Proof: This is not about love, but benefits.How much I
can squeeze out of tax payers.Pathetic.
Will those "rights" include making the mother's (spouse?)
responsible for child raising expenses, and specifically exclude the "sperm
donor?" In another state, it was held that the sperm donor had
to pay child support after the mother's (spouse?) divorced the mom.Are they really seeking 'equality" or just working an agenda
for that "some are more equal than others" stuff?
@worf"This is not about love, but benefits. How much I can squeeze
out of tax payers."As a married man, I seem to be missing out on
all these wonderful tax benefits marriage brings.But the article
isn't about that at all. From the article:"The couple, who
have been together for more than eight years, are worried that Roe will not be
able to "make emergency and other significant decisions for their
daughter," who is the result of careful selection from a sperm bank in
California, the suit states."Yes, gays are seeking the
"benefits" of marriage. Things like being able to make medical decision
for each other and their children in the event of an emergency, being able to
inherit, to even be able to visit in the hospital. There are tons of
"benefits" that come with marriage. Very few (any?) have to do with
It's time for the state and the people to come together and provide
benefits that are equal and fair for all. Most affected will be the children,
aren't their needs to be given the highest consideration?
@worf"This is not about love, but benefits."What's wrong with wanting both?
Dear Modesto, Children are entitled to a Mom and a Dad.
I am for traditional marriage. If a gay couple has a child, why don't they
create a trust fund, a will, or some other way to deal with these problems. I am
sure there are legal ways to solve these problems. Just a thought: If these
children are happy with gay parents, why are so many trying to find their
Why all of the sudden is getting the benefits of marriage worth suing for? When
they decided to have the child, gay marriage was illegal in Utah. If she has a
February due date, they conceived well before Amendment 3 was overturned. Why
not sue then? This seems like opportunistic timing. I feel that yes, the state
should grant legal status to the marriages performed. That would be a only
right. But if benefits are important now, why was this lawsuit not filed back in
July or so?
@ Laura Ann: If adopted children are happy with their adoptive parents, what are
so many trying to find their bioligical parents? By your reasoning, we should
prohibit adoption. We should also probably prohibit single women from having
babies. And how exactly would establishing a trust fund allow the
making of medical decisions or address any of the other concerns the couple has
expressed? Why should same-sex parents have to spend thousands and thousands of
dollars in an effort to get rights and access that heterosexual parents (whether
married or not) get just by being listed on the birth certificate?@
play: If children are entitled to a mom and a dad, what laws are you advocating
to ensure that entitlement is met? Should single parents have their children
forcibly taken from them? How long does a parent have to get remarried after a
death or divorce before the children are removed from the home? What incentives
are going to be offered to encourage married couples to provide homes for all
the children who won't have a mom and a dad otherwise?
@ DN Subscriber: In another state that also does not recognize same-sex
marriages, two women had a child together. They did not consult an attorney or a
doctor, nor did they read through state law - neither did the donor. Because the relationship was not legally recognized, when it ended there was
no way for the non-custodial patent to be held responsible to support her child.
Because the law was not followed when the donor was chosen, the contract he
signed was not valid and his rights were not protected. The couple
here in Utah want their relationship legally recognized which will avoid all the
problems associated with the situation to which you refer.Legal
recognition of same-sex marriage means legal responsibilities and protections
for same-sex parents. @ worf: The nerve of these women wanting the
benefits of married parents for their child! How dare they!(And FYI
- most same-sex marriage advocates freely state they want access to the benefits
of marriage - that's where the whole pesky "equality" argument
This couple obviously cannot create a family together, so how can it be
classified as a marriage.The problem is that if we classify a same sex
couple as marriage, then you open a new can of worms. Where do you draw the
line, what if my neighbor wants health insurance, can they just move in and
become insured? Should they be put on their neighbors food stamps because they
have know each other?Perhaps we can have everyone in one company decide
they want to be a family so they can all be on the same insurance plan. All 750
employees. Where do you draw the line?
@ play by the rulesSo should divorce be illegal, or what?
To barter a child for self-interests is cruel.A bishop, arguing
against the roman take over of the early church, once compared the mistreatment
of children to barbarism. I have to agree. Abusing children physically or
intellectually amounts to nothing less.So where are we now?The very idea of robbing children of their male Father and female Mother is
not a good one. Sometimes it happens in extreme circumstances, such as a father
who dies and other situations. But those are not circumstances we seek out.Does this issue have an inevitable outcome? Maybe.Do those who
offend little children have an inevitable outcome? Yes.Don't
get me wrong, I'm not saying anyone is bad because they believe differently
that I do. I'm not intolerant of beliefs. I'm intolerant of doing
things to children that they don't deserve. Children deserve to have a
Father and Mother.I'm not in favor of illegalizing behavior.
I'm in favor of protecting children and honoring good behavior. There is a
difference.Youtube: Ryan Anderson in the Indiana House Judiciary
CommitteeYoutube: The lost art of democratic debate
I would help them get there baby but not allow or recognize their marriage.
Just move to a state that recognizes it.
@Scoundrel:"The only thing accomplished by withholding marriage rights
from same-sex couples is the punishment and degradation of their children, who
become de facto second-class citizens through no fault of their own. "So, by that logic should we criminalize having children out of wedlock?
Because, after all, if the child born out of wedlock is going to be a second
class citizen because their mother did not marry their father? Should we ban
single people from adopting children? If one parent dies, should we take the
child from the surviving parent and put them into the orphanage or give them to
a married couple so the child does not become a second class citizen?I support traditional marriage because it sends a message about the ideal way
to raise a child, but extending your logic is draconian and is heartless.
Like it or not,in the end love and equality always wins!
This is not about protecting citizens rights, it is about rights of one
political group and legitimizing a behavior. Who is protecting the rights of
the children gays will adopt?Legal rights? If I want to know about
my spouses health care treatment, my spouse has to sign a form--thanks to HIPAA
laws. If I want to inherit my spouses property, we have to sign legal documents
to assign that property upon death. It all isn't automatic because we are
married. Another lie the media continually fails to represent. Yes, you do need to be married to file joint tax returns, but how is that an
advantage? The rates for marrieds are higher! This is about 2
things, legitimizing gay relationships as normal and, giving gays the ability to
adopt. My question is, who is looking out for the rights of the children who
have no say in whether they get a mother and a father? No one seems to care
about doing what is best for children and fighting so adoptive children will
obtain the best possible start to their lives. This is not about protecting
citizens rights, it is about the selfish rights of one political group.
@KalindraThe gays who went to the sperm donor already had to sign a
contract indicating they wouldn't hold the donor responsible in the future
for child support, etc. They could have easily completed a similar contract
with each other but they chose not to. Kind of like a pre-nuptial agreement,
some have them to make divorce easier and some don't. There are legal
options already available for gays to give the same benefits of marriage (other
than taxation laws). Perhaps instead, the government needs to regulate set fees
for those legal instruments, let's say, the same cost as a marriage
license, so gays can afford it and not be 'taken by lawyers.' No matter what happens later in a child's life, we as a society
have a responsibility to protect children and place them in the best possible
situation to succeed--and that is with a mother and a father. Anyone who is in
a loving marriage relationship sees the unique benefits their spouse provides to
their child that they cannot, because of the gender differences. It is simply
an indisputable fact
@ DNsubscriber... "Are they really seeking 'equality" or just
working an agenda for that "some are more equal than others" stuff?"
Try looking into your magic mirror. Are these really your own "true and
Where is the father in the picture as two women can't produce a baby
@higvDietrich, ID"Where is the father in the picture as
two women can't produce a baby"Had you actually read the
article rather than just commenting on the headline, you would have known that
they used a sperm bank for artificial insemination, just as many married couples
(both gay and straight) have done for many years.
Come people just think? There are OTHER ways to give another person the rights
and privileges like parents. People do it all the time in cases where the
parent or parents need help to raise children. It is called Guardianship. This
lesbian couple have a biological mother, right? The other partner who wants to
be like a parent also can get legal permission as a guardian of said child and
solve the issue without having to make a federal case out of it. My
parents helped raise my nieces and nephews (5)forty years ago when their parents
were no longer able to care for them. My parents were their
grandparents/parents as legal guardians. It is very simple and no
need to go into such a big battle over "rights" etc. IF that
is really what is wanted then a person who has legal guardianship can insure
those children by legal means. Recognizing a person's same sex marriage is
an appendage of the argument.
Recognize the marriage, Utah! It would go a long way to providing a sense of
security for this family. And New England is an area of the US made
up of SIX states. Please specify which state. It's like saying someone was
married "out west".
@play by the rules"Dear Modesto, Children are entitled to a Mom and a
Dad."==So can you take the children away from same sex
couples or single parents and put them in "ideal families"?
Why don't they move to a state that DOES recognize their marriage? Problem
@worfWhat exactly are this couple trying to squeeze out of the tax
payers?@ informed?"This couple obviously cannot
create a family together, so how can it be classified as a marriage."Since my wife and cannot have children together, does that mean our
relationship is not considered a "marriage"? What about my sister and
her husband? They are not "married" because they cannot conceive?
informed?: "This couple obviously cannot create a family together, so how
can it be classified as a marriage."Did you know that Utah
marriage law makes it a mandatory precondition that first cousins be
nonreproductive in order to be allowed to marry? These couples not only
"obviously cannot create a family together," the state actually
PROHIBITS them from starting a family together. It would be illegal for them to
marry if they could have children. So how can what these couples, legally
married under Utah law, have "be classified as a marriage"?The clear conclusion is that marriage is about more than procreation.
Facilitating procreation is an important purpose of marriage, indeed, it may be
the most important one, but it is not the ONLY one. It is within the realm of
the state to encourage stable, loving relationships to benefit social
stability.Is a lesbian couple with a baby conceived and cared for
together any less a family than childless married first cousins or an infertile
married straight couple with a baby conceived by IVF?
Not content to have been married in another state, they have to come here and
start their 'activism'. You can make something legal, but it
still doesn't make it right and never will.Unfortunately they are
putting children in the middle of it all.
informed?"Where do you draw the line, what if my neighbor wants health
insurance, can they just move in and become insured?"That's
the beauty of the thing. Same sex marriage could eventually evolve into a 95
year old grandfather marrying his ten year old grandson (or grand daughter) to
pass on medicare and other financial benefits. What a novel idea!"Where do you draw the line?"Same sex marriage will
eventually erase all lines so that anyone can marry anyone or even several
anyones. Certainly will help in sharing assets and government benefits.Oh, and it says these ladies carefully selecting the sperm donor... what
a clever idea! The child could be a handsome movie star or another Einstein.@higv: "...they used a sperm bank for artificial insemination, just
as many married couples (both gay and straight) have done for many
years."Good point, but how would two gay guys do it? Isn't
that some sort of gender discrimination that the federal government should
I don't believe a lesbian couple can be expecting a child together, that is
unless I missed something in biology class. I guess I'm a tad confused...
Hey, Brown, you live in a community property state. You do not have to sign any
form to inherit from your spouse. You can buy property in your individual name,
but your spouse must sign before you can sell it. And where did you ever get
the notion that "the rates for marrieds are higher"? Have you ever
looked at the tax tables?
@wrz: " Same sex marriage could eventually evolve into a 95 year old
grandfather marrying his ten year old grandson (or grand daughter) to pass on
medicare and other financial benefits."1) Marriage of blood
relatives is illegal.2) A ten year old cannot consent to marriage,
or any other contract.3) Medicare is not "passed on" by
marriage. The spouse of the Medicare recipient must be 65 to get coverage.
@ wrz: There are valid legal reasons for prohibiting intimate relationships
between closely related individuals and for limiting reproductive opportunities
in situations where those close relationships occur. There are valid
legal reasons for prohibiting children from entering into contracts. Allowing same-sex marriage will not eliminate the valid legal reasons for
prohibiting other types of relationships. So far no one has been
able to present a valid legal reason for prohibiting dame-sex marriage. And
without such a reason, same-sex marriage will soon be legal.
@worf: The only thing that's going to be squeezed out of the public
coffers is the expense of defending against suits like this.Don't you realize, the way our benefits systems are set up, that single
mothers are actually entitled to more benefits than married ones? By allowing
these women to marry, you create, legally, a single household where you can take
into account the income of both adults. Unmarried, with one working and the
other being a completely unrelated stay-at-home mom, Utah law makes them legal
strangers to each other, and the stay-at-home mom is eligible for all sorts of
programs she wouldn't otherwise be. WIC, EBT/Food Stamps, AFDC, etc.
Instead of a spouse, the non-parental woman could legally claim to be a
landlord, charging her "tenant" rent to maximize her eligibility for
benefits.So, if you were just being stingy with your tax dollars,
instead of your heart strings, you would support same-sex marriage. Heck, you
would encourage it!
Children are not pets or commodities to be manufactured and bought as fashion
accessories for adults.
@ play by the rules "Dear Modesto, Children are entitled to a Mom and a
Dad."I'm trying to find this requirement in civil marriage,
adoptive and reproductive law, but cannot find the entitlement. Why isn't
it there do you suppose? Moreover, why should society stop at just a Mom and a
Dad, how about a parental requirement of no criminal record, specific
educational level and amount of financial assets too?
@informed "This couple obviously cannot create a family together, so how can
it be classified as a marriage." You may be surprised to learn that
opposite sex couples can legally utilize assisted reproduction technologies.
So, what legally defines a family in civil marriage law? Are single or adoptive
parents entitled to call themselves a family?
How messed up can society be today to even entertain such a suit?... How sad
this culture has become... This suit shouldn't get 30 seconds of
consideration before it's dismissed... This once great nation is getting
destroyed from the inside out and it is very hard to watch.
It said the baby was from a " careful" selection from a sperm bank in
California -- who made the selection and how ? Maybe she should have been a
little more careful and thought of the welfare of the baby before the selection
knowing that their marriage would be in doubt in many states --- Their is no
real precedence for same sex marriage -- God has never authorized it at any
time. It is like trying to remake a key to fit a lock that holds a treasure when
only a father and mother have access to those keys.You can not change the
degrees of God even if you don't believe in God.
@Mom of 8Congrats on your large family of 8. Seriously impressive.
I'll bet you were born here. I was too. My family is here. My
parents are here. My sisters are here. My in-laws are here. My job is here. I'm staying because Utah is my home too.
I have been following this issue in Utah since the Shelby ruling on Dec 21.It is unfortunate (if not disturbing) to continue to see how those who
allow themselves to be controlled by mythology are making more desperate and
nonsensical arguments as we get closer to marriage equality in Utah.Those who promote state-sponsored discrimination need to start preparing
yourselves accordingly. The legal bigotry in Utah is about to end. Equality
under the law is coming. You can not stop it. At best, the state of
Utah can delay the inevitable by introducing stall tactics (as they are doing
now, spending millions of tax dollars on arguments that have already been thrown
out of court).Again, I say in another decade or so, people will look
back on all this and wonder what the fuss was all about.
@Laura Ann So only the children of gays seek out their biological parents? This
couple haven't adopted a child, one of them IS the biological parent but by
law only one of them is recognized as a legal parent. Why should they have to
find a legal way around something that is just assumed by different sex couples
@Brown I always have to shake my head at people like you that say that
different sex couples are the best alternative for a child. Why? After all who
are the parents of most gays? Yep different sex couples have gay children.
Just because a child is raised by same sex couples doesn't make them gay.