Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Child-centric marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 12:11 a.m.

    "that encourages parents to subordinate their interests to the needs of their children"

    That's not marriage, that's parenting.

    Marriage is an adult-centric matter rather than child-centric because it's the binding of a relationship between those two adults. That's why there is no requirement to have children to marry, there is no requirement to marry if you have children, there is no requirement to be fertile to marry. Even the fact that single people can adopt shows that this state does not view children's needs to be based on having married parents.

    Except when it comes to same-sex marriage. For some reason it's fine for children to be raised by a single gay parent but once you add a second person of the same sex to the parenting dynamic now there's a problem?

    "to secure a sufficient social and economic base to care for the elderly"

    Gay people aren't suddenly going to have kids if they don't have a same-sex marriage. In fact they're more likely to have kids (through adoption or in-vitro) if they are married since well... married households tend to have more stability.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 12:18 a.m.

    "A wealth of social-science data teach that children do best emotionally, socially, intellectually and even economically when reared in an intact home"

    Yet you deny others the ability to make these sorts of homes. And you use the average argument to literally nothing else other than banning same-sex marriage. Single people? Sure they can adopt. We'd never consider using statistical averages to start banning races, religions, or anything else from marrying. But gay people? Sure, ban it. Why the inconsistency?

    "Utah’s approach to marriage helps ensure adequate reproduction of children"

    We're talking about marriage, not sex. They're separate. Utah is projected to double in population in under a quarter century.

    [state respects and values citizens “who have formed intimate, committed relationships with someone of the same sex”]

    I don't see the evidence, after all Amendment 3 banned civil unions too, because apparently it wasn't just marriage to the Amendment 3 side, they were opposed to any sort of recognition of same-sex couples. So where's the respect and value of these committed relationships? The fact that they aren't arrested for having them (Lawrence v Texas would stop that law anyway)?

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Feb. 5, 2014 1:26 a.m.

    New day, same losing arguments. The only difference between now and early December 2013 is there are a bunch of private practice attorneys with $2 million more dollars in their pockets thanks to the wonders of copy/paste.

    What the DesNews and conservatives apparently don't understand is that their faith-based reasoning of "we believe marriage is for child-bearing and that is the preeminent reason for marriage" fails on two counts: 1) there is no bar for straight couples to meet that evinces this theory, and 2) it literally has no legal basis. The law does not care, and should not care, what you believe marriage to be. If two people of sound mind desire to get married, then they can get married. What this article proposes essentially is a litmus test, based on their subjective standards, for obtaining a marriage license.

    Finally, it's an absolute joke that the attorneys can straight-faced claim Utah cherishes their children as society's greatest asset. One need only look at school funding in Utah, attempts to privatize education for upper class kids via charter schools, or the lack of social infrastructure for low-income children to know that is a complete farce.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    Feb. 5, 2014 5:06 a.m.

    So the state has an interest in encouraging ideal, traditional family structures? Fine, no argument against that from me.

    But there's a difference between promoting the ideal and forbidding anything less. The state's argument suggests we should also outlaw divorce and single-parent adoptions because those also fall short of the ideal and potentially impact children negatively. How far is the state willing to go in pushing its ideal to the detriment of anyone who doesn't measure up to it? If my family isn't perfect enough to fit into a stock family picture in the Ensign or the Deseret news, is it invalid?

    Nope, nothing here appears sufficient to overturn a lower court ruling that Amendment 3 violates the Constitution. The law has a habit of sidestepping one's notion of the ideal, and opting for the pragmatism of reality on the ground instead. Not everyone matches well to society's ideal, and those people don't deserve punishment or denial of rights for that.

  • John Kateel Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 5:48 a.m.

    Compared to states such as Massachusetts and country's such as Canada, the state of Utah falls short in their role of protecting kids even within heterosexual marriage. We have no mandatory paid maternity leave. We do not have paternity leave. We allow guns to be kept unlocked and just lying around in homes with children without penalty. We have lower immunization rates than our industrialized peers. In my opinion, the state's position is a farce. Gay marriage has not destroyed families in Canada or the Netherlands. But very specific policies in Utah have harmed kids within heterosexual marriages. We even have a higher divorce rate than the US average. Fix those problems first and do not concern yourself with gay marriage.

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 6:37 a.m.

    Here's one part I simply don't understand: According to the editorial, "the state respects and values citizens “who have formed intimate, committed relationships with someone of the same sex” and emphasized that those citizens and their children are “equal before the law and fully entitled to order their private lives in the manner they have chosen.”

    How is traditional marriage strengthened by refusing legal recognition to those who order their private lives in the manner they have chosen? Children will still be raised in those families, without one or both biological parents.If they were "fully entitled" to order their private lives, they would be able to get married. Perhaps the argument is simply inartfully worded.

    Also, why must child-centric and adult-centric views be mutually exclusive? I have raised five children. We have had a child-centric marriage as suggested by the article. But I value my relationship with my wife equally to the relationship I have with my children. I have never distinguished between the two. Have you?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Feb. 5, 2014 6:37 a.m.

    Implying that SSM is not child-centric is the same as saying that those who are pro-choice are for abortion. It isn't either/or and if you think it is then your personal biases are preventing you from seeing the entire picture.

    How exactly are same-sex couples and their children equal before the law?

    You didn't mention that the state also argues that the court should consider the fact that more religions in the state oppose SSM than support it, ignoring the fact that this asks an arm of the federal government to tacitly favor some religious beliefs over others.

    In the next breath it argues that finding anti-SSM laws discriminatory means that religious institutions and religious individuals may not be allowed to discriminate against LGBTs anymore and that this is an infringement upon religious liberty.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 6:50 a.m.

    "As a legal matter, there are many reasons why the district court’s decision imposing same-sex marriage should be reversed."

    There are NO legitimate reasons.

    1) Marriage licenses do NOT require a couple to have children.
    2) Having children does NOT require a marriage license.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Feb. 5, 2014 7:00 a.m.

    There is a beautiful accord in music, geometric aspects in architecture and the sound reflections of peace in nature.
    This creation is so unite in all of it's synphony.

    Having a word such A : Aware and another B : Bottom ...we may combine those two and get another meaningful figure. "I was not aware to the bottom line of this".

    There is a spiritual(psychosomatic) appeal to a mother and a father that will give a deeper meaning to a child in role playing as combined to one.
    We may not have the proper words for such phenomena, but it is implanted into the child's mind and will last for a life time.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Feb. 5, 2014 7:01 a.m.

    part 2

    Society being robbed of that rich soil that parents of the opposite sex can provide to their offspring, has not yet been measured.

    Just imagine as DNA is passed on to children, so are talents of spiritual nature and emotional frame being passed on from Great/Grandfather and Father and so on along to society. Society will suffer if this tree of ancient intelligence is cut off.

    We might not have time to observe such in future generations.
    However, society is smart to avoid a collision course with such an experiment.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 5, 2014 7:23 a.m.

    The poem by C.C. Miller, tell the danger that society faces:

    ‘Twas a sheep not a lamb that went astray
    In the parable Jesus told.
    ‘Twas a grown sheep that wandered away
    From the ninety and nine in the fold.

    And out on the hilltop, and out in the cold,
    ‘Twas a sheep the Good Shepherd sought.
    Back to the fold and back to the flock,
    ‘Twas a sheep that the Good Shepherd brought.

    Now, why should the sheep be so carefully fed
    And cared for even to-day?
    Because there is danger if they go wrong,
    They will lead the lambs astray.

    The lambs will follow the sheep, you know,
    Where’er they wander–where’er they go.
    If the sheep goes wrong, it will not be long
    Till the lambs are as wrong as they.

    So still with the sheep we must earnestly plead,
    For the sake of the lambs to-day.
    If the lambs are lost, what a terrible cost
    The sheep will have to pay!

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Feb. 5, 2014 7:26 a.m.

    People get married for many reasons, and those who have children should take their responsibility very seriously, but the central problem with Utah's legal argument against gay marriage remains. How does allowing same sex marriages harm Utah's "traditional marriages"?

    My cousin and her partner are raising a beautiful adopted child, isn't that "child centric"?

  • Gibster San Antonio, TX
    Feb. 5, 2014 7:31 a.m.

    None of these arguments is a compelling reason to subvert the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Then add the fact that you turn every non traditional family into a second class unit under the law. This is a weak elitist argument designed to protect the point of view of the majority by sacrificing the rights of everybody else.

  • Berkeley reader Berkeley , CA
    Feb. 5, 2014 7:33 a.m.

    One of the biggest holes in this self-serving editorial is the glib repetition that gay people and their families are "fully equal before the law." Simply not true. The Utah legislature won't even consider a non-discrimination law for housing and employment for gay people and their families, much less allow equal taxation, adoption, social services, and a host of other state services. For the state and this newspaper to declare that gay Utahns are fully "equal" takes a lot of hutzpah. The courts will certainly not buy it. The state's case is doomed.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 7:49 a.m.

    Taking religion out of the equation - the secular purpose for marriage is to protect women and children. If you take gender and childbearing out of the equation - you don't have marriage, you merely have a partnership. Ironically both polygamy and interfamily marriage have greater historical biological and sociological precedent than same-sex marriage. If gender does not matter, then neither does number or blood relationship. The entire institution is reconstructed.

    It is interesting that the main argument for gay marriage is merely "you are a bigot if you question it"

    I am homosexual and not LDS, but I have particular lack of respect for members of who flip their own faith in an attempt to appear intellectual by myopically jumping on the bandwagon of politically correct bullying, or gay activist who cheerlead it.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 7:57 a.m.

    If only the States arguments were true in real life. The ideal would be wonderful. But that isn't the case. In our area there are many varied families. Single, Same Sex, straight couples and grandparents raising unwanted kids. . The best kids in the neighborhood come from the single parents and same sex couples. They are taught compassion and tolerance. They know bigotry and the feeling of being different. On the other hand, the kids that get the police called on them the most come from several families headed by "perfect heterosexual church going parents". I know that isn't always the case....thank heavens...but when I had the sons of three prominent "church families" arrested it made me wonder what they had been taught? I know this isn't always the case but these kids lacked tolerance. These church going kids had learned somewhere it was OK to harass those who were different. After being arrested they (and their parents) had a change of heart for some reason????? Just because they were the majority, it didn't make their actions legal.....rule of law vs. rule of the majority.

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    Approximately 20% of the American people live in traditional 2 parent households with children living at home. The other 80% are either single parents, childless, unmarried, or empty-nesters. Essentially, Utah is declaring that 80% of Americans are living in sub-standard arrangements.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Feb. 5, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    A widowed Howard W. Hunter remarried in his 80s to a woman who was also elderly. That marriage clearly wasn't going to produce a child, so I guess it wasn't valid by your criteria, right?

  • Ohio-LDS NE, OH
    Feb. 5, 2014 8:15 a.m.

    "Utah’s marriage laws advance the state’s interest in children being raised by biological mothers and fathers"

    This argument is wholly undermined by the State of Utah's own actions. The State grants marriage licenses to heterosexual couples raising adopted non-biological children. But the State denies marriage licenses to homosexual couples raising children even if those children are biologically related to one of the parents. That fact that the State grants marriage licenses in situations where children have (0) biological connection to their parents, but refuses to grant licenses where children have (1) biological connection, conclusively proves that the State's actions are not guided by a belief in biological connections. Instead, they are guided by a belief in traditional gender roles.

  • Dr. G Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    Divorce law represents a large segment of jurisprudence with specially trained lawyers, family law courts, and dedicated judges, which, for the most part, exist to determine the fate and responsibilities of the parties involved as to the support and upbringing of any children which may have come as a result of the marriage. Laws governing marriage should at least grant an equal weight to the "children" question at the formation of a marriage, as it does to the laws governing the "children" question when a marriage is dissolved.

    Marriage is, first and foremost, about the pro-creation of children. All other emotional and economic questions can be answered without a marriage contract. Children require a marriage contract in order to provide for their long-term care, in a stable environment, living with their biological parents. The state has, as its main responsibility, to see that yet-to-be-born children are provided with the greatest chance of living with their biological parents by means of a marriage contract. At least as much care should be given this question as is given the question of a child's well-being in divorce.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    The State, our State, is going to lose their argument. Trying hard to keep religon out of their defense, the State stakes the basis of their argument on children. This is not a legitimate argument and it won't take long before the court disregards it. The DN and the State are doing nothing more than defending their lifestyle prefrence with weak and disputable claims. We're going to lose.

  • southmtnman Provo, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    Mike Richards,

    Are you calling the people of Utah sheep?

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    Polygamy creates more children.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Feb. 5, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    The legalization of new forms of marriage is difficult such as admitting a china-copy.

    Not producing a new form of marriage, since the former role play of man and woman is maintained along the feelings of both spouses.
    Nothing new to being uncertain about once own gender, if the influence is of pride or minor complexes. Being born as different to the general perception of a gender is called a misfortune tragic event. That is why we have rights for minors.
    Difficulties along that line are all well understood and being respected by the general public.

    Calling something a marriage, which is not in the eyes of children, will cause an increase of disrespectful feelings for the general public.
    It is therefore a danger to the puplic peace at schools and churches.

    It will serve them right to lose a legal case after case, if LGBT community has other intentions than just plain love.

    And the stumbling block here is to what is love ?

    There is being in love, loving your neighbor, and loving children.
    Three very different types of love, if being confused bringing a weakening to the term love.Review : children need what type of love ?

  • Dobby Fresno, CA
    Feb. 5, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    I thought that the definition of marriage was that it was "between one man and one woman." Now the definition is that it is "child centric." What new definition will they come up with to defend their bigotry?

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Feb. 5, 2014 8:53 a.m.

    This opinion piece illustrates a perfect example of how the state of Utah will so dismally lose their case for state-sponsored discrimination.

    The case before the 10th Appeals involves the 14th Amendment. And whether or not Judge Shelby erred in his application of the Windsor ruling. That's the only thing that the 10th Appeals is going to review here.

    So all of this "child-rearing" deflection is pointless and meaningless.

    I can not believe that the state of Utah hired these Idaho lawyers to simply promote an argument that has already been tossed out by lower courts. How embarrassing for Utah citizens who paid for this (non)service.

    As sad and cynical as it sounds, I am actually starting to agree with posters who claim the state is simply doing this defense as a face-saving gesture to their flock. There is no real expectation of victory. How can there be... everyone knowledgeable about this case (and cases like it in Nevada, Oklahoma, et al) knows what the outcome will be.

    The state is about to look tremendously foolish.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 8:56 a.m.

    Most marriages do not produce children. When you figure that many people who marry choose not to have children, many are unable to have children, many marriages end in divorce with no children, some couples have no children because a partner dies, and many marry or remarry when they are too old to have children, I suspect that about 70-75 percent of marriages do NOT produce children. Maybe legal arguments ought to focus more on those marriages.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    @Dr. G;

    Uh, no.

    Children require no marriage license in order to be raised by their bio parents; many unmarried bio parents prove that.

    Marriage has no "child" requirement. You don't have to have children to marry.

    As-yet-to-be-born children may or may not be born to wedded parents. Your argument does not preclude same-sex couples.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    Editorial: "Utah's marriage definition furthers a child-centric marriage culture."

    For the better part of a century, Utah marriage law prohibited first cousin marriages. This was appropriate and fulfilled the state's legitimate policy goal of promoting "responsible procreation," because children of first cousin pairings have a higher risk of genetic defects. The law furthered a "child-centric marriage culture" by ensuring children's health.

    In 1996 the Utah legislature passed SB89, which amended Utah marriage law to allow first cousins to marry, provided that they could not have children. It passed overwhelmingly, showing broad support, even by conservative family-values legislators.

    So why carve out the exception for nonreproductive first cousins? The existing law already achieved the "responsible procreation" purpose and was child-centric. The change did nothing to further these aims and actually undermines them. It acknowledges and proves (contrary to today's editorial) that marriage can be a "'consent-based' matter, primarily about satisfying the emotional interests of adults" and need not be any more than that to be valid. The legislature has clearly affirmed that marriage in Utah law is not solely about children.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    "Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that"

    Let's not base future laws on the exceptions to that. Let's base laws on the ideal and hold it up as the standard for our youth to work towards.

  • Jsmith5151 Washington, DC
    Feb. 5, 2014 9:20 a.m.

    Fine. Then allow marriage benefits only for those families, gay and straight, that are raising children. No kids? No marriage recognition or benefits. Kids over 18? No marriage recognition or benefits. How's that as an approach?

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Feb. 5, 2014 9:25 a.m.

    Hey, Utah, why stop at simply dividing parents into these broad groupings by sexuality? Look at all the additional good you could do children by going even deeper into successful family selection.

    Statistically, Jewish and Italian families produce the highest percentages of successful professionals of any ethnic groups, the most doctors, dentists, lawyers and accountants. Since these fields offer the greatest chance of long-term individual success, the bedrock of our upper-middle-class communities and tax base, perhaps only Jewish and Italian couples should be granted marriage licenses, to encourage them to raise more successful children for our communities. Just because other groups are allowed to bear and raise children doesn't mean the state should lend its endorsement to clearly inferior configurations that don't have equivalent outcomes. They should be happy that they're allowed to carry on their lives, even if everyone can see they're second class.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    All of the editorial’s bullet points fail upon close examination. It’s at once unfortunate yet ironic that the bullets in the online edition are rendered as the formatting code “•” (at least in my browser). A Freudian slip, perhaps?

    "Utah's approach to marriage helps ensure adequate reproduction of children by parents who are willing and able to provide a high-quality home environment."

    And yet the state's approach guarantees that many children are left out. Estimates vary, but one on every three or four gay households has children. I saw many children watching their parents marry at the county complex on Dec. 23. The Prop 8 case estimated 40,000 children of same sex couples in California. These parents have demonstrated that they are "willing and able to provide a high-quality home environment" to their children, yet they are denied the legal incentives for child-rearing that the state provides and the children suffer. Far from being "child-centric," Utah marriage law deliberately condemns some children to suboptimal family structures and suboptimal outcomes.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 5, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    southmtnman,

    Christ called us His sheep. Do you contradict Him?

    ----

    Children are the issue. In reality, they are the only issue. Nothing else matters when a child's well-being is at stake. Our bodies were created to allow procreation. Our Creator instituted marriage between a man and a woman. The purpose of marriage was to provide a safe place where our Creator could send us his spirit children, clothed with physical bodies so that they could be taught His doctrine and given every opportunity to become as He is. He did not assign that task to individuals. He did not assign that task to governments. He did not assign that task to society. He assigned that task to families with a man and a woman at the head. He told us to marry, to multiply and to welcome into our homes His children. He cautioned us that He would hold us accountable for the way we treated those children and the way that we taught them.

    Failure is not His fault. It is the fault of those who reject Him and His eternal laws. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

  • Ohio-LDS NE, OH
    Feb. 5, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    I find it intriguing how the State of Utah's brief conflicts with LDS teachings on marriage. For the church, marriage centers around the couple and Christ, not around the children. Just look at the Gospel Topic "marriage" on lds (dot) org. There is no discussion at all about children. The entire discussion revolves around the relationship between spouses and God. For instance:
    "Those who are married should consider their union as their most cherished earthly relationship. A spouse is the only person other than the Lord whom we have been commanded to love with all our heart (see D&C 42:22)."

    So if LDS teachings do not place children at the center of the marriage relationship, why does the State of Utah's brief do so?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    Wrong... "Marriage" is only about Government Benefits (for some).

    ===

    IMO "Marriage" legitimizes sex between the "married" couple. Before that, and outside that relationship... it's a sin. But INSIDE that relationship... it's the most beautiful thing this world has to offer.

    When "Marriage" becomes just about Government Benefits... it' has lost it's meaning (IMO)

  • Happyinlife PROVO, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 9:42 a.m.

    Traditional marriage does not mean that men & women who cannot have children cannot be married (infertility was one of my struggles too, I understand). I really liked what one commentator said in regards to this argument in another article:
    Hope you don't mind me quoting you, Prodicus. :)
    Prodicus-
    "When a man and a woman marry, even if they do not or cannot have children of their own and even if they don't adopt, their marriage and commitment is part of a broader social pattern. No man is an island; this isn't just about them and their kids. Their commitment reinforces the institution of marriage in a way that makes others more likely to form stable families where children are reared with a mother and a father.

    Every homosexual "marriage," along with every other cohabitative sexual relation which is not a committed marriage between a man and a woman, weakens the cultural institution of marriage and societal expectations on the subject, and thus makes it less likely that others will rear children in stable homes with a mother and a father."

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    If you want a marriage to be 'child centric', fine. Gay married parents can do that in spades. But, like hetero marriage, it's not mandatory. Neither are kids. People make decisions for themselves, as individuals and couples, and societal priorities are changing. Children are not necessary to be a fulfilled person, or couple. Personally, I think too much attention and resources are heaped upon children. They're not allowed to fail enough. They're given too much. They often live too far up the totem pole, I think.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    This case is the legal Titantic.... The logic is shredded by the comments here.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    "Ironically both polygamy and interfamily marriage have greater historical biological and sociological precedent than same-sex marriage."

    They also have a much longer history then one man one women marriages so what you r point? should we also disallow one man one women marriages as well to prevent the down fall of marriage?

    "It is interesting that the main argument for gay marriage is merely "you are a bigot if you question it"

    Actually the main the arguments is the overwhelming scientific evidence that there is no harm to society and their desire to be able to protect and care for their families the same as those in one man one women marriages, but I guess if you interpret that has claiming bigotry and bullying then thats up to you.

    I know, I know I am bullying you, sorry, I did not mean to disagree, I mean bully.

  • Kathy. Iowa, Iowa
    Feb. 5, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    Same gendered couples never raise "their" children. They raise children from a heterosexual union. The children need their parents and those are the parents that have rights.

    The unintended consequences of redefining biological relationships in marriage threatens the thread that connects all children to their family. When a child is related to one but not both then the unrelated person does not have rights or responsibility connected to the child. When neither is related then it is adoption and both parents have equal rights and responsibility.
    But even in adoption both biological parents have rights to be assigned. If you give someone not biologically related to a child rights then it undermines the legal familiar system.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    Ohio-LDS,

    Perhaps you should read more. "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" was sent to the entire world as the definitive statement on gender, on marriage, on the purpose of marriage. Read the entire document, but pay close attention to:

    "ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.:

    And to:

    "HUSBAND AND WIFE have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations."

    There is no contradiction.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 10:18 a.m.

    What the Gay agenda is really all about:

    "Homosexual activists aren’t concerned with rights; they are concerned with complete societal endorsement of their behavior. Homosexuals want the society to stop telling them that what they are doing is ‘wrong’ so they can feel better about what they are doing. Many homosexual advocates (and many homosexuals themselves) are honest about this goal:

    “The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights… To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preferences the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games….At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full ‘appreciation’ or ‘understanding’ of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing…then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won” (The Overhauling of Straight America, Guide Magazine, November 1987)

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    "the district court failed to adequately respect Utah’s reasons, based on common sense and sound social science, for retaining the man-woman definition of marriage."

    Why should any court respect that argument given that the State fails to demonstrate any rational link between its prohibition of same-sex marriage and its goal of having more children raised in the family structure the State wishes to promote. There is no reason to believe that Amendment 3 has any effect on the choices of couples to have or raise children, whether they are opposite-sex couples or same-sex couples.

    Amendment 3 HARMS children in demonstrable ways. There is no rationale for defending it.

    What part of that does Utah not understand?

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    Lagomorph 2/5 9:30 am: "It’s at once unfortunate yet ironic that the bullets in the online edition are rendered as the formatting code “•” (at least in my browser). A Freudian slip, perhaps?"

    The software is conspiring against me to spoil the joke. The formatting code I referenced was rendered as a large dot (bullet) in my comment (although not in the article) rather than the character string I typed. The comment makes more sense when you realize the code contains the string "bull" that is widely used as a euphemism for an untruth. I thought it telling that even the paper's own web software recognized the weakness of the argument.

    A follow-up to my 2/5 9:14 comment on SB89 legalizing first cousin marriages in Utah:

    Four senators still sitting in the legislature voted for SB89 in 1996: M. Brown, L. Hillyard, J. Valentine, H. Stephenson. Maybe they could take some time from their duties on the Hill to explain how SB89 furthered a "child-centric marriage culture" by eliminating children from marriage. Why are they unwilling to grant similar consideration for same-sex couples?

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    You oppose abortion and promote adoption and then turn around and tell those of us who were adopted that we were raised in sub-par environments because we were not raised by our biological parents.

    Maybe it's time to look at creating a single message.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 10:32 a.m.

    Kathy says, Same gendered couples never raise "their" children. They raise children from a heterosexual union. The children need their parents and those are the parents that have rights.

    Another assertion that adopted children aren't equal to biological children.

  • Ohio-LDS NE, OH
    Feb. 5, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    J. Thompson,

    The Proclamation is hanging in my family room. And it supports my point. The Proclamation states that "marriage" is a relationship between two adults, not the children. I have several children myself. They mean more to me than anything - except my marriage and relationship with Christ. That was my whole point.

    By arguing that marriage is (or should be) "child-centric" the State of Utah's brief does great damage to the institution of marriage. The State of Utah wrongly would elevate the parent-child relationship above the spousal relationship. In my significant experience in the church, we teach that the spousal relationship is preeminent. Hence my quote to the church's own statement on marriage:
    "Those who are married should consider their union as their most cherished earthly relationship. A spouse is the only person other than the Lord whom we have been commanded to love with all our heart (see D&C 42:22)."

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 10:55 a.m.

    Now I see why my wife and I were treated as second-class members of our community and our faith for the first five years of our marriage - until we adopted a baby. Until you have lived in this state (and especially if you a member of the predominant faith) without having children, you'll never understand the ostracism that occurs. To my LGBT neighbors and friends - keep up the fight.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    Ohio-LDS

    Are you trying to tell us that the LDS Church supports same-sex sex? Are you trying to tell us that the LDS Church advocates for sex outside of marriage? You said that you have a copy of "The Proclamation" hanging on your living room wall, yet you contradict its intent and purpose.

    That proclamation defines the eternal nature of gender. It defines marriage. It tells us the purpose of marriage. It specifically warns us about sexual relations outside of marriage, after it defined marriage to be between a man and a woman.

    "THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

    Parenthood presupposes children. You can't be a parents unless there is a child involved. The First Commandment given to the first family was to procreate and to have children within marriage.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    @kathy

    speaking in strictly "legal terms" if a parent "adopts" a child they take on all the same rights and responsibilities of a biological parent, meaning they cannot simply walk away from insuring the well being of the child. Allowing marriage also creates a contract that makes it more difficult to simply walk away from a relationship if there are struggles. As to the needs of the children the overwhelming scientific evidence suggest that there is no significant difference between same sex and one man one women marriages in terms of outcome. At the end of the day your argument really illustrates why marriage and adoption should be encouraged among the gay community not discouraged.

  • Jsmith5151 Washington, DC
    Feb. 5, 2014 11:40 a.m.

    The notion that children need both a mother and a father is quaint. In this day and age, the only difference between men and women is that SOME men can sire children, and SOME women can conceive and bear them. Aside from that, the spectrum of capabilities of both sexes in endless. Pigeonholing anyone into pre-conceived traditional roles simply limits the potential of all. Some men are better nurses and teachers than some women, and some women are better fighter pilots and CEOs than men. We all do better if we are all allowed to do what we do best, which in some cases is raising children in non-traditional settings. God knows there are many many unwanted children of parents who simply had sex without contraception. Are those parents better than a gay couple who went to great lengths to become parents. I think not, and I think most would agree.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    Feb. 5, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    @ J Thompson
    No. Members of the LDS church who support the LEGALIZATION of same-sex marriage do not think the church supports same-sex relationships. We know church doctrine. We love the gospel and support traditional families.
    We just don't think that that our doctrinal position alone is sufficient basis to make laws to try to make other people behave how we think they should.
    We don't see anything in the church doctrine or the proclamation that tells us we need to try to make people's lives more difficult to "punish" them for sinning.
    We support legalizing same-sex marriages because we recognize the reality that same-sex families do exist and we think legalizing their relationships gives those families, including their children, the best chance of success. When we balance the benefits and possible costs of legalization, we see many benefits and few costs.
    We are bothered by the unbalanced apocalyptic and wartime rhetoric directed toward one group of people. We prefer to show empathy, compassion, and charity and try to help all families succeed.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    Why is same-sex parenting harmful?

    "It is statistically clear that children who are raised with two biological parents are far better off than children in any other kind of family unit. Children who are raised by both their biological parents are statistically less likely to be involved in ‘delinquent’ behavior, to drop out of school, to be unemployed, to use drugs in adolescence, to be involved in crime, to become pregnant as teenagers, to be poor, or to be sick. This is the clear truth about two biological parent family units (the larger group), even though there may be isolated instances in which this is not the case.

    But more importantly, it is also clear that same sex unions are statistically more violent, abusive, unfaithful, unhealthy and temporary. It is fair and natural for government to evaluate the nature of the larger group when establishing laws". From "pleaseconvinceme" website

    Conscientious citizens need to carefully consider the negative consequences to society if Utahs state rights (Amendment 3) is NOT uphleld in Utah

  • rpgoss American Fork, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    Great editorial! We have been married for many years and have children and grandchildren. We've lived in many states as well as overseas. A stable marriage with children fosters community involvement and gives meaning to the family being the fundamental unit of society.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    @Meckofahess

    So when Philps says “The deaths of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are signs of God’s righteous judgment” against the country for allowing gay rights and marriage and that the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and the bombing at the Boston Marathon were also signs of God’s anger for allowing gay rights and marriage we should take that as the view of all that oppose gay marriage and rights? the point being one persons opinion does not a movements agenda make.

    Secondly despite your claims and the claims of the defendants the overwhelming research show no significant difference in outcomes for children raised in two headed homosexual households and one man one women households or the fact that every major professional organization that studies human behavior clearly states there is no harm.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Feb. 5, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    To "Schnee" name the law in Utah that specifically states that SSM is illegal. From what I have been able to find, there is no law that states if 2 gays are married that the police can arrest them and charge them with a crime.

    To "E Sam" when does parenting stop? Just because a child has left the house that does not mean that their parents no longer teach or are concered about their child's wellbeing.

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    J. Thompson ... The Proclamation is not doctrine. Before we canonize it, I suggest theses simple edits (hanging on my wall).

    "ALL HUMAN BEINGS are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit child of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender may be an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose, but any role it plays is beyond our limited mortal understanding. Before God commanded our first mortal parents to multiply, He created mortal bodies through supernatural methods that we may one day use ourselves.

    "Parents have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Parents will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations."

    There is no contradiction.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Feb. 5, 2014 12:52 p.m.

    The discussion about which is primary, the spousal relationship or the child(ren), reminds me of what flight attendants tell us: "In the unexpected event of a change in cabin pressure, the oxygen masks will drop...If traveling with children, make sure to secure your own mask first..."

    If you don't take care of yourself first, you're not going to be much use to your child(ren).

  • Stephen Daedalus Arvada, CO
    Feb. 5, 2014 1:00 p.m.

    DN Editorial thinks Utah’s brief to 10th Cir convincingly argues how "Utah’s marriage laws advance the state’s interest in children being raised by biological mothers and fathers, or at least by a married mother and father, in a stable home."

    Utah’s brief, pg 15, quotes Utah Code to support its point: "After a couple has a child, Utah law emphasizes that '[i]t is in the best interests and welfare of a child to be raised under the care and supervision of the child's natural parents.'" 62A-4a-201(1)(c).

    To the casual reader, the phrase "natural parents" sure sounds a lot like "biological parents", right?

    Wrong.

    In that very same Chapter of Utah Code, "Natural parent" is defined to mean "a minor's biological or adoptive parent, and includes a minor's noncustodial parent." 62A-4a-101(18).

    The law Utah quotes actually refutes what they are telling the court: adoptive parents are non-biological and noncustodial parents indicate non-intact families.

    It is a terrible idea to mislead a court, even by mistake. The clerks for the 10th Cir. will find this and similar 'mistakes' peppered throughout Utah's brief...won't be pretty.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 1:22 p.m.

    Utah's resistance to same-sex marriage is now based on the idea that marriage should be child-centric rather than spouse-centric?

    “The Lord says in definite terms: ‘Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shall cleave unto her and none else.’ (D&C 42:22.)

    “The words none else eliminate everyone and everything. The spouse then becomes preeminent in the life of the husband or wife, and neither social life nor occupational life nor political life nor any other interest nor person nor thing shall ever take precedence over the companion spouse” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 310–11).

  • Daniel L. Murray, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 1:37 p.m.

    The comments on this article are astounding.
    This is what I do know.

    *If you are poor in the United States - Statistically you are a child in a single parent home.

    *If you receive a good education and become a successful contributing member of society - Statistically you come from an intact family with both a father and mother.

    *The offspring of birth parents who are not married statistically fair no better than their single parent counterparts.

    *If you are born - Biologically you are the product of a heterosexual relationship - even if one donated via a test tube.

    How ironic, is it then, for our society to take the best science, social and biology, and to completely ignore it. Or better yet - to justify socially detrimental behavior because many birth parents are failing in their obligations.

    And even though we have invented new terms like "common law marriage" it has not reversed the statistical trend of their offspring.

    Taking a behavior that has statistically negative consequences on the social welfare of children and renaming it, will not change the social consequences of that behavior.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    @Daniel L

    what you don't seem to know is that comparing single parents to two parent homosexual households is like comparing apples to bananas. When you look at the science that compares homosexual two parent households and two parent opposite sex parent their is little or n significant difference. the only thing truly "astounding" about this thread is those that oppose SSM marriage continued use of arguments that have already been proven to be distortions of the facts.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 2:36 p.m.

    It is so simple. Marriage is a religious rite, not a constitutional right. Does God hold the good of children as a big reason for marriage? I think so, but that is not a legal issue.

    The word 'marriage' has been stolen by the state, to label certain contracts. Why not just call them contracts, like all the other contracts that people enter into?

    Regardless of your belief about God, don't we all agree that the needs of children should come first? If so, then we should diligently seek to have children born to mothers and fathers who are committed to each other and to their children.

    For those children whose biological parents don't give them that, shouldn't we still seek to place them in the best possible situation? I think we agree that we should. Homes with a mother and a father are still give children the best results.

    So let's not place children in homes where they will not have a father and a mother, ever!
    Those who seek to place children in homes where they will be deprived of a mother or a father are not putting children first.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 2:41 p.m.

    @RedshirtCalTech
    "name the law in Utah that specifically states that SSM is illegal. From what I have been able to find, there is no law that states if 2 gays are married that the police can arrest them and charge them with a crime."

    Sorry for the confusion. I meant that the only sign of any sort of respect I can see is that Utah doesn't consider it a crime to be a same-sex couple (and I noted that any hypothetical law to make it a crime would be unconstitutional anyway due to Lawrence v Texas). I didn't mean to suggest that there currently is a law that makes it a crime.

    @Daniel L.
    "*If you are poor in the United States - Statistically you are a child in a single parent home."

    If you are a poor child in the United States - statistically you are a child who is poor (I'm making a strong run at obvious statement of the year). Should we ban poor people from marrying because of this correlation?

  • Daniel L. Murray, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    I think it is wonderful that I live in a state that places great value on human life. That the state of Utah places high regard on each individual to ensure that in our most fundamental unit of society "The Family" both a man and a woman is viewed as critical to the social structure of the entire community. That both the mind and body of every individual is needed to maintain our social order.
    I think it significant that I get to teach my sons and daughters of their value and worth. That they are absolutely essential, critical even, not just mentally, or spiritually, but also physically.

  • stuff Provo, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 3:06 p.m.

    That's all good and well, but marriage is an institution for a man and a woman, first. It's a healthy status, assuming the two individuals are well-balanced and centered on each other. Any marriage arguments should center on that husband-wife relationship first, then on the benefits for creating and raising children.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Feb. 5, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    @DanielL: You don't know what you think you know.

    Firstly, statistical outcomes are no reason to discriminate against individuals. Look at the Supreme Court, composed 88.89$ of Catholics and Jews. Clearly, no one else should be allowed to enter law school, as they are far inferior at the law.

    Secondly, you're confusing the concepts of sexual reproduction (sperm and egg), with sexual relationship (intimacy). Don't make that mistake in your marriage.

    Thirdly, "common law marriage" is hardly a new term. From earliest preChristian Rome until 1563 in the Catholic Church and 1753 in the Anglican one, all marriages were "common law," without ceremony, officiant or certification. Still legal in a number of U.S. states. Look it up.

    @StephenDaedalus: Unbelievable! Too bad they didn't have a Utah attorney to lead the team. Maybe he would have caught that. Wait... You're not from Utah, and you found it on the first reading... Do you really think they could actually be trying to mislead the Court? Maybe they're just completely ignorant about family law? I'm not sure which of those two possibilities is actually funnier.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 3:33 p.m.

    Those in favor of same-sex "marriage" refuse to address the central issue, which is whether it is better for children to be reared in a marriage where the father is male and the woman is female. They refuse to tell us why they think that two men or two women would be better able to explain the "birds and the bees" to young people, and to accurately and completely explain why men and women are different and to tell those children that if everyone decided to "marry" someone of the same sex, that only artificial means could be used to produce children.

    So what if "some" couples in a heteralsexual marriage can't have children and others choose not to have children? The plain fact is that NO same-sex sex will produce children. It is a physical impossibility, not just a potential probability.

    Who is willing to guarantee that no harm will come to children, emotionally, physically or intellectually if they are raised by two men or by two women whose personal beliefs are 100% opposite the beliefs required if children are to be raised to accurately understand the purpose of male and female?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland Cuyahoga , OH
    Feb. 5, 2014 3:55 p.m.

    According to the Utah Foster Care Foundation, about 2,700 kids are in the foster care system and there are only about 1,400 licensed foster families.

    To add injury to insult some comments are even upset that the state allows single Gays and Lesbians to foster and adopt, while ignoring the fact that there are not enough volunteers in the first place.

    If people actually believed that a "child-centric marriage" is the best place for kids, there would be 10,000 or 20,000 or more licensed foster families in the state.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 4:11 p.m.

    If you think that male or female is totally irrelevant and interchangeable... then same sex marriage makes sense. Then it doesn't matter if your dad is a man, or that your mom is a woman, or even if you have a mom or dad. Because they are totally interchangeable and replaceable.

    But if you think there ARE real differences... and that the differences matter... then you wonder if the children may be missing something being raised in a home where gender doesn't matter, and roles are totally interchangeable.

    It will probably take awhile before social science knows whether there is a measurable impact or not. But like people have pointed out... it wouldn't be any less impact than the father walking out on the family or something traumatic like that (which happens all the time in families now days).

    Children have learned to adjust to that. I'm sure children will learn and adapt to this as well. They are very flexible and formative as children.

    Maybe one day men and women WILL be totally interchangeable in our society. That seems to be the direction we are pushing for.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 4:40 p.m.

    @J Thomas

    "Those in favor of same-sex "marriage" refuse to address the central issue, which is whether it is better for children to be reared in a marriage where the father is male and the woman is female."

    On page four alone, the same page as your comment, both spring street address what you claim to be "the central issue." I also addressed your "central issue" along with several other people on previous pages. You do realize that we can all read through the post and see what exactly has been said right?

    Once again the overwhelming scientific evidence proves and the overwhelming majority of professional organizations that study human behavior agree that children raised in same sex two parent homes far as well as their counterparts raised in a two parent heterosexual household.

  • lindaj72 salt lake city, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 6:53 p.m.

    I was raised in a traditional home by loving parents. Our home was peaceful and loving. It was a "real" "Father Knows Best," and "Leave it to Beaver." Unfortunately, I took it for granted until I made two mistakes in marriage. Then I understood. My children from my w failed marriages have suffered. They have had to work through the difficulties caused by an irresponsible womanizer (1st marriage), and an abusive alcoholic, womanizer (2nd). I have many regrets that I didn't choose better. One child is in therapy and doing well finally. The other child has established a home set by the example of his grandparents (my parents). He and his wife work as a team, are supportive and committed to each other and to their children who are thriving under their care. We can argue all we want but striving for the ideal family unit is where we should be putting our efforts. The success of society and nations depend upon children who are raised in the traditional setting. A society where anything goes is asking for disaster.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Feb. 5, 2014 7:14 p.m.

    @JThompson: Look, I know you want to MAKE it the central issue, but if we're being honest here, the issue of permitting gay/lesbian couples to marry has nothing to do with children. Well, almost nothing.

    That's because, whether they're allowed to marry, or not, doesn't change whether they, or anyone else, will be allowed to have or adopt children. So, logically, your argument is bogus.

    Child welfare must be of paramount importance, I will totally agree. Most children will continue to live in "traditional" heterosexual families, although a great number of those families are actually broken homes or single unmarried parent. Those are issues which should get more societal attention, but this marriage question doesn't address that at all. Don't abandon those children when you're done distorting this marriage issue.

    Whether or not gays or lesbians are allowed to marry their chosen partner only affects children in one very significant way. Those who are ALREADY living in a household with two gay/lesbian parents have far fewer protections, or rights to both parents, or stability in their household, if their parents are not allowed to marry. They'll still be there, though.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 8:32 p.m.

    Whose word should we take, our Creator's, or the word of a group of people who want to change the natural order of things because THEY say that there no ill effects from telling a child that gender doesn't matter; that men and women are physically different for a purpose; that God's word doesn't matter when He told us that our gender is eternal; that marriage is between a man and a woman; that sex outside of marriage is wrong; that we are commanded to multiply and replenish the earth and that any form of sexual relations outside of the type of marriage defined by God is wrong. How do you explain to a child that you want him or her to believe you and to reject everything God has said on the subject. Is that good for the child? How will teaching a child to reject his Creator help that child?

    The title includes "child-centric". Those who failed to address "child-centicity" are only pushing their propaganda. They refuse to address the real issues.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 9:35 p.m.

    Isn't it great how the strawman arguments come out (SS, SC, and St) against any poster (Daniel L) who makes really coherent valid points in favor of marriage and child rearing by a man and a woman union?

    There aren't really any good arguments for cheating children out of a father or a mother.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Feb. 5, 2014 9:43 p.m.

    J Thompson, p. 46 of Judge Shelby's opinion addresses your concerns:

    "To the extent the State wishes to see more children in opposite-sex families, its goals are tied to laws concerning adoption and surrogacy, not marriage. If anything, the State's prohibition of same-sex marriage detracts from the State's goal of promoting optimal environments for children...[Children of same-sex couples] are also worthy of the State's protection, yet Amendment 3...'humiliates thousands of children now being raised by
    same-sex couples'...Amendment 3 'also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples'...because it denies the families of these children a panoply of benefits that the State and the federal government offer to families who are legally wed. Finally, Utah's prohibition of same-sex marriage further injures the children of both opposite-sex and same-sex couples who themselves are gay or lesbian, and who will grow up with the knowledge that the State does not believe they are as capable of creating a family as their heterosexual friends."

    It is the State that has failed and continues to fail to provide a rational basis for its own argument.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 9:57 p.m.

    @j Thomas

    I will trust sceince over you interpetation of a "creator" story but thanks.

    @badger

    Your right danel l's unsupported claim certainly Seem a more rational argument then those silly arguments based on the best available research and the views of all the leading expert organizations in the field of human behavior, I mean how can we take such arguments serious?

  • Stephen Daedalus Arvada, CO
    Feb. 6, 2014 6:44 a.m.

    @Quaker: "...Do you really think they could actually be trying to mislead the Court?..."

    More likely a case of a true-believing attorney not casting sufficient scrutiny over his own argument.

    In that same section explaining Utah law's policy favoring "biological parents" Utah's brief quotes the Juvenile Court Act:

    "It is in the best interest and welfare of a child to be raised under the care and supervision of the child’s natural parents. A child’s need for a normal family life in a permanent home, and for positive, nurturing family relationships is usually best met by the child’s natural parents....For these reasons, the court should only transfer custody of a child from the child’s natural parent for compelling reasons and when there is a jurisdictional basis to do so." § 78A-6-503(8

    As before, the phrase "natural parents" in the law invites conflation with the "biological parent" and child-centric concept Utah advocates. But (as before) this Chapter defines "natural parent" as both non-biological and non-married (divorced, separated) parents: "a minor's biological or adoptive parent, and includes the minor's noncustodial parent" § 78A-6-105(26)

  • Albemar West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 7:20 a.m.

    Gays & Lesbians do have and always will have children. That is not going to change. If marriage is good for some children, why isn't it good for all the children? If marriage benefits some people, why isn't it good for all citizens? It's absurd to claim something is so beneficial to humanity and then deny some of humanity access to the life changing benefit.

  • Albemar West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 7:29 a.m.

    Sadly this state continues to make arguments supposedly based upon the concern for children, while purposely attacking and harming the children of Gays & Lesbians. If marriage is good for the children of heterosexual parents, it obviously must be good for children of homosexual parents. Gays & Lesbians have had, do have and will continue to have children. These children do not deserve to be treated by second class citizens by the state.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Feb. 6, 2014 7:53 a.m.

    To "intervention" to "Albemar" the assertion that children raised by same sex parents do as well as children raised by a mother and father is a half truth. They do as well in some areas, however, they do fall short when it comes to developing healthy emotional relationships.

    Read the study "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" by the University of Southern California. They find that when you look at all the studies both for and against children being raised by gay parents that damage does occur. They find that gay parents have a disproportionately high rate of having gay kids. Their kids are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior, and as adults don't know how to act appropriately for their gender.

    According to the scientific studies that are out there, children being raised by gay couples are living in a second rate environment.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 10:12 a.m.

    RSCT: "According to the scientific studies that are out there, children being raised by gay couples are living in a second rate environment."

    ____________

    So your answer to that problem is to not let the parents marry? That does not make sense. One would think that you would a) pass a law that gays could NOT reproduce -although we have never passed laws like that before. b) pass a law to take away all children now living with gay parents - although we have never passed a law like that either.

    If the state is seeking the ideal, older jewish parents actually raise the most successful, well-rounded, better adjusted children. Let's only let them marry and reproduce since that is the ideal. Who cares about the children born to couples who do not fit the ideal.

    That is what you are saying about gay couples and their children. It is illogical to ignore what we can do for these children which is to give them all the stability of having their parents married and the security and financial privileges that affords, right?

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    At some point both sides are going to have to face the reality that this cannot be a win-lose deal. The needs, concerns and rights of BOTH sides will need to be address. The alternative will be on-going controversy and ugliness.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Feb. 6, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    To "Lane Myer" the answer is don't lie to me, to yourself, and to the world and say that children raised by same sex parents are equal to children raised by a mother and a father.

    Not all children have a perfect environment, but should we lower our standards and say that 2nd rate environment is as good as the best environment?

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    Marriage is between a man and a woman who usually desire have a child or children who is /are THEIR child, a natural creation between the parents. They see one another in that mutual creation as the product of their mutual love.

    If those parents really love their child or children they will put their own relationship first or run the very serious risk or parting company and placing that child in a single parent family, and perhaps trapped in between an acrimonious mother and father who argue over them and past quarrels. This also places children more often in a babysitter situation with insufficient time spent with their natural parents.

    I am aware that sometimes such situations are unavoidable but too many times they are not. People talk a lot about putting children first but I don't believe that realistically they do. It is so much hot air and hysteria.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Feb. 6, 2014 11:52 a.m.

    RedShirtCalTech, you are misinformed about the conclusions of the article you cite above. A quick Google search would have saved you this error. The following is from the article's conclusion:

    "Most of the differences in the findings...cannot be considered deficits from any legitimate public policy perspective. They either favor the children with lesbigay parents, are secondary effects of social prejudice, or represent 'just a difference' of the sort democratic societies should respect and protect. Apart from differences associated with parental gender, most of the presently observable differences in child 'outcomes' should wither away under conditions of full equality and respect for sexual diversity...On the contrary, we propose that homophobia and discrimination are the chief reasons why parental sexual orientation matters at all."

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Feb. 6, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    "Child-centric" certainly has a noble ring to it ... but in the debate over marriage equality it's ultimately meaningless, since (1) couples do not need to marry in order to have children, and (2) the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

    Also keep in mind that there are countless Gay couples who are raising their adopted children to healthy, well-adjusted adulthood. If marriage provides a more stable home environment for the raising of children, why deny such adoptive Gay couples the option to legally marry?

    As Judge Vaughn Walker said in the decision on California's Prop. 8 Case: "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages." It was a view shared by the courts in the Golinski case against DOMA, where a Bush appointee in the Northern District of California concurred: "The exclusion of same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriages."

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    Yep, these comments alone shred the state's argument.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Feb. 6, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    To "Karen R." you missed the parts about how kids raised by gay parents make themselves gay to appeal to their parents. You also missed where they are unable to act appropriately for their gender. The other great part was how some will resort to experimenting with homosexual relationships.

    Does any of that sound healthy?

    The study states that "Evidence in these and the few other studies that focus on these variables does not support the 'no differences' claim. Children with lesbigay parents appear less traditionally gender-typed and more likely to be open to homoerotic relationships."

    Plus, you are missing the point of why I mentioned the article. Being raised by 2 gays is NOT equal to being raised by a mother and father. That article is very clear that being raised by 2 gays is not the same as a hetersexual couple.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    Feb. 6, 2014 2:51 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech says, "...kids raised by gay parents make themselves gay to appeal to their parents."

    Not sure where you found that little "gem," but it's patently false. The sexuality of parents has no effect on the sexuality of children. About 95% of the children of straight parents are straight. About 95% of the children of gay parents are straight, too. The only difference might be the gay 5%, when raised by conservative religious parents, staying in the closet longer. Other than that, the outcomes are identical.

    The actual peer-reviewed studies that compared married two-parent households, found no significant differences between children of straight or gay parents.

    Just the fact that someone with an axe to grind puts something in print doesn't make it true. There are some horribly slanderous fabrications floating around out there, full of half-truths and untruths, promoted by those seeking to deny equal treatment to a completely harmless minority that's been used as a whipping-child by conservative religious zealots for far too long.

    And, I say that as a straight, observantly religious, believer that we are all God's children, with His love available to every soul.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 3:05 p.m.

    @testimony
    the study the redshirt is misquoting actually find s the minor differences that exist cannot be considered deficits from a public policy standard and would likely disappear of full equality was given to gay parents. you will learn quickly that redshirt does not accurately portray research which is why most of us have learned to ignore him.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 3:09 p.m.

    RSCT: What should we do to rectify that being raised by gays is not equal (supposing your article to be correct)?

    1) Not allow their parents to marry, thus creating a more unstable environment for them to be raised in?

    2) Take them away from the gays?

    3) Make all gays sterile and ban them from adopting?

    OR

    1) Allow their parents to marry, thus creating a more stable home for them to grow up in?

    2) Teach the other children not to ostricize those who's families are "different?"

    3) Give support for all types of families to ensure that children have the greatest chance of becoming a responsible adult.

    What is your solution? Just let them be second class citizens - just because their parents are not acceptable to your beliefs? What should we do? Are they just throw away children? They are here and they will continue to be born are raised by gays. Do you have a solution?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 3:17 p.m.

    Testimony,
    I don't know about any studies on this, but common sense kinda indicates that children will grow up to be like their parents. That's part of why children have parents (to be their role-models).

    Parents are a role-model to their children. Being a "role-model" means the children will look up to them and try to model themselves after their role "models" in their lives (their parents, leaders, teachers, etc).

    Expecting children to grow up to be nothing like their parents is kinda like expecting an apple seed to grow up to be a peach tree.

    I don't think all children of gay parents will grow up to be gay. That's obviously not the case. But it's got to be kinda confusing for them. They see one role-model at home, and another one in most of their other interactions (with other families, friends, teachers, at church, on TV, etc).

    I just think it's got to be stressful and confusing for the children. Children in today's world have enough stress and confusion in their lives already without us putting this one on them.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 3:26 p.m.

    To "Testimony" read the study that I listed earlier. They are quite clear that how different the children are that are raised by gay parents when compared to children raised by straight parents.

    The fact is that the studies that you refer to only look at some aspects of a child growing up. What they all fail to look at is the sexual development, the risky sexual behavior that they get involved with, experimentation with homosexuality, and the fact that there is a disproportionately high number of kids that identify themselves as gay in households headed by gay parents.

    If you are a believer that "we are all God's children" then shouldn't we abide by His laws and since God has said that marriage is between a man and a woman, are you now going to fight to keep the definition of marriage to what God has said? Or, do you know something God doesn't?

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 3:30 p.m.

    You people truly take the cake. I read some of your insulting comments and it truly is pathetic how people have a need to degrade and dehumanize others! I am gay and I promise you that no child would have a second rate home with me! I bet I would make a better parent than any of you hateful people. We wonder why there is war and why there is so much hate? Take a look in the mirror, people, you preach it and you live it! I have known many children raised by gay parents and they have had wonderful families! Why don't we look at what the truth really is. There are many children with severe problems caused by a horrible family life! Guess what, 99.9% of these children come from heterosexual families! Duh! Again, look at your selves! You know the scripture about pulling the mote out of your own eye before you try doing it to someone else? Get off your stinking arrogant high horses! You are no better than anyone else! Believe me, we won't wait around for your approval! We will live our lives how we choose!

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    @redshirt
    As Karen rightfully point out, the studies findings is that the differences observed are minor and should not affect public policy as they will likely disappear with full equality, a conclusion not condemns it as you would have us believe.

  • Lasvegaspam Henderson, NV
    Feb. 6, 2014 3:49 p.m.

    Why don't we let those who have experienced it speak for themselves? Inform yourselves by reading about one man's experience with two mothers and the chaos and confusion which ensued. Google Robert Oscar Lopez Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children's View.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 6, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    RedShirt
    2 bits

    I do apologize, but I think we need to state the obvious. If you really believe the sexual orientation of the parents has an impact in children. How do you explain homosexuality?

    Let's move back in time , say, 50 years ago, when homosexuality was repressed, never discussed in polite society. Yet, the same percentage of homosexuals existed then as now.

    How do you explain homosexuality in heterosexual, Mormon Utah?

    I am gay and have many gay friends, all of us come from heterosexual families. Yet, not all our brothers and sisters are homosexuals. But, we all grew up in the same environment.

    Please enlighten me.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    Feb. 6, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    @2Bits: Well, you're simply wrong. If you were right, there wouldn't be any gay people, since they're all born to straight parents. The "recruitment" and "example" libels are just antigay slanders, not truth.

    Human sexuality develops very early, probably in the womb from the sea of hormones the fetus develops in. First-born sons are much less likely to be gay than subsequent ones. Some scientific speculation revolves around antibodies that the mother may develop to male hormones at some point during her fertile years. Genetics may predispose a susceptibility to that prenatal environment, or not. No one is sure what the answer is, other than it seems to be naturally-occurring and around 1 in 20 boys and girls.

    At the age most children are adopted, there's little way to tell their sexuality. It won't emerge for several years yet. But there's no evidence that the postnatal environment plays any role. That 1 in 20 ratio is remarkably consistent, whether the home is "traditional" or same-sex, which makes some psychologists crazy, since they want to tie everything to early childhood environment, and this confounds their model.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 4:31 p.m.

    @Lasvegaspam
    yes why don't we let one person speak for an entire community of children and ignore the research and the larger community, shall we ably that same logic to listening to roseanne Barr and her experiences growing up in Mormon Utah when considering legislation?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 4:40 p.m.

    To "Baccus0902" if sexual orientation has no impact on children, why do families headed by same sex couples have more children that identify themselves as gay than families with hetersexual parents?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 7:09 p.m.

    re: "If gender does not matter, then neither does number or blood relationship."
    The gender argument is a false premise, a straw man argument, or fallacy. Gender simply cannot be used as a basis for animus and discrimination under due process and equal protection guarantees in the constitution. Same-sex marriage does not require opposite sex couples (different genders) to think or do anything differently in their own marriages. In cases of procreation, opposite sex or same-sex couples can adopt or use assisted reproduction. No credible research exists showing gender must be requirement for healthily child outcomes.

    Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare agree on child outcomes from same-sex parents.
    American Academy of Pediatrics,[6] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, American Psychoanalytic Association, National Association of Social Workers, Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children,Canadian Psychological Association.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 7:54 p.m.

    @Dr. G "Marriage is, first and foremost, about the pro-creation of children. All other emotional and economic questions can be answered without a marriage contract. "

    Actually, marriage laws in the United States have been directed more consistently at supporting children than producing them. In part based on presumptions for gender roles in assigning division of labor, than procreative abilities.

    Absolutely none of this child centric parenting argumentation has the slightest relevance to so called child centric marriages. Parental fitness is an issue for adoption and family law, NOT marriage law.

    Has the state chosen to pound the table? "If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table." So in other words, the state of Utah feels that it is perfectly rational to hold gays and lesbians morally and legally responsible for any failure of heterosexuals to act in the manner that the state wishes them to behave.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 9:05 p.m.

    @redshirt

    From the American Psychological Association (with citations) “Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents (Patterson, 2004a). Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents (Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999). Evidence also suggests that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). The picture that emerges from research is one of general engagement in social life with peers, parents, family members, and friends. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support. Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.”

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 10:12 p.m.

    From the American Academy of Pediatrics Scientific evidence affirms that children have similar developmental and emotional needs and receive similar parenting whether they are raised by parents of the same or different genders. If a child has 2 living and capable parents who choose to create a permanent bond by way of civil marriage, it is in the best interests of their child(ren) that legal and social institutions allow and support them to do so, irrespective of their sexual orientation. If 2 parents are not available to the child, adoption or foster parenting remain acceptable options to provide a loving home for a child and should be available without regard to the sexual orientation of the parent(s).

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 7, 2014 12:07 a.m.

    @ Redshirt: What the study you reference actually says is that children raised in lesbigay households are more open to the possibility of being homosexual - in other words, they are more willing to accept the possibility that they _may be_ homosexual. The study does not say more of them are homosexual.

    And the "non-traditional" gender roles you are so concerned about? Girls raised in lesbigay homes are more open to exploring professions that have been historically male, such as rocket scientist or CEO, while boys are more likely to be nurturing and not afraid to show it.

    You are either misunderstanding the study or misrepresenting it - but either way, it does not say what you claim it says and actually works against an on-going prohibition of same-sex marriage.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    Keep pushing. Eventually you will be (not) truly happy.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 7, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    @ Redshirt: One other interesting little fact about that study you are so fond of referencing - it actually discredits much of the research the State of Utah uses to support the prohibition against same-sex marriage.

    @ Dr. G: Your marriage may be first and foremost about procreation, but the majority of marriages in the US are not.

    Additionally, unmarried couples can write as many contracts as they want but that is no guarantee those contracts will be honored by outside parties such as hospitals or court, and those contracts will not supersede the law, such as in the case of taxes or access to benefits.

    Some things are only available through marriage or a similar situation - both of which are prohibited to same-sex couples in Utah by Amendment 3.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 7, 2014 10:51 a.m.

    @ Redshirt: You missed the word "hints" (meaning there is not an exact conclusion drawn). You also seem to have missed, "This may be partly due to genetic and family socialization processes, but what sociologists refer to as "contextual effects" not yet investigated by psychologists may also be important. Because lesbigay parents are disproportionately more likely to inhabit diverse, cosmopolitan cities ... and progressive university communities ... their children grow up in comparatively tolerant school, neighborhood, and social contexts, which foster less hostility to homoeroticism. Sociology could make a valuable contribution to this field by researching processes that interact at the individual, family, and community level to undergird parent-child links between gender and sexuality." (In other words, it may be the environment, not the parenting.)

    You also seem to have missed, "Research and theory on sexual development remain so rudimentary that it is impossible to predict how much difference might remain were homosexuality not subject to social stigma. Indeed, ... one fascinating riddle to explain in this field is why, even though children of lesbigay parents appear to express a significant increase in homoeroticism, the majority of all children nonetheless identify as heterosexual, as most theories across the ... spectrum seem ... to expect."

  • Heilig St. George, Washington, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 6:33 p.m.

    I have read the entire 120 page brief of appeal (just Google "Utah appeal brief 1294036"), and I recommend that all should read it who want to truly understand Utah's compelling interest in preserving the traditional definition of marriage. I was impressed with the amazing legal basis Utah does have on numerous fronts for upholding it's constitutional amendment. I am confident that Utah's Amendment 3 will prevail.

    I would add that the goal of the amendment is not to demean; instead, it seems to elevate the optimum scenario for society. As a teacher, I see the effects of divorce and poverty in so many facets of a student's education; I also see the amazing success, in general, of students who come from strong families. Utah's Amendment 3 serves as a foundation for numerous other laws and policies that promote and protect the traditional family. Most of us recognize that there have been numerous changes in the "typical" family structure, but I truly believe that the long-term health of a nation is, indeed, founded upon the strength of individual families. Please don't see Utah as bigoted. There is much reason and rationale, hope and love behind this amendment.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 8, 2014 10:06 a.m.

    @Heilig 6:33 p.m. Feb. 7, 2014

    I read, studied and analyzed the brief. It does not do what you said. It uses a lot of words to say nothing new and nothing of substance.

    The intent of Amendment 3 IS to demean, and to discriminate for no rational-based reason. marriage is not necessary for procreation and procreation is not necessary for marriage. Amendment 3 merely denies equal rights based on prejudice. There is NO reason and rationale, hope and love behind this amendment, but merely bigotry and prejudice. Amendment 3 violates the provisions of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, and should be overturned.

  • Lilly Munster netherlands, 00
    Feb. 8, 2014 1:38 p.m.

    Utah did not "present rigorous evidence" about marriage and child rearing. It presented bigoted, slanted falsehoods about some of our citizens. Every argument for "Marriage is for one man, one woman, and for procreation" is false, littered with bad science, bad statistics, and bad faith. Marriage is a State Contract. Whatever you add to it in your own definition is fine. Muslims, Mormons, Calvinists and Atheists have equal access, and equal footing. NO ONE gets to define your marriage; it's purpose, legitimacy or legality. We are Americans, not Talibanists of any stripe. Equality Marriage harms no one, and it is simply an expressions of Equality. It needs no one's approval, other than the filing fee. Religions do not marry Americans. Constitutional Rights does.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 9, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    There is no reason why marriage can't be seen as for the benefit of the couple involved and for the benefit of any children involved. Adults deserve to be happy, and children likewise, children deserve to have their needs taken care if.

    As much glory as is thrust on Mother Teresa, the way she lived her life is wrong. She devoted her whole life to others sacrificing everything of herself. She was misguided in thinking this was the right thing to do. Its all about balance. We are to love our neighbor as ourself. Not sacrifice all of our happiness and give it all away.

  • B-BALLER SLC, UT
    Feb. 9, 2014 11:41 p.m.

    @baccus,

    Uh...just like my brother likes one team and I like another, he likes man dew, I like Pepsi, he likes blondes, I like brunette s. it's all about choice, and what influenced that choice at a young age. Back to the same choices I gave... My dad gave me a hat of that team, my best friend drank Pepsi, there was a cute brunette in my 3rd grade class. All of our choice were influenced some way, some how.

    Just imagine how children with gay parents would be influenced. You Can't disagree here.

    @rflash

    99.9 percent of children come from heterosexual homes, that was pointless.....oh, I will take your bet any day. Who sounds hateful??

    BOTTOM LINE..., gays will fight to the death, and twist it any way they can about being born that way, because that is their basis of being discriminated against. But...............it is not black and white, like in the 60s.

  • insulhom West Valley City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    I've made this argument before, so long as the government continues in the marriage business (licensing, benefits, etc.) there will be no stopping same-sex marriage. Either require all marriages to be performed civilly first, or leave marriage for religious purposes, however that religion deems fit (short of forced child marriage).

  • nycut New York, NY
    Feb. 12, 2014 6:26 a.m.

    @J Thompson:

    It's always somewhat amusing when someone reaches to the "birds and the bees" when advocating the supremacy of heterosexual reproduction:

    Bees. A species in which a group of sterile worker bees create one reproducing female by giving her a special diet, so that she can give birth to additional worker slaves , as well as drone sons with which she'll mate to keep the colony going. And of course bees play an important reproductive role for trees and and flowers-- an entirely different biological kingdom. How's that for kinky.

    And birds, many of whom are monogamous -- until the eggs hatch. They sometimes hook up with the same partner for several seasons, but often upgrade to more attractive partners along the way. Sort of like heterosexual humans.

    But then there's that pesky fact that many bird species have members that form long-term same-sex pairings, even caring for the eggs abandoned by their reproducing neighbors-- thus playing an important role in the continuance of their group. And, by the way, they are accepted socially by their flocks.

    Birds, bees and people. There's more to love than boy meets girl.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 8:48 a.m.

    Whoever wrote this editorial should read the article "To wives: Before you were Mommy" in the Family section of the DesNews. This article clearly shows that marriage is adult-centric, even when there are children -- the spouse needs ALWAYS to come first. It matches what the Pastor who married my husband and me over 44 years ago told us as part of our marriage preparation class -- children will be with us for a while, but spouses will be together for our entire lives (or, with the covenants we later made in the Salt Lake Temple, for eternity).

    Marriage is NOT first and foremost child-centric. This editorial is not correct in that premise.