Quantcast
Opinion

My view: Same-sex marriage is not inevitable

Comments

Return To Article
  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 12:11 a.m.

    " If I am able to convey a message that softens even one heart towards the benefits and blessings of family life"

    Uh... people seeking same-sex marriages ARE looking for the benefits and blessings of family life so get out of the way.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Sept. 3, 2013 1:59 a.m.

    I find it funny that these people are so concerned about the children, but fail to fight causes that have actually been demonstrated to have a negative impact on children: child abuse, poor sex education leading to unwanted pregnancies and single parents, skyrocketing divorce rates, etc. No, they're going to fight gay marriage. If you don't like it, blame the straight parents--they're the ones having all the gay children!

    By the way, it is absolutely an inevitability. An ever-larger portion of the population, especially amongst the youth, have recognized that such discrimination is unconstitutional. While they may not believe it is right, they recognize it is not their place to legislate their beliefs on others.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 6:15 a.m.

    "If I am able to convey a message that softens even one heart towards the benefits and blessings of family life..."

    Ms. Roylance, that is the argument _for_ marriage equality.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 7:21 a.m.

    This is the exact same story that ran five days ago.

    There is no body of evidence that supports heterosexual parents over homosexual parents. There are some studies (the Australian one, for instance) that indicate children raised by same-sex parents actually excel over children raised by heterosexual parents in some areas, are even with them in other areas, and fall behind them in no areas.

    What every study does show is that children do better with committed - preferably married - parents who are involved, regardless of the genders of those parents.

    No one has ever been able to provide a legally acceptable reason for prohibiting same-sex marriage nor for denying children being raised by same-sex parents the benefits of married parents.

    This article was specious on August 29th and, since nothing has changed, it is specious today.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    It's not inevitable but it's a good idea who's time has come. So let's make it inevitable.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    Thinking about same sex marriage I came to the realization that the successes for the same sex crowd are coming at a time in American life when marriage itself is becoming less and less important in general. Ironic that so many opposite sex couples are just forgoing marriage and living together and doing the domestic partnership thing while the same sex crowd is so anxious to get married. What a mixed up country we are living in. Signs of the times I guess.

  • Susan Roylance
    Sept. 3, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    First, let my qualify what I am about to say by acknowledging that a good homosexual parent is usually better than a bad heterosexual parent, married or unmarried. Additionally, a good homosexual parent is undoubtedly better than no parent.

    I know of a young gay man who accepted a boy from an orphanage in the Ukraine (I’m not sure if it was an official U.S. adoption). The orphanage was definitely a bad place for the boy, and his opportunities and care will be much better with a caring parent in America. This young man’s mother has assumed the female role, to help this boy grow up with both a man and a woman in his life, and the opportunity to know a good mother.

    But, both of these examples are exceptions to the better rule, in my opinion. Without going into specific studies, I generally believe children have a greater opportunity to thrive in a home with a married mother and father. It is in society’s best interest to encourage that relationship, because children are our future.

  • Cora Gene Anderson South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 3, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    I have lived a long life and have observed many things, good and bad. What is our goal in life, to make the world a better place for our children or a place where they merely exist? I say unequivocally that both boys and girls are much better off raised in a home with a female nurturing mother and a steadfast worthy masculine father. That is what we really should be working hard to accomplish, not justifying our own selfish desires.

  • Kei ,
    Sept. 3, 2013 9:25 a.m.

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

    While it's true that not every couple has children, every child does have a Mother and a Father. That's how they came to be. Same-sex marriage automatically “divorces” children from one of the natural parents who created them.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 9:25 a.m.

    "Same sex marriage is not inevitable."

    Yes. It is.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Sept. 3, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    The IRS will now accept ss couples with a marriage certificate as married filing jointly. That means Utah faces a real quandary. The ss couple who move from California to Utah will file federal taxes jointly. That means Utah tax authority will have to recognize that status. That is LEGAL recognition, folks. Utah's position on this issue is already a dead letter.

  • amazondoc mid-state, TN
    Sept. 3, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    @Susan Roylance --

    "...children have a greater opportunity to thrive in a home with a married mother and father. ..."

    You can't go into "specific studies", because there ARE no real studies showing that children do better in straight homes than in gay homes. Yes, I'm familiar with Regnerus' "study" -- which was a laughable and obvious attempt to bolster existing biases.

    Every reputable professional group of child-development experts in this country SUPPORTS gay marriage. They support it because they recognize that children grow up just fine in gay-led homes.

    These groups include:

    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
    American Academy of Family Physicians
    American Psychiatric Association
    American Psychological Association
    National Association of Social Workers

    They all SUPPORT gay marriage.

    From the AAP's position statement: “There is an emerging consensus, based on extensive review of the scientific literature, that children growing up in households headed by gay men or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents" and "“ ‘Marriage strengthens families and benefits child development".

    Everyone who thinks children are important should SUPPORT gay marriage. Marriage encourages stable families -- and stable families help children!

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Sept. 3, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    @Kei --
    ,
    "Same-sex marriage has only been legal in the entire world since 2001"

    False..

    -- Gay marriages have been recognized in various societies for thousands of years.

    "decades of research show... "

    False.

    -- Research has shown that children do best in stable homes with two parents. Research has NEVER shown that the genders of those two parents makes a difference.

    "Same-sex marriage automatically “divorces” children...."

    False.

    -- Gay couples are not stealing children from happy heterosexual homes.

    1. Adopting children -- Thousands of children in the US spend years in the foster system, simply because there aren't enough homes available for them. Their parents are already gone. Adoption by gay couples HELPS these children.

    2. Using surrogacy or in vitro fertilization -- These children wouldn't even EXIST without the gay couple, so it's meaningless to claim that they are being stolen from straight homes.

    3. raising children from previous relationships -- The parents of these children were already separated. Once again, there is no happy straight home to go back to.

    4. gay couples raise children with or without marriage. Denying marriage to those couples won't stop them from raising children.

    Marriage encourages stable families. Gay marriage helps children!

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Sept. 3, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    Kei: " On the other hand, decades of research show that children do best with a married Father and Mother in the home."

    That's a faulty conclusion. The studies you are looking at only assumed the possibility of single parent, or mother-father homes. The more recent research has found that the positive advantages laid out in those studies is not because of heterosexuality, but the presence of two parents and a stable home. Gay marriage fulfills both of those requirements.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Sept. 3, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    @Kei:
    "While it's true that not every couple has children, every child does have a Mother and a Father. That's how they came to be. Same-sex marriage automatically “divorces” children from one of the natural parents who created them."

    That is a good point.. Technically, a child living with one parent and the parent's gay partner has probably not been 'taken' by force from the other parent, that child is in a state where he/she has been divorced from a birth parent.

    And I would like to add that blessing a friendship, long-term living relationship, etc between two or more people is all fine and dandy. But people's friendships does not deserve the sanction of the government. The reason for giving marriage between a man and a woman a special status is society's way to state that children should be raised by their father and their mother in a stable household.

    It is a powerful tool to fight poverty.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    @ Susan Roylance: Your beliefs are not valid reasons for making laws. There is not a single fact that supports your opinion - in fact, all the facts indicate that your actions are harmful to children.

    Additionally, as your comment on the story acknowledges in a very backhand way, your column is based on a false dichotomy.

    The choice is not heterosexual parents or homosexual parents. The choice is whether or not children being raised by homosexual parents deserve the same advantages of married parents that children being raised by heterosexual parents have.

    No one has ever presented a reason why children being raised by homosexual parents should not have married parents.
    No one has ever presented a reason why it is better for a child to be raised by a single straight parent than a single gay parent.

    You may claim a concern for children, but your actions belie your words and show what your real priorities are. The fact that you cannot make a reality based case to support both beliefs shows the falsity of your position.

    There are no legally valid reasons to prohibit same-sex marriage and harm children being raised by same-sex parents.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 10:53 a.m.

    Contrary to your view, it is now considered hate speech to say anything adverse towards the GLBT community. Further, the media has taken a very strong anti-Christian stance.

    Those two situations, to me, provide sufficient support to the belief that same-sex marriage is inevitable. The good, but easily swayed people of Utah will soon embrace and endorse it as well. Even the LDS Church's leadership has shown weak knees on the issue of special rights and privileges for the GLBT community. As I said before, the day is coming when the gay lifestyle will be endorsed by the people of Utah.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    @ MapleDon: Contrary to your statement, the media - this paper and many others included - very frequently have pro-Christian articles and still have a very strong public following. Additionally, I noticed that your comment was posted even though hate speech is disallowed by the rules of this paper.

    Nothing in your statement resembles reality.

    And the fact that posters such as yourself have to result to blatant misrepresentation of the facts is the number one reason why equal right for LGBT individuals are inevitable - no one can give a logical, valid, factually correct reason why they shouldn't.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Sept. 3, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    @Tekaka --

    "The reason for giving marriage between a man and a woman a special status is society's way to state that children should be raised by their father and their mother in a stable household. "

    If this were true, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry.

    If this were true, then couples who chose not to have children would not be allowed to marry.

    Neither of those things happens.

    Guess why.

    "It is a powerful tool to fight poverty."

    Marriage is a powerful tool to fight poverty. I agree. And that principle applies to gay marriages just as much as it does to straight marriages.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 3, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    re:SusanRoylance
    " I generally believe children have a greater opportunity to thrive in a home with a married mother and father. It is in society’s best interest to encourage that relationship, because children are our future.

    Great.

    Let's start with reducing/preventing unplanned pregnancies through education and contraceptives. Can we agree on that?

    Secondly, what to do with the 400,000 children growing up in foster care temporarily or permanently--some of whom age out of the system? There are many young people in the foster care system because they self-identify as LGBT.

    I would like to see conservatives launch major initiatives toward these problems.

  • dianeect north salt lake, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    I agree, same sex marriage is only as inevitable as we make it. Nothing happens by magic and everyone has a choice in this matter.

    As far as parenting goes, children do best with their married mother and father. A marriage certificate will not change this fact for children living with homosexual couples. The biological father committed in his marriage to the mother of his children adds layer of protection to a child that no other child in any other situation will have. I had not had my first baby very long before I understood the importance of her father. She was happier with him there and I was a better mother because of him.

    A piece of paper issued to a same sex couple as well as a jointly filed tax return will not magically change this fact. Children need their mother and their father married and supporting one another. They do not need their father and his boyfriend married or their mother and her girlfriend married. Gay marriage will not change what a child needs.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    Roylance, clarifying: "...I generally believe children have a GREATER opportunity to thrive in a home with a married mother and father. It is in society’s best interest to encourage that relationship, because children are our future." [emphasis added]

    Ms. Roylance and others, arguing here and in other forums, defend traditional hetero marriages as providing a better or even optimum environment for raising children. That may be true, but optimality fails as a public policy argument against gay marriage. Family and marriage law allows for many suboptimal family and child rearing arrangements. It is legal for unmarried or divorced people to have children for incarcerated people, mentally challenged people, drug abusers, homeless people, and many other categories of people to have children. Unless you can demonstrate that same sex couples produce poorer outcomes for children than all of these other legal family structures, then you really can't argue optimality with a straight face.

    If traditional marriage advocates who claim their stance "is for the children" could demonstrate that they have spent a fraction of the time and money spent on Prop 8 and Amendment 3 fighting to repeal divorce, they might have a shred of credibility.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    Sept. 3, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    @dianeect:
    "Gay marriage will not change what a child needs."

    Gay marriages will adversely effect children in the relationship.

    Not that the arrangement is harmful. It's factors outside the marriage. It's not complicated but it is inevitable. Kids at school... kids in the neighborhood finding that a child has two fathers or two mothers at home will inevitably tease, bully, and shun. Hetero parents will talk disparagingly about same sex arrangements in the neighborhood. And children will pick up on it. It will happen and there's little or nothing that can be done about it.

    The legality of gay marriage will have little or no effect on this situation. And since gay marriages will not be the norm and will be far and few between it will never become fully accepted as a lifestyle and thus, always ridiculed. Hence, the child in the gay marriage home will be permanently and irrevocably damaged.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 1:49 p.m.

    @Susan Roylance;

    You should be encouraging STABLE relationships, regardless of the genders involved. THAT is what is best for the children in those families. And they ARE families, even when they don't conform to what you believe is the optimal family.

    @Cora Gene Anderson;

    I don't suppose you were 'justifying your own selfish desires' when you married your spouse, were you?

    @Kei;

    Your comment about the decades of research was a lie last week when you made it and it is still a lie today. Additonally, as was pointed out to you, same-sex marriages have also been around for millenia; you can google it if you don't believe me. Didn't your god command you "Thou shalt not bear false witness"?

    @Tekakaromatagi;

    For your information, same-sex couples are much more than simply "friends".

    @MapleDon;

    Another poor picked on Christianity comment.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Sept. 3, 2013 2:20 p.m.

    @wrz --

    "The legality of gay marriage will have little or no effect on this situation."

    That's the essential sentence right there. You say that the legality of gay marriage will have LITTLE TO NO EFFECT on school bullying. Therefore, this is no reason to prevent gay marriage.

    School bullying will be conquered by conquering widespread institutionalized homophobia. Gay marriage is one step in that battle, but it's only one step. Just as interracial marriages used to be unthinkable, gay marriages and the children of those marriages will come to be accepted with time. Then we'll all look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Sept. 3, 2013 2:22 p.m.

    wrz,

    So are you saying that because ignorant people will pick on a kid for being different, his or her family structure shouldn't be allowed. What if a kid will be picked on for being Mormon. Should we not let people be Mormon because we're worried about the kid?

    I also contest the notion that legality won't change anything. The acceptance of bi-racial couples was greatly improved by the legalization of their marriages.

  • UTAH Bill Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 3:23 p.m.

    Same sex marriage efforts ARE pro-family. If a gay or lesbian couple have children, isn't it better for all of them if the parents are married?

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 5:18 p.m.

    This discussion often seems to be framed as a choice between either homosexual marriage or heterosexual marriage. Strictly one or the other without any middle ground. But I am for both. I'm straight. Legalizing gay marriage will not entice me to leave my hetero marriage. Nor will it weaken my hetero marriage. Likewise, I have a gay nephew. He will never ever have a hetero marriage. If we stop him from having a gay marriage, then he will simply have no marriage at all. So my supporting gay marriage strengthens society as a whole because it encourages my gay nephew to be married and have that committed, long-term relationship that we try to encourage in everyone.

    Pro gay marriage is not anti hetero marriage. It is strictly pro marriage. It doesn't harm or weaken mine or my neighbor's hetero marriage. The same societal benefits realized by encouraging hetero marriages and marriage commitments will also be realized from gay marriages.

    And most important of all, equality is just the right thing to do. It's our country's single most important founding principal.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    The big argument is if gender matters to the raising of kids. There is no question that gender matters to get the kids here. I think we can all agree with that. Where many of us differ is many of us believe that gender is STILL critical to the growth and development of a child. Nature works with complimentary parts. The biggest proof is it takes male and female to make more people. Not only are our bodies comlimentary but so are our natures. A mom and a mom or a dad and a dad is like walking with two left feet. One can get on better than one foot or none, but a left and a right are a much more stable combination.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    Sept. 3, 2013 6:48 p.m.

    @Contrariuser:
    "You say that the legality of gay marriage will have LITTLE TO NO EFFECT on school bullying."

    That's not what I said. I said children living with gay parents will be adversely effected. Chided and shunned by other children... on play grounds, in their neighborhoods at home... because they have two moms or two dads and not the traditional mom/dad as parents.

    "Therefore, this is no reason to prevent gay marriage."

    It certainly should give cause to think twice about asserting that kids in a gay marriage household will not be adversely effected. Why do you think gay kids find it difficult to 'come out?'

    "School bullying will be conquered by conquering widespread institutionalized homophobia."

    Never happen. Gay marriage is so rare and so indecent to contemplate that acceptance will never be the norm.

    @OHBU:
    "So are you saying that because ignorant people will pick on a kid for being different..."

    It's not the kid that's different. It's the family structure.

    And kids picking on other kids for little or no reason.

    "What if a kid will be picked on for being Mormon."

    They have been and are still.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 9:03 p.m.

    @jeanie;

    We can produce human beings in a test tube. We can clone them if we want to. We actually do NOT require your paradigm in order to continue the species at this point in our history.

    @wrz;

    What difference is having their gay parents actually married for kids in these families versus having them not married? They're still going to have two dads or two moms in either case. Having their parents married gives them legal protections that they otherwise wouldn't have. Bullies will be bullies in either event.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 9:41 p.m.

    @ wrz: Read some social history. Your comments are the exact same comments used against interracial marriage. They are the exact same comments used to discourage divorce. They are the exact same comments used against school integration.

    I find it very sad that you have such a negative view of the human race that you do not think children being raised by same-sex parents can be treated well by other members of society.

    In your response to OBHU you stated that you believe some children are being picked on for being Mormon. Using your reasoning of prohibiting things that give children an excuse to behave badly, are you suggesting Mormonism should be banned?

    Either your viewpoint is very extreme - banning everything that makes children different and may lead to them being bullied - or your viewpoint is indefensible - ban things you don't like on the lame excuse that some children have been taught to be bigots and don't know how to properly treat those who are different from them.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 10:45 p.m.

    Ranch -
    What is combined in a test tube? Something from the female and something from the male. I don't know of any cloned children running around. My paradigm stands. Gender matters when it comes to kids.

  • UT Brit London, England
    Sept. 4, 2013 1:55 a.m.

    @wrz

    Spencer W Kimball

    "When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children."

    So I guess you are also campaigning to stop interracial marriages as well?

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Sept. 4, 2013 7:21 a.m.

    @wrz --

    "That's not what I said."

    I quoted your words exactly. I can't help it if you don't like their implication.

    "children living with gay parents will be adversely effected. "

    Puhleez.

    Children with fat parents get bullied. Children with foreign parents get bullied. Children with Republican parents get bullied. Are we going to deny marriage to fat people, foreign people, and Republicans??

    @Jeanie --

    You said: "gender is STILL critical to the growth and development of a child."

    Your belief is simply not true. It has already been disproven. Children grow up just fine in gay-led households -- thousands have done so already. Gender wasn't "critical" to their growth or development.

    Would opposite-gender parents be **helpful** in their development? Maybe, maybe not. But we don't limit marriages based on what might or might not be "helpful". We don't deny marriages to uneducated parents, or poor parents, or convicts, or alcoholics.

    You get the picture.

    All the evidence indicates that children grow up just fine in gay-led homes. But even if there WERE some nebulous benefit to opposite-gender parents, that isn't a sufficient reason for denying gay marriage.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    Contrarius -

    We have discussed this before. We are just not going to agree on this.

    There has not been enough time to confidently determine the long term effects of same gender parents on a child's development. There have been too many studies done on a number of topics that, given enough time, have been found to be inaccurate. However, there are ample studies over many years showing the negative effects of children who grow up without a father's influence. Even the physical make up of our bodies speak to the importance of gender. The male body cannot carry or nourish an infant. Females bodies cannot become pregnant without a contribution from a male.

    Marriage was not about two people who love each other and want to show their commitment. Marriage was constructed for the beginning of families, for the protection of children. That has been society's standard. That there are childless couples or heterosexual couples that don't want kids we all know. I am discussing the standard, not the exceptions.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    jeanie says:

    "There has not been enough time to confidently determine the long term effects of same gender parents on a child's development."

    --- Are you completely unaware that same-gender couples have been raising children for decades? Good grief.

    "Marriage was constructed for the beginning of families"

    --- Even discussing "exceptions" you're going to HAVE to deny marriage to infertile and aged heterosexual couples incapable of having children if you're going to deny marriage to gay couples because they "can't" have children (btw, we CAN if we want to through various means). BTW, if marriage creates the formation of a family for a straight couple, it'll do the same thing for a gay couple.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    @ jeannie: Actually, if you want to go by the traditional meaning of things, marriage has never been about anything other than property rights. Serf, peasant, lord, king - whatever. As soon as a man married he owned everything that ever may have been considered his wife's, including the dowry and any children born to the couple. Ownership of girl children was transferred when they married. Children were property - they were for working on the farm or at the bakery or being seamstresses or joining the Church. They were bartered to increase land holdings or to ensure peace.

    Marriage has only been about family in the modern meaning of the word for less than 300 years - and even then it started out as a wealthy European thing. In some areas of the world it still doesn't mean what we want it to mean.

    As for what is needed to make a baby - scientist have recently turned skin cells into egg cells and sperm cells regardless of the gender of the donor. In other words, not only do you not need two sexes to make a baby - you don't even really need two people any more.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Sept. 4, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    @jeanie --

    "There has not been enough time to confidently determine the long term effects..."

    Again -- We already KNOW that children can grow up just fine with gay parents. We've seen it already. What you're talking about -- possible long term effects -- are possible **smaller** differences. We've already seen that there are no huge differences. If the differences were huge, they would have been noticed already.

    And, again, we don't deny marriages based on possible small differences.

    "However, there are ample studies over many years showing the negative effects of children who grow up without a father's influence. "

    That's not quite true.

    What "ample studies" have proven is that children grow up much better when they have two parents. So far as I'm aware, NO good studies have shown differences due to the genders of those two parents.

    "That there are childless couples or heterosexual couples that don't want kids we all know. I am discussing the standard, not the exceptions."

    Gay parenting will ALWAYS be one of the exceptions. Remember, only around 5% of the population is gay. More than 90% of parents will always be straight, whether gay marriage is legalized or not.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    jeanie: "That there are childless couples or heterosexual couples that don't want kids we all know. I am discussing the standard, not the exceptions."

    Yes, but it is the exceptions that matter. Creating a positive environment for the production and nurturing of children is a significant, possibly the overriding, public policy goal of marriage law. However, it is not the ONLY policy goal. There is room within family policy and marriage as a social institution for other purposes. As you note, there are childless straight couples. If encouraging procreation was the only objective of marriage law, there would be fertility tests as a requirement for marriage and extramarital pregnancies would be prosecuted. Did you know that Utah law requires certain couples to be certifiably nonreproductive as a mandatory precondition to marrying? Clearly even the traditional values-oriented, predominantly LDS and GOP Utah legislature doesn't buy your argument that marriage is ONLY about producing children. There is room within marriage as a social institution and within family law for other policy goals, such as encouraging stable, loving relationships without children.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 4, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    "I’m not so different from any of your children. My family really isn’t so different from yours..The sense of family comes the commitment we make to each other to work through the hard times.. It comes from the love that binds us. That’s what makes a family.

    So what you’re voting for here is not to change us..it’s to change how the law views us, how the law treats us. You are voting for the first time in the history of our state to codify discrimination into our constitution.. You are telling Iowans, “Some among you are second-class citizens who do not have the right to marry the person you love.” In the next two hours, I’m sure we’re going to hear a lot of testimony about how damaging having gay parents is on kids. But not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple. And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero impact on the content of my character.”
    (Zach Wahls)

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Sept. 4, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    @Contrarius:

    The reason for giving marriage between a man and a woman a special status is society's way to state that children should be raised by their father and their mother in a stable household.

    "If this were true, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. If this were true, then couples who chose not to have children would not be allowed to marry."

    Fertility is not obvious. It is likely that most infertile couples don't know it and may not know it for years. Some couples who think that they are infertile find out that they are when the wife becomes pregnant. On the other hand, if there is a non-procreative couple or group, two men rooming together, two sisters, whatever. It is obvious that they will never conceive and bear a child.

    So we would not call that arrangement a marriage. Because it is obviously non-procreative.

    (If I am mistaken, please explain how two men or two women could conceive and bear a child.)

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Sept. 4, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi --

    "Fertility is not obvious."

    Fertility is very obvious in a 70 year old woman -- yet we allow them to marry.

    "if there is a non-procreative couple or group, two men rooming together, two sisters, whatever. It is obvious that they will never conceive and bear a child."

    Many "non-procreative" couples are ALREADY raising biologically-related children, with or without marriage.

    "So we would not call that arrangement a marriage. Because it is obviously non-procreative."

    Many marriages are "obviously" non-procreative. Refer back to that 70 year old woman.

    In fact, some marriages MUST be non-procreative in order to be legal.

    Refer to Utah Code Title 30 Chapter 1 Section 1 --

    " (2) First cousins may marry under the following circumstances:
    (a) both parties are 65 years of age or older; or
    (b) if both parties are 55 years of age or older, upon a finding by the district court, located in the district in which either party resides, that either party is unable to reproduce."

    Utah acknowledges that these non-procreative unions are marriages. Your argument fails.

  • John Robertson North Salt Lake, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    The only inevitability is that, in the end, goodness and morality will triumph over evil, including triumphing over the current moral plague of homosexuality. How far the moral desolation will spread is impossible to say, but it is only a fulfillment of the prophecies of that same Christianity it despises. And by those same scriptures we know it is inevitable that the same God that instituted marriage between man and woman will win, whatever victories the opposition claims between here and their utter defeat.

    We must do our part to oppose the desecration of marriage. Marriage was instituted by God with Adam and Eve as a relationship between a man and a woman. We must protect the innocence of little children that homosexuals would adopt into their homes and render as their own children before the law.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    Contrarius- You are assuming if there are differences they will be small and then base your conclusion on what you can't know. Again, not enough time has passed.

    Many studies have been done on the importance of strong male role models and absent dads and their effects on kids, not merely an absent second parent. Again, a woman cannot replace a man. A man cannot replace a woman.

    Ranch - Yes, I know kids have been raised by homosexual couples for years just as they have been raised in many other configurations.

    Maudine - a human being has not been produced by these skin cell alterations and should one be, it would still take two different types of cells which supports my belief that nature functions best when complimentary components come together.

    As an aside, many people buy genetically non altered, organic, pesticide free, antibiotic free food because studies have shown that food in its most natural state is the most healthy. Why would we want to create people any other way?

    I doubt I will win over those with strong differing opinions, but there are other ways to frame the question of gay marriage that need to be explored.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    Tekaka...: "(If I am mistaken, please explain how two men or two women could conceive and bear a child.)"

    The same way that infertile straight couples bear children: IVF, sperm donation, surrogacy, etc. I can't vouch for the technique MAudine cites in her 8:39 comment, but parthenogenesis may not be that far away.

    Contrarius has adequately rebutted the rest of your 8:59 post. I would add that the legislative history behind the passage (in 1996-- I believe some who voted for it are still serving in the legislature) of the section of the Utah Code that allowed first cousins to marry mirrors that of the gay marriage issue today. First cousin couples were faced with a patchwork of state laws that allowed or prevented them from marrying. They argued that traveling to a state where they could marry legally imposed an undue hardship on them. They argued that they had loving, committed, stable relationships on a par with marriage that merited official recognition by the state. Sound familiar? The state came through for them and gave them full legal recognition as married people (no civil unions for them). How are gays any different?

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    Sept. 4, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    @Ranch:
    "What difference is having their gay parents actually married for kids in these families versus having them not married?"

    No difference whether married or not. Marriage is merely a piece of gilded paper in a book of remembrance. Nothing more in the situation under discussion.

    Married or not is not the point. The point is... kids from homes with two moms or two dads will be harassed by other kids with a mom and a dad.

    Say your kid wanted another kid in the neighborhood from a same-sex family over to play after school. Would you countenance it? I don't think so. The kid would then soon think... 'Nobody likes me... there must be something wrong with me.' Hence, damage from a same-sex situation.

    Or, would you let your daughter sleepover with a girl friend in a two-mom family home? I doubt it. You can't trust what situations your daughter might encounter.

    "Having their parents married gives them legal protections that they otherwise wouldn't have."

    We're not talking abut legal protections. We're talking about peer damage from rejection and ostracizing of kids from same-sex homes.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 2:21 p.m.

    @wrz;

    You point out the bigotry of parents not allowing their children to play with the child of a gay couple (thereby teaching them that bigotry is okay) and then turn around and blame it on the gay couple. Sigh. You don't see how twisted that is?

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Sept. 4, 2013 3:12 p.m.

    @wrz --

    "kids from homes with two moms or two dads will be harassed by other kids with a mom and a dad."

    And kids with fat parents will be harassed by other kids with skinny parents. And kids with Republican parents will be harassed by other kids with Democratic parents.

    So what?

    "Would you countenance it? I don't think so."

    Why not??

    I wouldn't have any qualms about having kids over just because they have gay parents -- or about sending my kids over to sleep at a home with gay parents. They are just as trustworthy than any parents, gay or straight.

    "You can't trust what situations your daughter might encounter."

    Why not? My children would be no more likely to encounter anything objectionable at a gay home than they would at a straight home.

    "We're talking about peer damage from rejection and ostracizing of kids from same-sex homes."

    If you apply the same standards to kids with fat or Republican or Baptist or interracial or French parents, THEN you might have a point. Until then, you have no point at all.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Sept. 4, 2013 5:10 p.m.

    @wrz --

    "Would you encourage your daughter...to marry interracially? "

    Why not?

    I see interracial couples every time I go to town -- and I live in a small town, not the "big city". What's the big deal?

    "Would you countenance a blonde daughter dating an African American football star?"

    I'd have more qualms about the "football star" part than about the "African American" part.

    " Children are ostracized for a variety of reasons...."

    Right. Yet you don't outlaw divorce or single parenting because of it.

    "contradicting the contention that same-sex marriage does not harm children."

    It isn't same-sex marriage that's causing that bullying -- it's homophobia.

    Stop trying to blame the victim. Put the blame where it belongs -- on prejudice.

    @jeanie --

    "You are assuming ... "

    No.

    I am recognizing the fact that large differences are easy to notice. Many kids from gay-led homes have already been studied. If there were large differences, they would have been seen already.

    "Many studies have been done..."

    No.

    Many studies have shown the importance of having two parents. Studies have NOT shown that the genders matter. if you believe otherwise, please cite the studies you have in mind.

  • John Howard Medford, MA
    Sept. 4, 2013 7:27 p.m.

    Maudine, that's true that eggs and sperm can now be made from stem cells and that people might be able to reproduce with someone of the same sex using them. But there is no right to reproduce with someone of the same sex, and attempting it would be unethical and bad public policy to allow. We should prohibit creating a human being by any method other than joining a sperm of a man and an egg of a woman. Marriage should only be for couples that we approve and allow to procreate offspring, we should never allow marriage to a couple that doesn't have a right to procreate, such as siblings and same-sex couples.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 9:21 p.m.

    @John Howard;

    That flies in the face of the Constitution, not to mention the outright bigotry of your position.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Sept. 4, 2013 9:38 p.m.

    @Contrarius:

    "Refer to Utah Code Title 30 Chapter 1 Section 1 --

    " (2) First cousins may marry under the following circumstances:
    (a) both parties are 65 years of age or older; or
    (b) if both parties are 55 years of age or older, upon a finding by the district court, located in the district in which either party resides, that either party is unable to reproduce."

    Utah acknowledges that these non-procreative unions are marriages. Your argument fails."

    Wow! It took you 15 minutes to respond with this obscure clause from the Utah Code Title 30. Whoever prepared your talking points did a really good job!

    Marriage is intended to be a life long commitment. One could reasonably assume that an elderly male-female couple could have been married when they were 20 and were fertile.

    The examples that you state of an elderly infertile male-female couple is not obviously non-procreaive. A male-male or a female-female couple are obviously non-procreative. (Unless you can explain otherwise how they could conceive and gestate a child.)
    Your argument fails.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Sept. 4, 2013 10:12 p.m.

    "Your argument fails."

    No, it doesn't. ;-)

    Both state and US law allows non-procreative couples to marry all the time. And in some cases marriages are legal ONLY when they are non-procreative.

    Therefore, you can't use a procreative criterion to deny gays the right to marry.

    This point was even brought up by FOUR of the SCOTUS justices during the Prop 8 hearing.

    Breyer -- "there are lots of people who get married who can't have children."

    Kagan -- "suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?"

    Scalia -- "I suppose we could have a questionnaire at the marriage desk when people come in to get the marriage -- you know, Are you fertile or are you not fertile?" "I suspect this Court would hold that to be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy..."

    Ginsburg -- "...we said somebody who is locked up in prison and who is not to get out has a right to marry, has a fundamental right to marry, no possibility of procreation."

  • John Howard Medford, MA
    Sept. 5, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    Obviously procreation isn't a requirement, but it must be ALLOWED. It is a RIGHT of marriage, the essential right, the central meaning - to be allowed and approved to procreate. There is no right to procreate with someone of the same sex or as the other sex. Same sex couples are like siblings - it doesn't matter if they are fertile, we don't approve of them procreating together and don't allow it. We should prohibit creating people by any method other than joining a man's unmodified sperm and a woman's unmodified egg, because that is the only way to stop eugenics and preserve equality.

  • John Howard Medford, MA
    Sept. 5, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    Tekaka...: "(If I am mistaken, please explain how two men or two women could conceive and bear a child.)"

    Lagomorp ....: "The same way that infertile straight couples bear children: IVF, sperm donation, surrogacy, etc. I can't vouch for the technique Maudine cites in her 8:39 comment, but parthenogenesis may not be that far away."

    Using sperm donation is not a right of marriage, in fact it is adultery and should not be allowed at all. Actually combining gametes to make offspring together is a right of marriage. The techique Maudine cites using stem cells is what we are talking about, the question of whether to allow same-sex marriage is the same as whether to allow use of stem cells or some other technique to make offspring together. It is currently legal, there is no law against it, but there should be, because it is unnecessary and not a right, and would be bad public policy, lead to eugenics, harm children, cost money, etc.

  • jcobabe Provo, UT
    Sept. 5, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    There is nothing wrong with redirecting efforts to implement social change. Lots of bad things are "inevitable", but we resist them anyway. It is inevitable that our sun will eventually become a red giant and destroy our solar system - but just because it is seen as "inevitable" doesn't seem to make it something we should welcome.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 5, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    @John Howard

    "Obviously procreation isn't a requirement, but it must be ALLOWED. It is a RIGHT of marriage, ..."

    - Marriage isn't necessary to procreate. Never has been, never will be.

    "... we don't approve of them procreating together and don't allow it. "

    - Your approval is irrelevant and not necessary. You have no right to allow/deny other people the right to live THEIR lives as THEY see fit. The common phrase MYOB comes to mind.

    @jcobabe;

    Lots of bad things are inevitable: religious bigotry. You are correct, we shouldn't "welcome it".

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Sept. 5, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    The abolition of slavery was inevitable but it took a civil war to bring it to pass. Not a judge or a ballot box. Events through history always have a way of repeating themselves. The victor decides the law.

  • John Howard Medford, MA
    Sept. 5, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    RanchHand and everyone, please don't waste our time. There are two points I'm making that are important and that you haven't address at all: One is that people do not have a right to attempt to reproduce with someone of the same sex, people only have a right to reproduce with someone of the other sex. That's one. Two is that marriage is only for couples that have a right to reproduce and it affirms and officially approves and allows the couple to reproduce offspring together and must not be changed by being given to couples that are prohibited or do not have the right to reproduce, like siblings.

    Society certainly not only has the right but the obligation to prohibit creating offspring of two people of the same sex.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Sept. 5, 2013 12:52 p.m.

    @John Howard;

    Please do not waste our time. We can see bigotry when it is staring us in the face.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Sept. 5, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    So what do female same sex partners who have a child from a sperm donor tell their child when he or she is old enough to ask “Who is my daddy” And later when they are old enough to comprehend that information they will probably spend years in therapy before they can accept they are different from most of their friends. And what happens when they cannot accept it and later despise their parents. Why would anyone want a child to go through that. Like the progressive saying goes: “Think of the children”

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 5, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    @jeanie and anyone else doing the two parent argument
    The state of Utah allows single people to adopt. Nobody has had an issue with this being the case (not even the Eagle Forum amazingly). But apparently we should prevent situations where kids have two parents of the same gender. There's just no logic here. If you really wanted to pursue this argument you'd oppose adoption by single people but you don't, so you're just hypocrites.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 5, 2013 1:24 p.m.

    @John Howard
    "One is that people do not have a right to attempt to reproduce with someone of the same sex"

    Actually they do. There's no laws against same-sex sex (at least none that can be enforced after Lawrence v Texas). Obviously they're not going to succeed in making a kid that way but they can try.

    ". Two is that marriage is only for couples that have a right to reproduce"

    That's false.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Sept. 5, 2013 3:10 p.m.

    @zoar63 --

    "So what do female same sex partners who have a child from a sperm donor tell their child when he or she is old enough to ask “Who is my daddy” "

    The same thing that any other infertile couple or single woman who choose a sperm donor would tell their kid.

    "And what happens when they cannot accept it and later despise their parents. "

    What happens when kids can't accept that they are adopted and despise their parents? What happens when kids can't accept that their parents are Republican? What happens when kids can't accept that their parents are uneducated? What happens when kids can't accept that their parents are divorced?

    Every child has some issue to deal with. They deal.

    @John Howard --

    Wow. Just.....wow.

    You appear to be inventing a whole raft of "rights" and restrictions that don't appear anywhere in the Constitution, in established Constitutional law, or in any state or Federal statutes. You keep right on believing in them if you like, but don't expect anyone else to take them seriously.

  • ConservativeCommonTater West Valley City, UT
    Sept. 6, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    all of the sources quoted or cited appear to be religious based organizations. I really don't care what religious people believe, no matter how absurd or bigoted their beliefs.

    But, when religious groups try to usurp the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, I think they are becoming traitors to the country.

    Those people have "Freedom of Religion." The country is guaranteed "Freedom FROM Religion."

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Sept. 6, 2013 1:37 p.m.

    It is very interesting to watch the progression of the debate.

    Step 1: Those opposed to same-sex marriage state something they believe to be a fact.
    Step 2: Those who favor same-sex marriage post the data proving what the opponents posted in step 1 is not a fact.
    Step 3: Steps 1 and 2 are repeated.
    Step 4: Opponents of same-sex marriage run out of false facts to post and start posting highly bigoted opinions showing that their opposition of same-sex marriage is based on animus and bigotry because there is no other reason to oppose same-sex marriage.
    Step 5: Proponents of same-sex marriage attempt to point out that the arguments are bigotry.
    Step 6: Steps 4 and 5 are repeated until the claims of the opponents get so out there that the proponents realize they possess no logic or reason and responses are wasted.

    It takes fewer and fewer comments to reach step 4 and fewer and fewer comments to reach step 6.

    Opponents of same-sex marriage are losing the war because they have no weapons with which to fight.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 6, 2013 3:27 p.m.

    @Maudine
    Wonderful and very astute comment. I wish I could like it more than once.

  • OZman812 Corydon, IN
    Sept. 7, 2013 12:12 a.m.

    I find it interesting that with religious child abuse and child abuse in general going on, in most cases, by straight parents, that these people are against gay marriage and gay parents.

    It seems to me that gay parents are in general better parents that straight ones. I know that gay parents have to work harder to have children, unless they have them before coming out.

    The ridicules idea that a gay marriage would hurt my marriage is laughable. What gay marriage and gay rights do allow is for closeted men and women to come out and stop hiding. It allows people to be themselves, and allows them to possibly contribute more to their communities and churches, etc.

    It is way past time to stop being homophobic, closeted, hateful people, and allow love to shine on everyone!

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 7, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    it is fascinating that the DN will allow Maudine to compare gay marriage to interracial marriage, despite the fact that such allegations are demonstrably false - but continues to censor anyone who calls out such inflammatory rhetoric

    The DN moderators clearly censor based upon ideology rather than "civility" since Maudines allegation that all gay marriage opponents are racists, is morally comparable to claiming all homosexuals a pedophiles - a statement that is clearly HATE based.

    By censoring the rejection of such HATE, the DN de facto endorses it.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Sept. 7, 2013 2:38 p.m.

    @Counter Intelligence --

    "it is fascinating that the DN will allow Maudine to compare gay marriage to interracial marriage, despite the fact that such allegations are demonstrably false"

    What in the world are you talking about?

    Even the SCOTUS justices compared gay marriage to interracial marriage during the Prop 8/DOMA hearings.

    What is inflammatory about it?

    And just whereintheheck did Maudine say that all gay marriage opponents are racist??

  • @Charles not from utah, 00
    Sept. 7, 2013 4:26 p.m.

    Again, Let's be clear folks: Homosexuality is not, nor will it ever be, equal to heterosexuality. 2 mommies or 2 daddies is not equal to a mother and a father. Nature tells us this. It's incredible that so many put away commonsense when it comes to homosexuality.

    And the arrogance of the homosexual crowd to claim that someone who disagrees with your lifestyle choice is a bigot or is using hate speech. I will always stand on the side of truth and eternal principles, not the clearly false teachings of the world regarding homosexuality.

    Homosexuality as marriage is just pretend. Just keeping it real folks.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Sept. 8, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    @Charles --

    "Again, Let's be clear folks: Homosexuality is not, nor will it ever be, equal to heterosexuality."

    Sez you.

    Homosexuality is not the SAME as heterosexuality. That doesn't make it "unequal to", or "less than".

    Remember that phrase, "All men are created equal"??

    It doesn't mean that everyone is identical. It doesn't mean that everyone has the same capabilities.

    It DOES mean that everyone deserves equal treatment under the law.

    And remember -- this isn't a theocracy. Your religion does not determine our country's laws, nor its Constitution.

  • artbetty Provo, UT
    Sept. 9, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    No one has a civil right to deny a child a relationship with their mother or father. In all 50 states people are free to live and love as they choose, but they are not free to limit the biological rights of children to have and know their mother and father. Why are adult relationships more important than children's?

    Mary Summerhays

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Sept. 9, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    @artbetty --

    "No one has a civil right to deny a child a relationship with their mother or father."

    Gay marriage has NO effect on the rights of children to have relationships with biological parents.

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

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

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

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

    5. gay couples are already raising with or without marriage -- they don't need marriage to raise children. Denying marriage to these couples won't magically send those children to happy heterosexual homes.

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