born that way").

    If same gender marriage is legal, then it becomes legal for all. Since a large part of the population is at least partly bisexual, what is to prevent them from receiving the perceived benefits of same-gender marriage? You?

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 24, 2012 4:49 p.m.

    My dear Jeff
    You read a lot of things that are not there.

    Gay and Lesbians have been adopting and overcoming a lot of obstacles in order to raise children. No compulsion is necessary.

    You wrote:
    "If same gender marriage is legal, then it becomes legal for all. Since a large part of the population is at least partly bisexual, what is to prevent them from receiving the perceived benefits of same-gender marriage? You?"

    I agree 100% with you. I think all people regardless of their sexual orientation should be allowed to marry the one they love.

    Jeff is only matter of time. I can assure you that in a few years you will look back and
    laugh at your current fears. You will have neighbors and perhaps some relatives that will be marrying someone of the same sex, and life will continue.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    May 24, 2012 8:07 p.m.

    Baccus: What you are missing from what I said is that once the door is open, it will be very difficult to shut it.

    It was open in the days of Sappho--briefly for her and her colony. They all died out.

    Even the Romans and Greeks, who were very tolerant of same-sex relationships, reserved marriage for procreative couples.

    One thing that you imply, I need to set clear. You seem to want to suggest that, because you think I will laugh at my current fears, I have no knowledge or experience with gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender individuals, marriages, unions, or anything else. Let me dispel that rumor. It is not so.

    I have seen marriages broken by people who were at least bisexual enough to have children, but who then abandoned their spouses and their families for relationships that they chose instead. I have seen people badgered and bullied by homosexuals, encouraged and recruited; I have seen the selfishness that is characterized by a lifestyle that values sexuality above all other relationships. And I have not seen these things in limited proportions.

    No, I do not believe that same-gender marriage will ever be anything but wrong.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    May 24, 2012 9:09 p.m.

    Again the Lord has defined marriage as only between man and woman. A Proclamation to the World, The Family is quite clear on this. As someone once told me. If I don't agree with the brethern in Salt Lake, I need to get on my knees and pray until I do. Reason is they speak for the Lord Jesus Christ. No one else on this Earth does. At this time the only individual who speaks for him is Thomas Spencer Monson. No one else. Just as those of you who criticize them as irrelevant are doing nothing more than fulfilling prophesy that has been going on since sin came into the world.

    Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of all mankind as long as the repent and baptized by those who have that authority to do so. Whether you believe this or not is what is totally relevant. It is you who are taking your on eternal progression and destroying it. Not I or anyone who claims as I do.

    Man doesn't act on instinct. His nature is better than that. We are not in the same class as other animals. We are here to act.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    May 24, 2012 9:40 p.m.

    @Baccus0902

    "However, more interesting is your statement "if all marriages were same sex". How would that be possible? Homosexuality and Heterosexuality is part of our genetic code. It is not a choice."

    There would be an easy way to test that theory. Just have a gay woman and a gay man have children. Since homosexuality is only a small percentage of the population it seems to point to a recessive gene if that is where you are going with this. If the theory is true then all children born to these gay parents should all have the gene because the gene being recessive means the children get one recessive gene from the mother and another recessive gene from the father. If on the other hand none of the children turn out to be gay than the theory falls to pieces.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    May 25, 2012 9:30 a.m.

    Jeff,

    Do you know what a red herring argument is? Well, you are proposing one.

    Facts: Only about 10% of the population is gay/bi. 90% of the population is heterosexual and they have done a fine job of populating the earth. This has been a pretty consistant level for quite a while, plus many bisexuals fall in love with a person of the opposite sex and can also help. Many gays and lesbians are raising children. They are having these kids the same way that any infertile couple who wants children have them, ie, adoption, ivf, and surrogates. Remember, most gays have perfectly functioning sex organs that can and do reproduce - just not always in the same way that 90% of the population does.

    What you suggest in your argument is the same as suggesting that if all women were infertile, the population of the world would die out in one generation. We should then discriminate and not allow any infertile women to marry! See how your argument is false? This is not how Americans treat each other. We do not treat a minority any different than we treat ourselves. That means we are treated equally, right?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    May 25, 2012 9:38 a.m.

    zoar63: "There would be an easy way to test that theory. Just have a gay woman and a gay man have children. Since homosexuality is only a small percentage of the population it seems to point to a recessive gene if that is where you are going with this. If the theory is true then all children born to these gay parents should all have the gene because the gene being recessive means the children get one recessive gene from the mother and another recessive gene from the father. If on the other hand none of the children turn out to be gay than the theory falls to pieces."

    ---------------

    If you understand genetics, it is not quite that simple. The allele of the gene must be tripped before the gene is "turned on." In gays, nobody knows what triggers the allele. It might be some event happening in the womb, like an abnormal amount or irregular timing of hormones. It might be some event during early childhood -- before school age. Either way, it is outside the control of the individual and his family of origin.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 25, 2012 12:41 p.m.

    @Jeff
    I'm sorry if you have had some bad experiences with gay individuals. Good and bad people come in all shape, form, races, and orientations.

    Many GLBT have suffered at the hands of some heterosexual individuals. Hopefully, they will overcome their traumatic experiences and not judge all heterosexuals based on their terrible experience.

    @ZOar63

    I wish life and science was as simple as you describe it. Nobody knows the cause of homosexuality. Science tends to favor genetics as the cause, but is still inconclusive.

    Other claim is a choice based in environmental issues. Well, the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are born to heterosexual parents. Sometimes one or more children are homosexuals and sometimes none.

    Why homosexuals continue being born despite a concerted effort to censure it. Nobody knows.

    Some religious people claim homosexuality is a sign of social decadence. However, you find homosexuality in all societies in all stages of development.

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    May 25, 2012 6:27 p.m.

    @Lane Myer, A "Red Herring" is not a formal fallacy. Do you know what the difference is between formal and informal fallacies?

    The problem with informal fallacies is that they are much harder to prove. Sometimes they aren't provable. A formal fallacy can easily be explained with IF P, THEN Q statements. Red Herrings are a false idea to begin with. This is because you arguing that Jeff proposed other arguments in order to distract from the issue at hand. But you don't really know Jeff's motives, so you would be less correct to imply this.

    Who's to suggest that an argument distracts from the "real issue" at hand? Who defines what the "real issue" even is? I agree with Jeff and his description of one way that people suggesting this "lifestyle" have hurt families. That has been the majority of my personal experiences as well. While my personal experiences may not convince you, you can't argue against them either.

    We all have experiences. To each of us, they are absolutely relevant. Exclaiming 'red herring' to get people to dismiss an argument rather than give it a chance... is a red herring. Pretty ironic.

  • Wolfgang57 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 25, 2012 7:32 p.m.

    I have to disagree with President Obama on one issue pertaining to same sex marriage - rules allowing or disallowing such can not be left to the states anymore than freedom of speech can be left up to the states. A U.S. Constitutional right applies to all people in all states. The right to marry a person, or have intimate relations with, a person of another race used to be a felony in 30 states. Each state thought that it could make its own rules. That is, until the U.S Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia. And the U.S. Supreme Court will also rule that states can not make their own rules RE: same sex marriages. All states must recognize this right to marry.

  • county mom Monroe, UT
    May 28, 2012 12:08 p.m.

    Actually long lasting marriage is not about 'love'. Love, sex, passion, happiness, attraction are all emotions that can not be maintained in large amounts for great lengths of time. A great long term lasting marriage is based on trust, respect and a very close friendship. No two people really think alike. A lasting marriage is one where two very different people share common goals and a life time of commitment......I personally believe homosexuality is a sin. Having said that. Everyone should have equal rights under the law, to choose for themselves, the life style they want. Therefore if two or more consenting adults, that are not related, wish to be in a union let them marry. If homosexuals can marry, then we must allow poligamy, bigamy, community marriage, etc...As long as they are all adults and do not interfer with my marriage, why not? No limits....