Quantcast
Opinion

My view: Adjusting the definition of marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2012 7:07 a.m.

    Buchanan: "I am not sure that any marriage is considered a 'civil right.'"

    Your uncertainty can be resolved by studying the 1967 US Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, in which the court ruled that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival..."

    If you were denied the option to marry the person whom you loved and wanted to spend the rest of your life with on the basis of a popular but wholly irrational bigotry, while everyone else around you freely exercised that option, I suspect that you'd pretty quickly come to the conclusion that you'd been denied an important civil right.

    Buchanan: "we must not be surprised when we see many innocent people (notably the children of society) suffer when the protections are gone.

    The reality is that there is absolutely zero credible evidence that same sex marriage damages anyone, including children. Read the U.S. District Court Decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger for these facts. They're all there in black and white.

    End the irrational bigotry. Treat everyone, including gays, fairly.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 29, 2012 7:45 a.m.

    "It is a privilege and is in place to benefit society with specific goals to care for individuals under its umbrella of protection."

    Amendment 14:

    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

    Gays and Lesbians are "family" too. This article was nothing but a "slippery slope" argument that fails on every level.

    Young couples, though they may have to wait a year or two, will eventually be able to marry.

    Mentally disabled people are still allowed to marry.

    The word "marriage" has never been exclusively "one man/one woman"; and in times past has included same-sex couples.

    There is no valid, legal justification to discriminate against same-sex familes.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    May 29, 2012 8:06 a.m.

    HOLD ON HERE, "I am also not speaking about anything but the "TRUE" institution and definition of marriage. Discrimination and persecution based on a person's chosen lifestyle is abhorrent". Remember Vice President Quayle and the Murphy Brown Speech?. Right now the failure of our families is hurting America deeply. When families fall, society falls. The anarchy and lack of structure in our inner cities are testament to how quickly civilization falls apart when the family foundation cracks. It doesn't help matters when prime time TV has Murphy Brown a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid, professional woman mocking the importance of a father, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another "lifestyle choice." The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

    Other then this, nothing else will do on planet Earth.

    My truthful views.

  • EPJ Grantsville, UT
    May 29, 2012 9:27 a.m.

    @ "Blue": "The reality is that there is absolutely zero credible evidence . . . , including children."

    Before all the the angry nay-sayers' comments, . . . research some basic child-development studies on the influence a Male Daddy has on his young daughter's social stability. It is sad that I even have to define Daddy correctly by adding the additional definition of "Male" in front of it.

    In a downtown park, I recently walked past two women with a little girl in a stroller. I just happened to overhear one woman speaking to the child, and referring to the other woman as "Daddy". I was so sad for that little girl.

    To teach an innocent little child such an "alternative lifestyle" lie, is an indictment of the entire gay rights movement. Who is going to help that innocent little girl understand that she is being raised in a misguided and counterfeit "family"?

    Little girls need to have a male daddy from whom they will learn; . . . and yes, even fall in love with, . . . and a butch female is nothing more than a confused counterfeit. That little girl is going to pay the price. What about her rights?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 29, 2012 9:58 a.m.

    Marriage” is simply a word. It is not “a time-honored institution that exists for the protection of family and society in general”.

    Also I do not agree with all the any of the special meanings assigned to it, nor do I believe it is a civil right.

    I once believed it was the simple joining, or bringing together, two entities. I don’t remember if was in wood working, plumbing, sheet metal or electrical, but I wont press it.

    I support the right of adult, American citizens to be and do as they please so long as they don’t infringe on the rights and freedoms of others.

    Children are captive slaves of their parents. Even though they are almost totally at the mercy of their parents, they are American citizens and deserve the basic protections afforded other Americans. Such as life and the opportunity to become normal adults.

    It is the duty, right, authority, and job of society to see that children have those rights. As defined by our society as a whole. Children are a separate issue from adult behavior with other adults.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 29, 2012 10:00 a.m.

    @EPJ;

    Frankly, I think you're lying. Every lesbian couple that I know who have children (more lesbian couples have children than male gay couples, in my experience) - both women are called "mommy", neither one is called "daddy". Sorry, but I don't think you saw any such thing.

    @CI;

    Opposition to bigotry isn't intolerance of the bigot, it is intolerance of the bigoted behavior (love the bigot, hate the bigotry).

    Bullying at it's worst; let's see, how about voting away the Civil Rights of your fellow American Citizens. Now there is some real bullying!

  • Jon W. Murray, UT
    May 29, 2012 10:21 a.m.

    If marriage is a civil right, whom should my 29-year-old single heterosexual daughter sue in order to have her right enforced? She wants to be married, same as every one else. The Supreme Court, for all its power and wisdom, is part of the government, and rights do not come from the government. We "are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

    RanchHand, I've kept abreast of this discussion as well just about anyone, and I've never heard anyone else argue that "in times past" marriage "has included same-sex couples" except for one hard-right columnist who claimed that the Canaanite civilization dabbled in same-sex marriage just before God commanded the Israelites to completely eliminate them from the face of the earth. Please cite your sources for this statement, for my enlightenment.

    I agree with the gist of this article that the argument is about definitions, not rights. If anyone can find one jurisdiction in the whole USA that has ever denied a homosexual man a license to marry a woman who would accept his proposal, I will concede that his marriage rights have been denied.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2012 10:25 a.m.

    "Who is going to help that innocent little girl understand that she is being raised in a misguided and counterfeit "family"?"

    Whoever literally says those things about her parents just because of their gender... is a bigot.

    "Little girls need to have a male daddy from whom they will learn; . . . and yes, even fall in love with,"

    Heh, what are you, a southerner?

  • Noodlekaboodle Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2012 10:27 a.m.

    Traditional marriage. Like polygamy? about 100 years ago that was traditional marriage for the majority religion in this state, Heck we have a presidential race where the leading candidates both have polygamist grandfathers. Not to mention Abraham and his 3 wives. Ask the Romans and Greeks. You got married but were "weird" if you didn't have a 17 year old boy on the side. In the 50's interracial marriage was opposed because "traditional" marriage was between the same race only. Some cultures never even married, people just moved in together. So what exactly is traditional about the current version of marriage?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 29, 2012 10:40 a.m.

    I think the liberals missed the intent of the letter.

    The point is if you redefine marriage from the current DOM law, you have to allow all other definitions. If you say that if two people, regardless of gender, are in love and want to enter into a marriage contract then you must also allow for marriages that include multiple people under the same argument. After all, is it "fair" for 2 gay men to marry and deny marriage to 1 man and 4 women if they all love eachother?

    Despite what Gay activists say, the best situation for children is to have a mother and father (male and female rolemodels).

    See "Protecting marriage to protect children" in the LA Times and "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage" in The Tech, Volume 124, Number 5

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 29, 2012 10:41 a.m.

    Re: "Your uncertainty can be resolved by studying . . . Loving v. Virginia, in which the court ruled that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival..."

    That was not the ruling of the Court.

    Rather, the case was decided upon 14th Amendment principles of equal protection under the law, not denial of some other constitutional right, such as a right to marry.

    The actual ruling is much more narrow -- "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."

    The rest of Justice Warren's unnecessarily bombastic comments are what is referred to as "obiter dicta" -- his incidental expression of opinion, not essential to the decision and not establishing precedent.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 29, 2012 10:49 a.m.

    @Jon W;

    Please research the "history of marriage".

    Look into Ancient China, India, Native Americans, etc.

    There's even potential evidence that early Christians practiced same-sex marriages and had the rites/vows for such marriages (I haven't researched this one myself, so I only have the articles I've read about it to go on).

    Your definition of marriage being "one man/one woman" is a recent construct.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 29, 2012 11:28 a.m.

    If those who oppose same-sex marriage wish to be taken seriously, it would help if they didn't start the discussion with lies.

    The only people who can honestly claim that marriage is only between a man and a woman and has been for 5000 years are those who do not believe in the Bible, history, or the existence of civilizations outside of the current US culture.

    Anyone who believes in the Bible, history, or the existence of civilizations other than our own knows the truth - they know that polygamy, bigamy, and adultery (concubines anyone?) have always existed and have been very important parts of many societies. They know that, until very recently - less than 100 years - the only thing marriage has ever had to do with children was mark paternity for inheritance rights and the continuation of the "family name." They know that there was a time when close relatives married and the children born in those relationships were not healthy - mentally or physically. They know that there is a reason why children are not treated as adults.

    You want to discuss your opposition to same-sex marriage? Great! But let's have an honest discussion.

  • George Bronx, NY
    May 29, 2012 11:41 a.m.

    @redshirt
    Its not that the "liberals" do not understand the letters writers premise it is that it is the same false argument that has been made hundreds of times before. Unlike gay marriage all the forms of marriage the letter writer brings up have a known harm (including the way polygamy is currently practiced). What I find humorous is that both you and the DN try to hold this person up as anything more then just another lay person with an opinion. This man has no authority in the field of human behavior or sociology. What is even more humorous is you do the exact same thing with your two references, the people you reference have no expertise in the field and only offer their opinions. You may not like the science offered by the professionals in the fields that actually study human behavior but the facts are the facts. and opinion pieces by lay people does not disqualify those facts.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2012 11:43 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    "The point is if you redefine marriage from the current DOM law, you have to allow all other definitions. "

    Not true. We've always been able to tweak marriage rules to ban bigamy, allow interracial marriage, change the age one can marry, got rid of the marriage laws that considered women closer to property. All you have to do is write the law so that it limits it to certain things. After all, allowing interracial marriage didn't make everything else legal so why would a change that allowed gay marriage be different?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2012 11:55 a.m.

    EPJ: "...research some basic child-development studies on the influence a Male Daddy has on his young daughter's social stability."

    Cite that research. Be specific. Those arguments were examined minutely in Perry v. Schwarzenegger and found to be utterly without merit. It was the examination of the "same sex marriage is bad for children" argument that resulted in the now famous observation, "The witness stand is a lonely place to tell a lie."

    Redshirt: "See "Protecting marriage to protect children" in the LA Times..." Are you kidding? An opinion piece devoid of research, written by an anti-gay rights advocate, is of zero use here.

    Re the opinion piece from "The Tech," I ask again, are you kidding? It, too, offers zero research evidence about the impact of same-sex marriage on children, but does argue, bizarrely, that couples seeking state recognition of their marriage must first prove to the state that their marriage serves a state interest.

    Face it, the only arguments against gay couples exercising their right to marry are rooted in ancient religious bigotries.

    Does that sting? Since when is reality obligated to spare your feelings?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 29, 2012 12:19 p.m.

    I define marriage as Love and committment, by sharing common goals and interests.

    Sad to see those most focused on saving "marriage", define it completely and soley on the definition of Sex.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 29, 2012 12:23 p.m.

    @ Jon W.: "If marriage is a civil right, whom should my 29-year-old single heterosexual daughter sue in order to have her right enforced?"

    Freedom of Religion is a civil right - I have yet to find a church I want to attend, who do I get to sue? Voting is a civil right - do I get to sue if I don't want to vote because I don't like the candidates? Can my daughter sue because she doesn't read the paper?

    I like your contradictions - in your first sentence you want to deny that marriage is a civil right because there is no one for your daughter to sue. Immediately after that, within the same paragraph, you claim that rights are not given by the government. (Which kind of answers your question about your daughter suing.) Then, in your last sentence, you state that if a gay man were denied a license to marry a woman, you would agree his rights had been violated - but your previous argument is that there is not a right to be married because there is no one for your daughter to sue over her inability to find someone to marry....

  • George Bronx, NY
    May 29, 2012 12:45 p.m.

    @CI
    speaking out against bigotry is not bigotry, you are not a victim you are an aggressor. Your right to speak out has not been infringed in any way, you have posted literally hundreds of post on this subject, others have used their free speech to speak out against your lies which has in no way stopped you from repeating them over and over. What you seek to do on the other hand is take away others access to marriage through the force of law. I am sorry if your feelings get hurt when people speak out against your lies but you are not a victim.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    May 29, 2012 12:57 p.m.

    You nailed it LDS Liberal.
    Sex takes up a very small percentage of a total relationship.
    Why is sex the focus of religious folks instead of love.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 29, 2012 1:14 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" but the church you claim membership in does not define it that way. According to the LDS Church, they "proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

    You said that "Sad to see those most focused on saving "marriage", define it completely and soley on the definition of Sex." yet that is precisely what the First Presidency did when they signed the The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Are you saying that you are against the words of the First Presidency?

    To "Blue" if you don't have any evidence to contradict what those articles actually say, just admit it rather than going after the sources. The fact that you cannot disprove what those articles state just goes to show that you have nothing. David Blankenhorn, the author of the LA Times article, has a degree in Comparative Social History from University of Warwick. Are you saying that you are more qualified than he is, and know more than he does?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 29, 2012 1:29 p.m.

    Redshirt1701 says:

    "Are you saying that you are against the words of the First Presidency?"

    ==

    Absolutely!

    Your church may define marriage for MEMBERS in any way they choose, they MAY NOT define it for anybody else. Period.

  • George Bronx, NY
    May 29, 2012 1:39 p.m.

    @redshirt
    Blue may not be saying it but I am. I have advanced degrees in human behavior and sociology and over 20 years of study in the field. David does not quote any sources to support his claims for a reason. Every credible professional organization (APA, AMA NASW, APS etc...) has done research in this area and all found the same thing, there is no proven harm from allowing same sex marriage. This has also been debated through the court systems which found the same thing there is no credible research or evidence to support banning gay marriage. Are you claiming to know more about this subject then all the experts in this field and the judges how ruled in these cases?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 29, 2012 3:26 p.m.

    To "George" another source that has been published comes from Dr. A. Dean Byrd in a paper he presented at the European Regional Dialogue on the family in Geneva, Switzerland titled, "Gender Complementarity and Child-Rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree". In his paper that he used as a basis for his presentation, Dr. Byrd summarized the results of decades of research showing that children need both a mother and a father in order to grow into emotionally mature adults.

    According to Dr. Byrd, research study after research study has shown that "Children navigate the developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better in academic tasks at school, have fewer emotional disorders and become better functioning adults when they are reared by dual-gender parents."

    On the contrary, however, studies of children reared in lesbian homes indicate that girls become more masculinized and boys become more feminized in their behaviors. Both boys and girls in homosexual households were more likely to experiment with homosexuality than those reared in heterosexual homes.

    Does it sound healthy to have kids that would otherwise be hetersexual experiment with homosexuality?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    May 29, 2012 3:42 p.m.

    Still unaddressed is the issue of what boundaries can remain on marriage if same sex marriage can be forced upon the state?

    If it is only a matter of love (no other qualifiers) then what about if a brother and sister wish to marry? Certainly there are potential problems for any children but, if they are willing to forego having children, that obstacle can be easily met. What of brothers or sisters marrying each other? There, there would be no issue of natural children so, if they love each other, why not? What of other family members? Could a father or mother marry their own children? If not, why not? Again, any issue with children issuing from the marriage can be solved.

    If the issue is that we as a society should not judge the sexual attraction of others and should celebrate and even endorse their union (marriage is a societal endorsement), then why not endorse all of these as well?

    Arguments that marriage has not always been between men and women ignore the long run of history and concentrate on a few isolated instances. If same sex marriage was historically established, we would not be having this discussion.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 29, 2012 3:54 p.m.

    Re: "Are you claiming to know more about this subject then all the experts in this field and the judges how [sic] ruled in these cases?"

    That's not too hard a case to make.

    You talk about research from "[e]very credible organization" in the field, but that's a mighty short, maybe even nonexistent, list. The organizations you cite long ago lost all credibility with real people because of their gleefully biased, true-believing advocacy of, not just counter-intuitive, but counter-factual positions.

    The purported "experts" in the field are anything but, ignoring, even denying clear evidence that won't support their foregone conclusions.

    Sorry, but as I learned getting my advanced degrees, "advanced degrees in human behavior and sociology and over 20 years of study in the field" only identify biases, not reasons to grant credibility.

    Those degrees and $6.95 will get you a cup of coffee in some exclusive academic hangout where "experts" come to talk, only to one another, trying desperately to convince each other they really know something.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 29, 2012 4:09 p.m.

    Redshirt1701
    Deep Space 9, Ut
    To "LDS Liberal" but the church you claim membership in does not define it that way. According to the LDS Church, they "proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children."
    ================

    And I agree -- Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.

    But, since this entire debate is all about civil law - and last I checked,
    and as much as you on the radical right keep trying to insist --
    America is not a Theocracy.

    So, if that is what a Theocracy might I suggest Iran or Somalia who are governed by parts of Sharia Law. FYI - Their ideas of morality and government being intertwined runs parallel to yours.

    BTW - My LDS leaders also wanted and supported "rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights" toward the GLBT community.

    And just like other LDS Church statements regarding immigration, or Democrats CAN be good Church members you on the radical Republican right simply choose to ignore our leaders otherwise.

  • George Bronx, NY
    May 29, 2012 4:09 p.m.

    @redshirt
    Congrats you found one doctor that disagrees with his colleague and the research. He attempts in his paper to deconstruct small portions of larger body of the research to misrepresent their findings the research clearly shows that children raised in two parent homosexual households fair just as well as children raised in two parent heterosexual households. Again he brings nothing new to the conversation. The claims he makes have been disproven by some of the same peoples research he misquotes and in the court of law.

    So to answer your question I will continue to stay with the science and the facts which clearly show that there is no harm to the children.

  • Jon W. Murray, UT
    May 29, 2012 4:25 p.m.

    Kalindra: Ironic, isn't it? Let me reformulate to help you understand my viewpoint better, rather than simply dismiss it:
    1) Rights belong to individuals. Marriage, whatever its definition, is not possible for a single individual. Therefore there an individual has no right to marry.
    2) Governments cannot create rights. They can only protect rights that naturally exist (this is the meaning of "endowed by their Creator"). If individuals choose not to exercise their own rights, that is nobody's business, including governments. Choosing not to exercise a right is not the same as being denied a right.
    3) Many people with same-gender attraction choose not to exercise the privilege of marriage, as it has been defined since time immemorial.
    Therefore: What pro same sex marriage advocates now desire is the re-definition of marriage, not the extension of rights they currently feel are denied them.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 29, 2012 4:37 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" so lets use some logic, if "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God" what does that say about marriage between two people of the same gender? If God supports and ordains hetersexual marriage, doesn't that mean that Satan supports homosexual marriage? Again, the big question is why do you support Satan's version of marriage? You also missed the LDS statement on October 12, 2010 where they stated "the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage."

    Please explain how you can claim to follow the prophets yet fully endorse something that goes contrary to LDS Doctrine?

    Isn't that like saying I believe that human sacrifice is wrong at the same time you are voting for and encouraging public officials to allow a group to practice human sacrifice?

    You forget Luke 16:13 "No servant can serve two masters". How can you serve both God and Mammon?

  • Jon W. Murray, UT
    May 29, 2012 4:43 p.m.

    George, since you seem to be qualified and presumably have read the studies with which you are supporting your arguments, please let us poor ignorant laymen know 1) how statistically significant was the sample size used in these studies, and 2) how long the studies lasted in order to prove longitudinal (lifetime) effects on children being reared by same-sex couples.

    I will tell you my suspicions so that you can perhaps allay them: The incidence of children reared by same sex couples is not large enough to provide a statistically significant sample size, and the studies have had long enough terms to report any affects on such children who are now enduring the most stressful part of their lives so far: Parenthood. Have these studies proved that the vast majority of children reared in such an arrangement can successfully rear children of their own?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 29, 2012 5:27 p.m.

    Nice try. But marriage is just a word, and we can figure out how to let it include gay people. Maybe we just need a revelation.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2012 5:39 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    "On the contrary, however, studies of children reared in lesbian homes indicate that girls become more masculinized and boys become more feminized in their behaviors."

    I don't even know why that would be a bad thing. Am I (someone with heterosexual divorced parents) supposed to conform to some sort of definition of how a guy is supposed to act? Am I supposed to love guns and football and cars that go fast and make lots of noise?

    "Children navigate the developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better in academic tasks at school, have fewer emotional disorders and become better functioning adults when they are reared by dual-gender parents."

    It should be noted that all of those things are also side effects of having kids or other parents disproportionately tease mock and attack the child because of who their parents are. These effects would occur much less frequently if there wasn't hatred directed towards those families.

    @Twin Lights
    "Still unaddressed is the issue of what boundaries can remain on marriage if same sex marriage can be forced upon the state?"

    Pretty sure opponents of interracial marriage made that claim too.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2012 5:45 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    Speaking about Prop 8...
    "(LDS) members should feel free to disagree on the issue without fear of sanction." - Elder Whitney Clayton of the Seventy (the one in charge of the prop 8 effort).

    If it were really so bad to support same-sex marriage then the church would actually make it an issue for things like temple recommends.

    "Please explain how you can claim to follow the prophets yet fully endorse something that goes contrary to LDS Doctrine?"

    I'll answer this based on how I felt when I was an LDS member, and now as someone visiting Catholic mass. Endorsing something when it comes to the gov't is a different matter than endorsing something for internal church policy. I support gay marriage for the nation but I oppose it in the LDS and Catholic churches because I believe it goes against church doctrine and of course churches should be free to make their own rules regarding who they do and don't marry. That's why the Boston, MA temple is still only sealing couples that meet the LDS church requirements for temple sealings.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 29, 2012 6:19 p.m.

    @Jon W
    actually I can address both those questions. I would suggest you look at the research coming out of New York University to answer both questions. NYU has been doing a longitudinal study of a single cohort that they started following between the ages of one and two and that are now in their late twenties and early thirties. Their research confirms previous research that concluded that these now adults function the same as someone of the same age that was raised by heterosexual parents, even in regards to child rearing. They are no more likely to be gay themselves and have the same average number of children as their peers and just as likely to excel and fall short in all the same places. I apologize I do not have the exact number of subjects in the cohort but it does meet the requirements for being statistically significant and when you look it up they will go through all those numbers for you.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 29, 2012 6:25 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal
    The opinions of the experts is based on scientific research. if you have some scientific evidence that the research is wrong then please feel free to present it otherwise We will have to take your comment for the empty political rhetoric it is.

    @CI
    Actually saying that you lie is based on the fact that you already now the science does not agree with your false claims and yet you continue to make them anyway. You may not like the science but until you can provide credible science to contradict what is out there your false claims well remain what they are lies.

  • Mr. Bean Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2012 9:49 p.m.

    "I am not sure that any marriage is considered a 'civil right.' I believe that I understand civil rights to be those rights that should not be denied anyone, except in extreme and reviewable cases."

    Excellent point. Firstly, anyone can marry... provided they marry someone of the opposite sex. Not a single sole's civil rights are violated with that restriction. But... secondly, today minors can't marry which means their civil rights are jeopardized by law. Showing there are restrictions to the institution of marriage.

    "Were we to consider marriage to be a civil right, not to be denied to individuals, we would have to consider many other relationships that are now forbidden, either by law or by societal convention."

    Another excellent point... the other relationships that are now forbidden would be such as polygamy, marriage to cousins, sibling marriages and even parent to child marriages.

  • Miss Piggie Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2012 9:56 p.m.

    @Blue: "If you were denied the option to marry..."

    No one is denied the option to marry. Just find someone of the opposite sex and marry them.

    If you think you need to love or be true to the person you marry, you are delusional.

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2012 10:46 p.m.

    @George: "This has also been debated through the court systems which found the same thing there is no credible research or evidence to support banning gay marriage."

    Try this bit of 'research'... how long would civilization last if there was nothing but gay marriage?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 30, 2012 7:19 a.m.

    Re: "The opinions of the experts is [sic] based on scientific research. if [sic] you have some scientific evidence that the research is wrong then please feel free to present it . . . ."

    Scientists know that's not the way science works. It's up to proponents of novel, counter-intuitive theories to prove their validity, not detractors to disprove them.

    In the soft, behavioral "sciences," we long ago learned that an "investigator" with a little knowledge of statistics and a large desire to push an agenda can camouflage that agenda and manufacture the "scientific evidence" he might need.

    Witness such now-discredited, but once widely-accepted behavioral "sciences" as phrenology, polygraphy, and eugenics.

    Modern-day equivalents of phrenologists -- call them sociologists, psychologists, or behavioral scientists -- who peddle these counter-intuitive agendas are inherently suspect.

    They can't and won't be taken seriously until both their "science" and their "scientists" mature and become more objective.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 30, 2012 9:02 a.m.

    Mr. Buchanan wrote: "If the majority of the people of the United States of America choose to untangle the careful protections that are in place which protect marriage and family, we must not be surprised when we see many innocent people (notably the children of society) suffer when the protections are gone."

    Are children to be pawns in the war wages by those who will not curb their appetites and passions?

    Are children to be destroyed when people, who will not control themselves, tell those children that they can have sex with anyone, male or female, as long as it makes them happy?

    What is the real message from these posts? It looks to me that we have people who believe in limits vs people who believe that there are no limits. It looks to me that we have people who accept rules vs people who will not be constrained by rules of any kind.

    Nothing much has changed. This same battle was being fought long before this earth was created. There have always been those who have demanded that they be allowed to make the rules - even at the peril of society.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 30, 2012 9:47 a.m.

    @wrz
    the fallacy of this thinking has been debated and debunked so many times do we really need to go there again? not all people are gay and gay people are not going to suddenly turn straight and start having heterosexual relations and gay people can have children therefore making it an completely erroneous argument. Having children is also not nor has it ever been a requirement for marriage.

    @procuradorfiscal
    lots of attacks but still no facts to support them. The research has been done and the research does not support your claims, now once more if you have some research that shows that the professionals are wrong to have then the position they have then please present it. your attacks are poor substitute for facts.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 30, 2012 10:09 a.m.

    To "atl134" it is one thing to disagree, but it is another thing all together to support gay marriage initiatives.

    You said "If it were really so bad to support same-sex marriage then the church would actually make it an issue for things like temple recommends." The LDS church does ask a more general question that people should answer honestly. Church members are asked "Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?" The LDS church as stated quite clearly that marriage is to be between a man and a woman only. How can a member say that they don't sympathize or affiliate them selves with a group that opposes LDS doctrine if they are supporting gay marriage groups?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 30, 2012 11:43 a.m.

    RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT

    RedShirt - why do you seem so prejudiced against Gays and Lesbians?

    Many Gay people have Temple Recommends.
    Like “Liberals” and “Democrats”, many good Latter-Day Saints are Gay.
    The "Law of Chastity" can be obeyed regardless of whether or not you are gay or straight.
    The same rules applies.

    Meanwhile -- The topic is one on a National level and it’s about legal rights.

    The LDS Church has already released statements about not with holding legal rights to GLBT citizens.
    By many seem to cherry-pick or ignore their council when it comes to politics.

    Same with immigration reform.

    I follow the brethren.
    You would be wise to drop your defenses and do so likewise.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    May 30, 2012 12:23 p.m.

    @LDS liberal
    one possible reason put forward by Russell was that "Conventional people are aroused to fury by the departure from convention largely because they regard such departure as a criticism of themselves."

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 30, 2012 12:58 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" You obviously don't understand me, or the LDS Church doctrine do you.

    Gay people are fine, I don't care if a person is gay or not. What I care about is God's will for his children, which means that men marry women and gay marriage is wrong.

    You still have not answered the is how can you support gay marriage and claim to follow the Prophets. Prophets have clearly stated that gay marriage is in direct contradiction to God's will for his children.

    Tell us how you can follow the prophets while going against what they have clearly stated?

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    May 30, 2012 7:17 p.m.

    Don't you have anything else to worry about than other people's private lives?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    May 30, 2012 8:59 p.m.

    @redshirt
    So how is questioning another persons faithfulness in keeping with your prophets that have clearly counseled against doing so?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    May 30, 2012 9:57 p.m.

    Atl134,

    That argument may have been used. I would suppose folks also likely said that gay marriage might be the next to come. Which has proven to be true.

    But who used the argument when is not the issue and does not answer the question I posed.

    Simply put, if love is the only limiter (other than the age of majority), then why can govt. place any limits at all on marriage?

    Conversely, if govt. can set limits, these are essentially moral choices made by society via govt. Not allowing same sex marriage could remain as one of those choices (as it has been since the birth of the nation).

    BTW, if you are attending the Catholic Church I am confused at some of your posts. It is my understanding that Catholicism offers no greater acceptance of same sex marriage than does the LDS Church. Also, are you writing to The Pilot as well as the DN? Just curious.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2012 1:17 p.m.

    Redshirt @ 10:40 a.m. May 29, 2012: "Despite what Gay activists say, the BEST situation for children is to have a mother and father (male and female rolemodels)." [emphasis added]

    The trouble is, marriage policy allows suboptimal families. Even accepting your premise that male/female parents are best for children, the law allows for single parenthood through divorce or chidbearing out of wedlock. Ironically, the DOMA is all about preventing marriages (which would give some kids married parents) from occurring while doing nothing to defend marriage from divorce.

    For the "male/female parents are best" argument to work against same-sex marriage, it is not sufficient to show that male/female is better than male/male or female/female. You have to demonstrate that single parents (of either sex), which the law allows, are better than two same sex parents.

    Where are the citizen initiatives, legislation, and constitutional amendments to eliminate divorce? There aren't any and they would never gain political traction. The great assymmetry between efforts to "defend" marriage by preventing same-sex marriage and efforts to protect marriage from divorce shows that anti-gay animus is the real motivator and children's welfare is secondary.