I was there. And I will be there at the celebration party when all
Americans can marry.
'Poll: New High Of 58 Percent Support Same-Sex Marriage' – By
TOM KLUDT – By Talking Points Memo – 03/18/13 'At a
time when the Supreme Court prepares to take up same-sex marriage and the
Republican Party determines the best approach to the issue going forward, an ABC
News/Washington Post poll released Monday showed a new high-water mark in
support for the right of gay and lesbian couples to tie the knot. The
poll found 58 percent of Americans now believe marriage should be legal for
same-sex couples, while just 36 percent said it should be illegal.' ''Poll: Support for gay marriage up among Catholics'
– By Jillian Rayfield – Salon – 03/08/13
'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By
Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011
"It takes a mom and a dad to create a child, so it takes a mom and a dad to
raise one."Having children is not a requirement for marriage.
Otherwise, infertile and elderly couples should not be allowed to marry either.
I don't know why there is even an issue here. If you
don't support gay marriage, don't get gay married. What gives anybody
else the audacity to think they can tell people who they can (or can't)
Wouldn't it have been great if the organizers of this event called it
"A Celebration of Marriage" rather than of "traditional"
marriage? And invited everyone who loved their partner enough to marry (or want
to marry) them, to participate?Of course they couldn't do that
because they believe only opposite gender marriage is "right."But they shouldn't have been surprised that gay activists turned out.
Because the traditionalists were saying to gays, "You shouldn't get to
have what we have."The comment that got "the loudest
applause" doesn't make sense. Children do *not* have "an
inalienable right to be raised by a mother and father" for the simple reason
that if no mother-and-father are available to raise a child, then by that logic,
the child shouldn't be raised at all.There are countless
stories (you can find some online)_of gays who are raising happy and healthy
kids--some of which kids wouldn't have had any parents at all if not for
them.Children *do* have an inalienable right to be raised by loving
parents. And gays qualify for that every bit as much as straights.
I'd like to make one more comment on "Children have an inalienable
right to be raised by a mother and father."The orthodox rabbi
Shmuley Boteach (who I'm sure many Mormons in Utah know of, and admire)
endorsed gay adoptions, despite what orthodox Judaism teaches.In an
article in the Jerusalem Post (Nov. 27, 2010) called "The Morality of Gay
Adoption," Rabbi Boteach relates how he once interviewed a gay couple on his
radio show. The couple had been fighting their home state of Florida for the
right to adopt a mentally-handicapped African-American boy of five who
they'd been picking up every Sunday for a year from his orphanage.One of the gay men said to Rabbi Boteach, "Nobody wants him. But we want
him."Rabbi Boteach choked up, unable to speak.Rabbi
Boteach's conclusion: "Leaving orphans to drown without love is deeply
immoral, but to stop others from rescuing them is an abomination."You can google the article--it's worth reading.So much for
some people's insistence that a child can, and should, only be raised by a
mother and father.
Good grief, "traditional marriage" supporters! How long do we have to
continue to bear the false claim that prohibition of gay marriage guarantees
that all children will be raised by a mother and a father?
The proponents of so called "traditional marriage" are now harping on
every child's right to a mother and a father. Perhaps they don't see
the hypocrisy in the road they are traveling. If they really do support
traditional marriage then they should be lobbying to make divorce illegal and to
force people into marrying if they have conceived a child out of wedlock. It
seems they are more worried about preventing marriage for people that want to
live chaste, virtuous lives and raise a family just like everyone else.
I was there. It was a celebration of traditional marriage. It was not a
condemnation of gay relationships of any type - I don't believe anybody
even used the word gay or even peripherally referenced them.Recognizing that government has a compelling interest in ensuring children
have a claim on their biological parents for support, and that a man and a woman
are literally the only biologically possible way to create a new, genetically
distinct person, has nothing to do with one's opinion on gay relationships
or religion at all. You can be a committed atheist and recognize that. You can
be a supporter of gay marriage, or even gay yourself, and recognize that
heterosexual marriage is, in fact, different. Many do. And they don't
have to resort to irrelevant and frankly lazy comparisons to race, which clearly
has nothing to do with marriage in the obvious way that gender does.And by the way, I personally support the right of gays to adopt children, for
the same reason I support single-parent adoption: the more we empty orphanages
with loving parents, the better. That doesn't change that children do best
with a mother and father.
Congratulations to the state of Utah!!Just the fact that a
considerable proggressive crowd was able to congregate at this event is a
victory in itself.
oh i watched this on the news. more comical then anything else. the Governor
side stepped support like every other politician does. kids dont need to be
raised with both parents. that is plain foolish talk. Only thing kids need is a
loving environment with a firm set of rules. same sex couples can and do raise
well rounded kids. i know a bunch of kids who are raised by same sex couples.
you know what i would trust them raising my daughter if it came down to it.so if by the logic i have seen on this whole traditional marriage thing.
so a couple who cant conceive should have their marriage annulled because they
cant conceive and raise children? should they do a fertility test when handing
out marriage licenses? so if they failed it. you can say nope cant conceive so
no marriage for you.
Article: "Amelia Summerhays, the 13-year-old... spoke of the
'inalienable rights of children' to be raised by a mother and a
father. 'It takes a mom and a dad to create a child, so it takes a mom and
a dad to raise one,' she said."Ms. Summerhays can be
allowed some latitude for not thinking things through completely due to her
youth, but the other event organizers should have a better grasp of logic. Her
conclusion does not necessarily follow from her premise.If children
really do have an inalienable right to be raised by a mother and a father, then
the gay marriage opponents are barking up the wrong tree. They should be
attacking divorce and pre-/extramarital pregnancy. Yet Prop 8 and Amendment 3
are completely silent about these topics.One one hand, gay marriage
opponents argue marriage is entirely about society promoting procreation and
gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because same-sex couples are incapable
of producing children. On the other hand, they argue that gays shouldn't
be allowed to marry because their children would not have parents of both sexes.
Well, which is it? You can't have it both ways.
I was there, too, as a supporter of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman.The only comment I will make here is to say that is was very disheartening. I
fear that those of us on the side of traditional marriage are in a losing
A real bridal couple walking through the same sex crowd?? LOL!!! You CANT make
this stuff up!!!
Voice of Reason:[I personally support the right of gays to adopt children,
for the same reason I support single-parent adoption: the more we empty
orphanages with loving parents, the better.]How can you support gay
adoption without supporting gay marriage? When you say "loving parents"
you mean more than one. How else does the state recognize dual custody of a
child other than marriage? Does only one parent have custody of the child? How
does that work with insurance coverage and inheritance rights?In
fact, its often more difficult to adopt a child if you're a "single
adult", and if you're found to be in a gay relationship, then it is
near impossible in many areas. State-recognized gay marriage would prevent
discrimination of gay couples from adopting.You can't honestly
support gay adoption by loving parents if you don't support the legal
recognition that would allow them to be parents, otherwise its just 1 adopted
parent and their boyfriend/girlfriend (Even though they may have stayed
together, raised the child/children together, and may even have grand children
now).That is why denying gay marriage is untenable: because of the
Yes, a bridal couple walked through a same sex crowd. Dosen't
that mean we support marriage for everyone? Now, can a gay couple
walk through a court house and actually get married, like that bridal couple? Apparently, not. Meet, the double-standard.
@ Voice of ReasonYou say that the event was a celebration of
traditional marriage. But I say that the clear implication was that gays
shouldn't be allowed to marry.Of course heterosexual marriage
is different from gay marriage, for one very obvious reason. Just as blacks are
different from whites for one very obvious reason. But I would argue that those
differences are surface ones.Go deeper into the person involved, see
what's in their heart, and you'll find that the commonalities between
these "different" groups is much stronger than the differences.I'm totally against "gay" marriage, just as I'm totally
against "interracial" marriage. But I'm completely *for* marriage
between two humans who happen to be gay, and two humans who happen to be of
different races. Because I go deeper than those surface things when I look at
people: again, what's in their heart?I hope you'll also be
able to do that one day.
ImaUteFan:[The only comment I will make here is to say that is was very
disheartening. I fear that those of us on the side of traditional marriage are
in a losing battle.]So you admit it is inevitable. Does that mean
you have no hope for a future in which gay marriage is legal? Or do you still
believe that society will continue, technology will advance, and that people
will continue to make their lives better with their loved ones?Because we're told daily that society will collapse if gay-marriage is
allowed, and this is why it needs to be prevented.People who oppose
gay marriage really need to ask themselves if their predictions of doom and
gloom are based on any reality at all, or, if the Supreme Court goes all the way
and strikes down all laws against gay marriage, do they expect to still be
participating in a functioning society in 20 years, once this "social
experiment" has run its course?There are several
states/countries that have made gay marriage legal. I have yet to see Canada
(2005) or Massachusetts (2004) experience societal collapse.
Marriage is about children? Then allow, marriage.
*’Catholic charities ends Illinois adoption civil unions dispute’
– By Sophia Tareen – AP – Published by the DSNews –
11/15/11 ‘The group had wished to continue its state
contracts, while also referring unmarried couples who want to be adoptive or
foster parents to other agencies, citing principles of religious liberty and
freedom of conscience. The state of Illinois had said that longstanding
practice is discriminatory, a violation of the new law, which allows unmarried
couples — gay or straight — to legally enter into civil
unions.’ **i.e. the catholic ‘charity’ advocated
ONLY for civil unions and THEN cited gay couples were not ‘married’
to deny adoption AFTER they had advocated AGAINST gay marriage!
Just because you dress up a cow and run it in a horse race does not make it a
horse.Who invented marriage? It was not a gay
person.As a married male I think gays should not be allowed to
"marry". Marriage is putting up with a woman who is mad,
happy, sweet, and often times forgiving all in a few minutes.Having
worked with gay men for decades I can tell you it is not even remotely
similar.If they want to be "joined" or "forged" and
have benefits I am fine with that.Being married is much different
and harder (look at divorce courts) and does not truly represent their
lifestyle.They think and act differently, so why try to make them
like the rest of society?In the time of Christopher Columbus the
majority of people thought the earth was flat, it did not change the truth, nor
does opinion change what is right or wrong now.
I love how deseret news made is sound like they kissed in support of traditional
marriage,when IN FACT they weren't there for that cause. We thanked them
for the support, and the groom replied "thank you for being you".
What was absolutely beautiful about the straight couple coming down the steps in
their wedding attire.. was how big of an applause they got... FROM THE GAY
MARRIAGE SUPPORTERS!!!See? We're not trying to destroy your
marriages. We honor them, too. We just want you to honor ours, as we honor
Oh good grief, Doug10. Despite your skewed views of gender and gay men, please
remember that more than half of GLBTs wanting marriage rights are lesbians (i.e.
women). If you look at the demographics of attraction, lesbians have fewer STDs,
less promiscuity (less sex in general), and lower incidences of pedophilia than
your demographic of straight males. Perhaps we should be prohibiting straight
men form getting married....
According to a number of recent studies, two parents have better outcomes with
children than does one parent. The gender of the parents appears to have no
correlation to success in rearing children. In another study, lesbians were
found to have better adjusted children than straights by at least one criterion.
Therefore, a belief that gay families should not have the same benefits and
protections as straight families is not reasonable or kind. If it is, in fact,
based upon animus (dislike of gays), then enshrining that belief into law is
unconstitutional [see Utah's Amendment 3].
I guess traditional marriage isn't "tainted" by abusers and
adulterers? As long as it is between a man and a woman? Maybe that is who should
be called out and not "allowed" to marry.You need a license
to get married, you don't need anyone's "blessing", not even a
deity.Children need a parent who loves them, period. They need
someone who will not abuse them or anyone else in the family. Just because you
have a man and a woman doesn't mean they will be good parents.How can you pick and choose what still applies and what does not in the bible?
Unless you are willing to obey all of the laws of the bible, don't tout
anything as being gospel just because it is "in the bible". I really
doubt that most of you are still going to sell your daughter into slavery, or
kill your brother for planting the wrong crops side by side, or stone someone
for working on the sabbath...How sad your God must really be to see
you treating all of his children thus.
This is a distraction from more important issues. People wanting more rights,
and benefits is getting old.
Marriage is an institution created to encourage the raising of children by their
biological parents. It needs the form of a man/woman union, one that actually
can produce children.If you remove it from its form, it will loose
its meaning and become something else. It is a disruptive process that will have
The point of man/woman marriage laws is to focus marriage on the interest of the
children. If you move away from a basic definition that shows the institution is
focused on children, it no longer becomes about children at all. These are
issues of symbolic teaching with forms. There is no reasonable
purpose served by the government recognizing marriages that lack the form of
creating children. This is about form and not substance. The law draws a basic
form that will create children, and anything within that form can work. Things
that do not fit that basic form will not work.
There are no adequate studies that take into account same-gender parenting that
can be used. I will trust in the word of the prophets of God that the best way
to raise children is by their biological parents.