Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Civil unions

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 12:16 a.m.

    No objection my foot. You wanted all or nothing; you got nothing. It's too late for the civil union idea.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:23 a.m.

    'Traditional marriage provides a father and mother and children born to that relationship.'

    Simply put…

    No, it does not.

    Octo-mom, x8 children, no husband.

    John and Kate, plus 8. Eight children, now in a divorced family.

    As for actual children raised in a SSM marriage…

    "In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents."

    - AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)
    - 'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10

    Now, with those false hoods out of the way, about the legal rights denied to LGBT in America that can be 'solved' by civil unions?

    *'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09

    '...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'

    And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Direct, Power of attorny and emergency contact information...

    Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond.

    They were together for 18 years.

    Why fight for Civil unions, when the do nothing?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:24 a.m.

    Separate but equal is inherently unequal. Besides, if you all really wanted to go with civil unions you should've voted down Amendment 3 because it bans those too.

  • WestGranger West Valley City, Utah
    Dec. 28, 2013 4:29 a.m.

    Well said. The normal legislative process should be required always. There are no excuses for side-stepping the process that doesn't amount to either lawlessness or outright fascism.

  • Robert Johnson Sunland, CA
    Dec. 28, 2013 5:58 a.m.

    Sorry, but "separate but egual" is not equal nor Constitutional. Funny how many of those who support "civil unions" today are those who fought adamantly against them until marriage equality became a real reality. All of a sudden they are crying "Why aren't civil unions enough". Sorry...but gay men and women are not going to settle for table scraps any more. We've been invited to join the table and we are going to take our righteous seat.

  • Jim Holmes Ventura, CA
    Dec. 28, 2013 6:50 a.m.

    All the whining sounds and looks just like George Wallace and those who fought against equal rights for blacks in the 50's and 60's. It was bigotry then and it is now.
    You should be ashamed of yourselves.
    My marriage is not threatened if gays marry.
    As for 'traditional marriage'... the mormons above all have no leg to stand on with plural marriage in the heritage, both with more than one wife as well as more than one husband.
    "separate but equal" is still bigoted, hateful and not right.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    Mr. Nelson would have made the same arguments in favor of Jim Crow ("separate but equal") laws pertaining to equal rights for black Americans.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 7:56 a.m.

    You are free to believe what you want. The majority of our populace begs to differ; and will prevail.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:04 a.m.

    You seem to be forgetting the second part of Amendment 3, "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

    Same-sex couples in Utah were prohibited by Utah Constitutional Amendment from having civil unions or domestic partnerships or anything else.

    When Amendment 3 was up for a vote, many opponents pointed to the scond part and warned it would cause trouble by creating an "all or nothing" situation. That is exactly what happened and, due to the verbiage of the Amendment, there is no option other than marriage for same-sex couples.

    Utah and Utah voters have no one to blame but themselves.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    Federal laws trump state laws.

    Utah cannot make state laws which violate the Constitution.

    Banning gay marriage violates the Constitution. It's that simple.

    Utah could have had civil unions. They chose against it. They wanted all or nothing.

    Now reap the fruit of your labor!

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    If Utah had a civil union or domestic partnership law, Judge Shelby could have ruled on their constitutionality. We don't have those laws, so he was forced to rule on what we do have.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    Gary, guess what? Your own marriage is nothing more than a "civil union". It required a governmental license (civil) in order to be legal. Why call a union between people, that is in every way the same, something else? You just want to feel special over other couples?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 28, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    Sure -- sounds good NOW!

    We supported the compromised of Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships for years,
    and were beat down DAILY by the conservatives.

    NOW your All-or-Nothing law gets shot down,
    and you want to compromise.

    Sorry. Too late.
    Compromising with "Separate but Equal" will not cut it now.
    You get what you asked for.

    BTW -- I'm good with that too.

    Now -- to fight that stupid "Citizens United" ruling.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    I love the high pitched cries of 'lone, activist judge' from conservatives today…

    *'Judge's Prop. 8 ruling upheld' - By Lisa Leff - AP - Published by DSNews - 06/14/11

    '...ruling that struck down California's same-sex marriage ban…'

    *'Judge Ware Denies Motion To Vacate Decision Overturning Prop 8' - By Barry Deutsch - Family Scholars - 06/14/11

    *'Gay marriage wins rulings in pair of federal challenges' - By Denise Lavoie - AP - Published by DSNews - 07/08/10

    '...ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA...'

    *’Prop 8 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ – by Michael De Groote – Deseret News – 02/07/12

    "Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the Ninth Circuit said in its ruling on appeal in the case of Perry v. Brown.'

    sound familiar?

    *'Appeals court DENIES stay on same-sex marriage, ruling pending hearing Monday' - By Emilee Eagar, Deseret News – 12/22/13

    'SALT LAKE CITY — The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver on….

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 28, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    We act as if homosexuality was invented yesterday and a host of new folks were found who all of a sudden needed rights bestowed upon them. Civilizations have dealt with homosexuality for millenia. Marriage has generally not been a part of the equation (yes, I have read the minor exceptions - they are few and unconvincing).

    It seems foolish to take institutions - marriage and the family - that have been with us for millenia and change them all rather suddenly. We are moving the foundation blocks about without knowing how this is all going to play out and whether the structure will continue to stand.

    Using racial intermarriage as an example, it might have been illegal in the US at one time but it goes back to biblical times so it is not a good comparison when looking at long-term consequences.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    "Civilizations have dealt with homosexuality for millenia."

    You mean thinks like hanging them, sending them to concentration camps, and castrating them? By all means, let's not progress as a community and improve how we treat one another.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 28, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    Really???

    No question that folks should be treated well. The question is whether and how we reconstruct our entire concept of family for our civilization.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    Really??? said:

    "You mean thinks like hanging them, sending them to concentration camps, and castrating them? By all means, let's not progress as a community and improve how we treat one another."

    See if you can follow me here...I'll go slow. Nobody is advocating homosexuals being hung, beaten, or sent to concentration camps...okay? Twin Lights and others are simply making the point that marriage throughout recorded history has been between a man and woman. I realize this presents problems for homosexual activists and their agenda, but facts are what they are.

    First, unlike homosexuals, man and woman can procreate and continue the species (wow, what a concept!). Secondly, it serves children best to have a mom and dad, and the unique influences both have on the child's development. I understand there are always exceptions, but generally this has proven true. Doubt me? Look at the high crime rates among young black people in this country. Couple this with the fact that nearly 70% of black children have no father. The missing influence of the father for black children, in this particular instance, cannot be ignored or denied.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    I would like to nominate "traditional marriage" as the most overused word of 2013.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    "Nobody is advocating homosexuals being hung, beaten, or sent to concentration camps...okay?"

    First, yes they are. Listen to rightwing talk radio. There's no shortage of people wanting to make being gay a crime. Second, are you suggesting that as long as physical violence is avoided, other forms of persecution and bigotry are OK?

    "First, unlike homosexuals, man and woman can procreate and continue the species (wow, what a concept!)" Lots of gays have kids of their own, and adopt children. Conversely, many straight couples don't have kids.

    "Secondly, it serves children best to have a mom and dad, and the unique influences both have on the child's development." There's no objective, testable evidence to suggest this is true.

    Your statistic about young blacks and crime has infinitely more to do with the economic, educational and social barriers faced by young black men than whether or not their fathers are present.

    Courts have held repeatedly that "separate but equal" is _not_ constitutional, and Amendment 3 outlaws civil unions anyway.

    The rights of a minority are not subject to a vote by the majority.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    What Gary overlooks is that Utah was not satisfied with just banning same-sex marriage. Amendment 3 also forbade civil unions or any other kind of contract which provided the legal protections and benefits of marriage. If it had allowed civil unions, we might not even be having this debate over semantics.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    'Twin Lights and others are simply making the point that marriage throughout recorded history has been between a man and woman.'

    False.

    Up until 1890 Marriage in Utah was between a man….

    and a woman and a woman and a woman, etc.

    'First, unlike homosexuals, man and woman can procreate and continue the species (wow, what a concept!). Secondly, it serves children best to have a mom and dad, and the unique influences both have on the child's development.'

    I will grant you a man and a woman can procreate.

    Every child put up for adoption can support this. And those children, do NOT factually have a 'mother and a father' do they?

    If a 'mother and a father' was required to have children…

    why is the LDS church not donating $2 million dollars against Octo-mom and her 8 children with no husband..?

    "In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are NOT markedly different from those of heterosexual parents."

    - AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)
    - 'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 28, 2013 1:13 p.m.

    There is no logical reason to accept or promote same-sex unions. Same-sex unions cater to appetites and passions. Those who promote same-sex unions also promote the idea that men and women are slaves to their sexual impulses and that they have no control over those impulses. They demand that because they think that satisfying sexual impulses is a "right", that they can use the 14th Amendment to claim "equality".

    If a person is not held responsible to control his sexual appetites and live within the bounds that the Lord has set, then what is to stop those who advocate same-sex unions today to advocate sex with children tomorrow? No one believed that having multiple wives would result from same-sex unions, but that ruling has been made based in part on the demands of those who want same-sex unions. Can anyone believe that this "snowball" will not continue to roll until anyone can do anything at anytime with whomever he/she pleases without facing consequence?

    No one can reject morality without destroying the foundation that keeps society stable.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    Had Utah provided civil union accommodations there is less of a likely hood the judge would have seen a need to provide full marriage. Of course that would have required that Utah actually cared or that Utah was more calculating. What the judge saw was indifference to the wants and needs of a persecuted minority and he decided to do something about it.

    All this being the case, the state should not promote any definition of marriage that results in gay couples adopting children who could have had a mother and a father. The rights and well being of children should be paramount and needs to be taken into account.

  • Heidi71 Taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    Gary raises good points about civil unions. I've observed, there's no such thing as same-gender attraction. Gender actually refers to the masculine and feminine qualities, not male and female. Because in a homosexual partnership, one of the partners displays dominant masculine appearance and manner, and the other displays a prominent feminine manner and appearance. So, I think the attraction between feminine and masculine is quite universal. I prefer masculine males loving feminine females, but that's just me; I mean no offense. I think people say same-gender, because they want to avoid using the word, sex. Gay should mean happy, but instead it's used as a euphemism for homosexuality. I've noticed that negative comments about marriage between a man and a woman cite the worst examples of celebrities' disastrous family relationships to justify changing the definition of marriage.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Dec. 28, 2013 2:58 p.m.

    As I said --
    I begged to Civil Unions and/or Domestic Partnerships for years.
    but
    The un-compromising anything uber-far-right-wing went with All-or-Nothing.

    You made your bed, now sleep in it.

    Which reminds me,

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Until you can look at "relationships",
    and disconnect sex from marriage,
    your arguments remain moot.

    People marry for LOVE and commitment, not for sex and one-night-stands.
    At least, that's why most of did.
    Your rants show just the opposite.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Dec. 28, 2013 4:10 p.m.

    Mike Richards 1:13 p.m.

    Yes, Mike, and I'm sure all those students who meet at BYU and get married three months later are doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with "appetites and passions" or "sexual impulses." Nothing at all.

    And children are unable to consent by law, therefore no one is ever going to be able to legally have sex with one. That won't change even after Amendment 3 is in the dustbin of history.

  • Heidi71 Taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 4:30 p.m.

    Recently, it's been common to use the word, gender, in place of the word, sex. But gender is a grammatical term referring to being masculine or feminine. Sex refers to being male or female. In a homosexual couple, one is dominantly masculine and the other is dominantly feminine, so calling them a same gender couple is incorrect. But Gary does have some good points that I agree with.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 5:31 p.m.

    @Mike Richards - There is a simple logical reason to accept and promote same sex unions - throughout all of history, in every known society, there have been people who are exclusively, romantically attracted to members of their own gender. It is a natural and normal part of human sexuality. Logic says we should accept reality. Encouraging gay persons to establish stable, committed relationships is good for individuals and society.

    Once we accept that some persons are gay by nature and that they deserve dignity, it shifts the way we think about sexual morality; it is a shift to respecting persons as moral agents capable of making their own decisions, seeking consent and mutuality in relationships and acknowledging equality of the sexes. Expressions of this moral view are found all around us - in acceptance of divorce and remarriage, in recognition that women are not property of their husbands, and growing acceptance of same sex marriage as the moral equivalent of heterosexual marriage. It is a very real shift, but one which I believe is more benficial than not.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Dec. 29, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    Utah legislators can re-write the sections which are at issue. There is nothing to prevent addition of civil union as a permitted status in the event SCOTUS upholds Justice Shelby as self-appointed God.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 29, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    @ Rikitikitavi: Sorry - that ship has sailed. Once the courts strike down Amendment 3, there will be no room to write a new Constitutional Amendment that says gays can't marry but they can have civil unions. Striking down Amendment 3 as unconstitutional will mean gays have access to marriage and it cannot be taken away from them.

    I suppose they could allow civil unions also, but they will not be able to prohibit marriage.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    Too bad.
    Traditional marriages are a religious thing.
    Gay marriage is a legal thing.
    And it's legal, so get over it.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    Hey Richards.
    "There is no logical reason to accept or promote same-sex unions." ???

    There are SEVERAL...including the fact that equal rights are guaranteed to all by the constitution.

    You puritans are blinded by religious zealotry, and wouldn't know a book of law if someone hit you with one.

    Happy New Year Mike!
    Why not invite your gay neighbors over for New Year's festivities?
    Take the first step towards reality. It's hard, but you can do it.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    IMO if the gay and lesbian community want to be accepted as "normal"... they need to quit celebrating behaving abnormally. Look at the behavior celebrated in the gay pride parades, etc. If you would just act "normal" nobody would even know or CARE what your sexual orientation is.

    Many parents and church leaders don't WANT their children emulating what they see portrayed and celebrated in the gay pride parades, etc. But I know some gay people who are not like that, and I would have no problem with my children associating with them (not so much the behaviors I see celebrated regularly in gay pride parades).

    If you want to be "freaky"... don't expect people to also see you as "normal". I know some gay people who are all about being as "ab-normal" as possible. You can't want that and want to be accepted as "normal" all at the same time.

    Act normal and you will be accepted as normal. Act freaky (like you do on a gay pride float)... and you can't really expect to be accepted as "normal" (gay or not).

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    Mike -
    One last comment today, and I'll clam up...

    Since "We" as Latter-Day Saints, believe God only recognizes "Sealings" in the Temples,
    and
    Civil marriages are merely recognized by Governements, and are for Time only and NOT Eternity,
    WHAT is the deal?

    God has already said what "marriages" he recognizes and which one's he doesn't.

    So,
    Why the double standard,
    Why the contradiction,
    why lack of logical integrity?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 30, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    Let me answer that one. What we make legal we sanction as a society and culture and thereby encourage. It is not good for our society to condone and encourage what which is sinful.

    Yes, I understand the rights argument. But since you brought up the what God recognizes argument, I responded to that point.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    Just because society sanctions something... doesn't automatically mean God sanctions it.

    What Government's sanction doesn't automatically become something God sanctions, and visa-versa. They are separate things (and that's the way it should be).

    Marriages used to be conducted and recorded by clergy (and so they were assumed to be sanctioned by God). But now that Governments are in control of marriage... that's a different thing.

    I think God will recognize what marriages he recognizes regardless of votes, government regulations, or the ebb and flow of what society will accept.

    So... nothing has changed in his eyes.