Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: A mom and a dad

Comments

Return To Article
  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 6, 2014 12:18 a.m.

    Utah lets single people adopt, I don't see complaints about that. Why does it only matter when it's gay people?

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    April 6, 2014 1:15 a.m.

    You are not required to have children if you get married. So why are children being brought into this debate?

    I guess the ideal situation for a child would be;

    A household that has adequate access to health insurance. Republicans are against this.

    Access to quality education. Republicans in this state are against anything with education unless they can line their pockets.

    The ability of the parents to care for the child when it is born or adopted. Remember the Family Medical Leave Act that allowed the parent(s) to take off time from work to care for a new born. Republicans are against this.

    It seems to me that gay marriage is not the problem but how republicans do not support what is important to families.

  • El Chango Supremo Rexburg, ID
    April 6, 2014 5:02 a.m.

    Excellent article, I completely agree with it!!

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 6, 2014 7:33 a.m.

    Since children in single-parent families do far worse on the average than either children in conventional marriages or same sex marriages, why isn't their a big outcry to do something about that? It affects far, far more children than does same-sex marriage. Problem is, the only solution would be to require biological parents to marry as soon as the woman becomes pregnant, and to prohibit divorce until the children are of legal age. Or do we focus only on gay couples because they're a much easier target?

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    April 6, 2014 7:46 a.m.

    It is plainly obvious that this lengthy editorial is making one simple point, and that is:

    "that intact biological families tend to produce the best results for children".

    So what! My first cousin was raised by my grandparents, my grandmother was raised by her step father, my wife's cousin was raised by a kind neighbor lady who took him in, my cousin and her partner are raising an orphan from South America.

    My point is that maybe the ideal is the Cleavers, but life intrudes and we all do the best we can to make families work, why demonize family structures that don't fit someones definition of the "perfect family unit"?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 6, 2014 8:13 a.m.

    And so it continues: The refusal to acknowledge facts and information contrary to one’s position; the cherry-picking of language and data to support an insupportable argument.

    I don’t know why this should upset me – it’s clearly a weakness to be expected amongst us humans. But it upsets me when it is done in the service of religion – a type of belief system that purports to represent the height of morality and wants to be treated as more special than other perspectives.

    I am an atheist but I believe in Jesus. I don’t think he was a god and I’m not even certain that he actually existed. It doesn’t matter if he did. I believe in the message he is said to have espoused. This op-ed represents the opposite and it sickens me.

    If you have the truth on your side, there is no need to ignore, mislead, and cherry-pick.

    More to come…

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 6, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    The Child Trends article. I Googled it and found that the cover page consists of a single paragraph:

    "Note: This Child Trends brief summarizes research conducted in 2002, when neither same-sex parents nor adoptive parents were identified in large national surveys. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the well- being of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents."

    Loren Marks and Douglas Allen testified at the trial in Michigan. Here’s what the judge concluded about their testimony:

    “The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight. Marks’s testimony is largely unbelievable…The most that can be said of these witnesses’ testimony is that the ‘no differences’ consensus has not been proven with scientific certainty, not that there is any credible evidence showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples."

    Another post to come...

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 6, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    “Ad hominem attacks” is a reference to sociologist Mark Regnerus. Here’s what the Michigan opinion says about his testimony:

    “The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 ‘study’ was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it ‘essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society’ and which ‘was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study…While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged. Additionally, the [Regnerus study] is flawed on its face, as it purported to study “a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18-39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements” (emphasis added), but in fact it did not study this at all…”

  • tethered Salem, OR
    April 6, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    And how do the graduation rates of children compare on the other types of parenthood?

    Children of SINGLE MOTHERS?

    Children of SINGLE FATHERS?

    Children of ROTATING CUSTODY between parents?

    If the State of Utah really wants to address graduation rates, then you focus on the most critical aspects of childrens' upbringing & education. Every gay person that I know from the neighborhood where I grew was raised by OPPOSITE SEX PARENTS, and graduated from high school ON TIME.

    How does the percentage of couples that HAVE NEVER HAD CHILDREN impact the state laws of against couples who DESIRE to get married?

    And what about couples who CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN? Why should the State of Utah block my 84 year old widowed mother from marrying a Woman versus marrying a Man?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 6, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    You may be correct, if you cherry pick your research. What you also don't state is how infrequently your ideal traditional family succeeds in staying together, leading to all kinds of problems today. Maybe the commitment a gay couple make to overcome the hurdles, scorn and ridicule should be celebrated; it might even represent a great committed, stable relationship in which to raise a child. As for the efforts of the governor and attorney general, you are free to support them, but they're unconstitutional.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    April 6, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    If reason really needs to hold sway, your side needs to come up with a better argument than "God says homosexuality is gross." You guys can huff and puff and tap dance all you like, but you haven't really done this yet.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    April 6, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    The Canadian study is severely flawed. Since it was done only 8 years ago, most of the children of gays have not even reached high-school age. Gay marriage was made legal in Canada in 2005. Before then same-sex partners raising children and single gay parents were put in the same category as single parents. Children of single parents do have more struggles. Gays just made up a small percentage of that classification, so it is unfair to lump them with all single parents. No one is arguing that the traditional family is not more ideal than single parent families. But it is very valid to argue that children in same-sex partner households would do better if they were in a legally recognized family. There are already about 8 million such children, and they would fare much better if their "parents" (one of which is biological) had all the benefits and protections marriage affords.

  • BCA Murrieta, CA
    April 6, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    Happy to have you express your opinion. In Utah that may matter. Elsewhere, not so much. The train has left the station and same sex marriage will be the law of all the land. I have a gay son who has felt the oppression of the religious. All that is being minimized as this new generation is saying "no more" and believing that gays aren't second class people.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    April 6, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    DN, even if we all agree that mom-and-dad homes are the best environments to raise children, many children will still be raised in single-parent and same-sex-couple homes. And these children should not be disadvantaged by the State by a law that puts their homes in a second-class category.

    For all the chest-pounding by the DN - "it's about the children!" - it really isn't. If it were about the children, ALL children in all circumstances would be treated with dignity and respect. Your position is really about religion, and the discomfort that is felt when civil law and religious dogma become out of sync.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    April 6, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    Based on this research, should the government eliminate divorce? Should the government require couples always remain together? Should we take it a step further, and require religions to eliminate divorce? After all, research shows that would be best.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    April 6, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    There is strong correlation between a couple being opposite gender and fertility. (I did not say that there is a 100% correlation where every single opposite gender couple has children, I just said that there is a really strong correlation.) On the other hand, the correlation between same gender couples and fertility is zero. Not small, not tiny. Zero. There is a reason for that which is clear to most people.

    So, if we are going to give marriage benefits to non-procreational couples to recognize their love I would ilke to get my aunt and uncles social security benefits when they die. I love them a lot. They love me a lot. (For those who grew up in dysfunctional homes, I did not say that I am sleeping with them. Just because you love someone does not mean that you have to sleep with them.)

    If we give benefits to one class of non-procreational couples based on their shared love, then we need to do that to all other non-procreational couples. Don't argue that it should only be based on romantic love. Love overcomes all.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 6, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    Zach Wahls on this issue (quoting his testimony from his website): Well actually, I was raised by a gay couple, and I’m doing pretty well. I score in the 99th percentile on the ACT. I’m an Eagle Scout. I own and operate my own small business. If I was your son, Mr. Chairman, I believe I’d make you very proud. I’m not so different from any of your children. My family really isn’t so different from yours. After all, your family doesn’t derive its sense of worth from being told by the state, “You’re married, congratulations!” The sense of family comes the commitment we make to each other to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones. It comes from the love that binds us. That’s what makes a family. ... But not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple. And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero impact on the content of my character.

  • Debra D. Provo, UT
    April 6, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    I have to disagree with this article. My daughter is adopted. Are you trying to tell me that My daughter is going to be hurt by living in a loving, two-parent adoptive household? Just because a child is in a two parent, biological family, does not mean that it is a "low-conflict marriage."

    My husband and I have always wanted to adopt, and health issues made it the only way that we could become parents. Living in the church, we have repeatedly been treated as though we are lesser members and people because we didn't have children and now because we only have one child. Stories like this are only going to have adoptive families treated and feeling like they are less because they are not providing the "two biological parents" that this article claims is healthiest for children. There is enough prejudice going around without having articles like this adding fuel to the fire.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    April 6, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    It does not take more than a minute to look up the research that is cited here as evidence to ascertain that this research is thoroughly discredited. It was and is biased from the beginning, dated, and, by the admission of one of the researchers, fails to prove its conclusions based on the evidence it provided.

    Now, there may be religious or cultural reasons for believing that same sex marriage and child rearing are wrong. However there is no creditable research that shows that children in same sex parented homes fare any worse than those raised in so-called traditional "Father Knows Best" type homes.

    That paper cites discredited and obviously biased research to make it claims that children in same sex parented homes are somehow disadvantaged renders it unworthy of thoughtful consideration by its readers.

    Facts are pesky things that must not be ignored. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own fact.

  • jasonlivy Orem, UT
    April 6, 2014 10:51 a.m.

    My problem with so called 'scientific data' is we assume the people involved used complete integrity and had no subjective agendas, but often this is not the case. That is why we are taught that we should not put our faith in the 'arm of the flesh'. It only takes one person involved to falsify the data for their own personal or political gain. Even peer reviews can deceive due to men's inherent weaknesses.

    To me, its obvious what is right and what is wrong. I would ask how does the act of homosexuality benefit society? Obviously there is no way for a homosexual couple to create a family, the real, and pure, purpose for sex. What is it's purpose? How does it benefit communities, cities, and nations? I would argue there is no benefit to society. It is inherently selfish.

    Heterosexual relationships, if they have a dedicated and righteous desire to create and raise a family, is vital in building strong communities, cities, and nations. Thus it puts this type of relationship in a special and protected class, something a homosexual relationship can never have no matter what study comes out next year.

  • McMurphy St George, Utah
    April 6, 2014 10:57 a.m.

    Schnee and Shaun have it right.
    I suspect it is true that the best environment for a child is being in a loving and secure family headed by two parents of different sexes, but what is the basis for believing that same sex marriages will result in many more children being raised in such families? Both sides of the question should agree that same sex unions will not produce children. Single parents can adopt in Utah. Homosexuals can adopt in Utah. A lesbian can get artificially inseminated and bear a child. What is better for a child -- to be raised in a stable, secure and loving family headed by two adults of the same sex, or be raised in a different foster care every few months or in a governmental institution of some kind. I hope that traditional families get priority in adoptions, but what if a traditional family is not interested in adopting a particular child ? Why not a same sex family?

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 6, 2014 11:01 a.m.

    Shaun,
    Children benefit from:
    Choice in educational opportunities, democrats are against this.
    A sense of self worth and the feeling that what you become is primarily up to you and not a government subsidy, but democrats are against this.
    Reward for effort but democrats are against this with their tax p;olives.
    Financial responsibility with an understanding that what you receive, you or someone else must pay for and not borrow irresponsibly, definitely not a democrat belief.
    A belief that the US is a land of opportunity and not a land of entitlement, not a democrat core value.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    April 6, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    Studies also show that children are more likely to be successful if their parents are educated, wealthy, and attractive.

    So does that mean we should craft public policy to discourage uneducated, poor, and ugly people from having children?

    Gay families are here to stay. Single-parent families are here to stay. Biological, but non-nuclear, families are here to stay. Adoptive and step-families are here to stay.

    It's in the best interest of children to recognize and legitimize whatever their family structure is if it is healthy and supportive.

    Besides, correlation is not causation and pathologizing certain families is also damaging to these children. These same arguments could have been made decades ago about mixed-race families, when society treated them and their children as abnormal.

    Luckily this world view is dying away more each year, and its only speeding up.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 6, 2014 11:28 a.m.

    You get no argument from me that a committed heterosexual couple other things being equal is probably the best environment for kids. But considering the wretched circumstances to which children are subject, a committed single sex couple can be a pretty good alternative for them, at lest such seems to me.

    A meaningful statistic would be one which measures the stability of single sex parents with kids.

    This of course leaves answered the question, what are gays and lesbians supposed to do with their lives? And do they have something to offer kids?

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    April 6, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    Let's try to count how many very important, successful people in world history have been raised by a single parent, usually a mother.
    Right. There are too many to count.

  • JimmyJackJohnJones Jonestown, TX
    April 6, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    Propaganda at worst, emotional hysteria at worst. As two others mentioned, you don't have to have children JUST because you are married, and single people adopt all the time. So this is a pretty lame attempt to put across a religious point of view.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 6, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    All this is interesting (though not without scientific controversy), but at no point does it prove that it is detrimental for society when two same-gender persons, who love each other, are allowed to marry. As experience in numerous advanced countries now show, the small numbers of same-sex married couples are no threat whatsoever to traditional marriage.

    If research counts, than this should be added: If same-sex couples have children, the happiness of these children is mainly dependent on how the environment reacts. That is why an article such as this can have a negative effect, by encouraging people to condemn same-sex marriage and thus also hurting the children in such a marriage.

  • biil Salt Lake City, UT
    April 6, 2014 12:18 p.m.

    Yet, this is what the authors wrote on the very first page of the report:

    "Note: This Child Trends brief summarizes research conducted in 2002, when neither same sex parent nor adoptive parents were identified in large national surveys.

    "Therefore, no conclusion can be drawn from this research about the well-being of children raised by same sex parents or adoptive parents."

    And it was signed Carol Emig, president, Child Trends; Kristin A. Moore, Ph.D., senior scholar, Child Trends

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 6, 2014 12:36 p.m.

    This red-herring topic is not relevant to the issue of allowing same-sex marriage. If it you think it is, then you must also be against laws allowing divorce (under any circumstances) and against letting older or infertile couples marry.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 6, 2014 12:42 p.m.

    We will stipulate these studies show the facts, researched as rationally and dispassionately as Joe Friday on a case.

    The Tenth accepts it, ruling against SSM. And then... what "state policies" are "rational and beneficial"? For the children, of course.

    Take children from Gay parents and put them in low conflict hetero families?

    "Low conflict." The state will need to measure and monitor conflict in marriage to certify hetero families as "low conflict." Probably a rational and beneficial combination of NSA monitoring and Neighborhood Watchers.

    If a "certified low conflict" couple has conflict they can be educated or medicated or both. Beneficial and rational. State policy, you know. Based on research. For the children, of course.

    Single people have kids. Not beneficial or rational. Reassign them to monitored and certified low conflict hetero couples. And all singles will need mandatory birth control. Because it is rational and beneficial, after all. For the children.

    Unless this is mostly about the Gays and religious beliefs, and not about children or rational or beneficial. Because rationally the benefits of marriage will help kids in Gay families and have no impact on hetero families.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    April 6, 2014 1:07 p.m.

    Professor Loren Marks, whose study the editorial quotes, presented his findings in federal court recently. Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that, "Marks’s testimony is largely unbelievable." The Court also stated that Marks was among a small group of scholars that "clearly represent a fringe viewpoint that is rejected by the vast majority of their colleagues across a variety of social science fields."

    DeBoer v Snyder 12-CV-10285 pp 17-18.

    The Court also noted that the defendants did not challenge the plaintiffs statement that,

    "Every major professional organization in this country whose focus is the health and well-being of children and families has reviewed the data on outcomes for children raised by lesbian and gay couples, including the methods by which the data were collected, and have concluded that these children are not disadvantaged compared to children raised in heterosexual parent households."

    DeBoer v Snyder 12-CV-10285 pp 8.

    I suspect we will hear similar skepticism from the Tenth Circuit Court about Utah's claims.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 6, 2014 1:19 p.m.

    Carol Emig, president of Childtrends, researcher has stated that her research cannot and should not be used to draw conclusions about children raised by same-sex parents.

    If children are better off being raised by bio parents, isn't this an argument against adoption as well?

    Of course, in a perfect world, children will be better off being raised in emotionally, physically, and economically stable homes by their parents. Should we adopt more rigorous standards and laws for child-bearing? There are many, many households which won't meet the necessary standards.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    April 6, 2014 1:26 p.m.

    I find it intriguing that people who disagree with factual data tend to try to discredit it by changing the argument. Both the first two posters do exactly that. The article claims that family structure makes a difference.

    Schnee responds by saying there are already bad family structures so let's allow another bad one. It end with a whine of victimization. Neither argument challenges anything in the article.

    Shaun implies that family structure is formed at marriage as if it was in a vacuum and would never morph into anything else. That argument is based on a lie since marriages of all forms often morph into a larger family unit. Certainly the existing extended family is affected by the union. Also, in many cases the nuclear family changes over time to include others, usually children (which is the primary focus of the article). Family structure is a moving picture, not a still photo and, like any motion picture, it can be ruined in the first scene.

  • Utah Skeptic Salt Lake, UT
    April 6, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    In 1998, the DN authored an editorial supporting legislation to raise Utah's marriage age from 14 to 16. (Bravo) But they NEVER addressed - not once - the impact of teen motherhood on offspring. The only thing that came close was, “it is unrealistic and unwise to expect them [a fourteen year old] to effectively manage the challenges of running a household. They're simply too young."

    Today, the ONLY marriage outcome the DN seems concerned with IS children. (Ahhhh... the difference 14 years makes) Fine.

    DN cites three sources to argue "that children raised by their biological parents, on average, fare better." In a nutshell, Allen and Marks' findings have been widely discredited by peer review. The Regernus study (DN avoids citing but Allen used his data) was also discredited. Lastly, DN’s source in the third paragraph has this on the title page of their study:

    "This Child Trends brief summarizes research conducted in 2002, when neither same-sex parents nor adoptive parents were identified in large national surveys. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents."

    Failed research. Failed studies. Failed argument. Try again.

  • zumagirl Draper, UT
    April 6, 2014 2:44 p.m.

    So......according to this article adopted children are at a disadvantage being raised by their non-biological parents. . In the effort to fight against gay marriage we are now discrediting adoptive and single parents. I guess this is an indirect way of emphasizing how bad it is for gay couples to adopt children.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 6, 2014 3:13 p.m.

    DNews,

    Every time you beat this drum, you alienate more single parents and people who were raised by single parents. You alienate adopted children and people who have adopted children. You are really swinging the opinions of a great many people.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 6, 2014 3:31 p.m.

    @joe5
    "Schnee responds by saying there are already bad family structures so let's allow another bad one. It end with a whine of victimization. Neither argument challenges anything in the article"

    My challenge is that it it bigotry to apply statistical averages to slander an entire group of people by suggesting they are unfit parents. Want to see stats on averages for children divided by race? Religion? Income? State (Mississippi leads in poverty, obesity, and STDs and is near or at the bottom in eduction)? Do you want to ban all "inferior on average" marriages, or just gay ones?

    It's a legitimate argument that you all want to dodge because it exposes hypocrisy. Tell me you're consistent. Tell me you want to ban poor people and Mississippians from marrying since their marriages on average have lower results too. Tell me this isn't just an excuse to justify a ban on same-sex marriage when you know full well that single gay people can adopt but two gay people together can't.

    @zumagirl
    "In the effort to fight against gay marriage we are now discrediting adoptive and single parents."

    And divorced parents like mine.

  • Linguist Silver Spring, MD
    April 6, 2014 5:06 p.m.

    With respect, this op ed is a real head scratcher.

    We don't dole out rights based on "ideals".

    If we did, poor people on social assistance with hypertension and diabetes who never graduated from high school and who smoke would not be allowed to marry or raise children. And yet they are permitted both.

    Conduct a study that compares the outcome of children raised by parents such as those with stable, highly educated, healthy gay couples who neither smoke nor drink. Why not? They do exist. My partner and I form one such couple.

    All things are never equal. In fact, there are no "ideal" couples. There are only real couples, and they raise kids with or without the advantages that marriage may bring.

    Why make things harder on any of those couples than it need be?

  • Spellman789 Syracuse, UT
    April 6, 2014 5:56 p.m.

    Great article! It's not just about marriages, but families. while some people may not feel that they can, or be able to follow an ideal model of a man and a woman married and having children, it is still something to shoot for as a society as a whole.

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    April 6, 2014 6:19 p.m.

    The authors as wells as Child Trends issued the following statement (available on-line) about the misleading conclusions about the study that re-appear in this Deseret News article.

    "In 2002 neither same-sex parents nor adoptive parents were identified in large national surveys. Therefore, NO (emphasis mine) conclusions can be drawn from this research about the well being of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents"

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    April 6, 2014 6:26 p.m.

    From the Michigan court conclusions of law and findings of fact:

    "The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight. Marks’s testimony is largely unbelievable."

    "Marks, as well as Price and Allen, faulted many of these studies for their small sample sizes, the non-random methods used to obtain subjects, and the fact that some lacked heterosexual comparison groups, among other criticisms. Marks, Price and Allen all failed to concede the importance of “convenience sampling” as a social science research tool. They, along with Regnerus, clearly represent a fringe viewpoint that is rejected by the vast majority of their colleagues across a variety of social science fields."

  • K Mchenry, IL
    April 6, 2014 6:34 p.m.

    Maybe these alarming stats have more to do with the fact the world isn't kind to a family that doesn't contain two happily married biological parents. Perhaps if the world were kinder the results would be different?

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    April 6, 2014 6:48 p.m.

    If you don't like gay and lesbians having children, then adoptive and reproductive law are the correct legal tools to prevent same-sex couples from having children.

    Being against two committed loving same-sex couples becoming legally civil married does absolutely nothing to make their children raised in a so called "ideal" family structure.

    This is because:
    There is currently no procreative requirement in civil marriage law.
    There is currently no parental fitness test in civil marriage law.

    Moreover, convicted spousal, child, drug and alcohol abusers can enjoy their fundamental right to legal civil marriage, but "oh no" we can't let same-sex couples marry. Why is this?

  • fact based Salt Lake, UT
    April 6, 2014 7:10 p.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi
    "I would like to get my aunt and uncles social security benefits when they die. I love them a lot. They love me a lot. (For those who grew up in dysfunctional homes, I did not say that I am sleeping with them....."

    Sexual orientation has been determined to be fundamental to a persons identity and person-hood. A requirement to change someones (heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual) sexual orientation in order to civil marry is not only unreasonable, but un-constitutional. A right to marry someone for which there is no attraction or desire of intimacy is no right at all.

    Current civil marriage law has a presumption of intimacy, a type of relationship that is fundamentally different than the one you have with your aunt and uncles, where a legal family relationship already exists. Same-sex couples through civil marriage establish the same family relationship with the presumption of intimacy as opposite-sex couples.

    Your social security benefits change request for aunts and uncles can easily be addressed with the government today, regardless of who can or cannot marry and will always remain so. Your request has no relationship to civil marriage law.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 6, 2014 8:46 p.m.

    "An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behaviour and the amount of time spent with parents.

    However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along."

    -- Australian study on same-sex parenting

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    April 6, 2014 9:51 p.m.

    Intact biological families are only intact until they fail. And 50% of "traditional" marriages end in divorce. In addition, parents die, or are seriously injured and can no longer be care-givers, or breadwinners. Families also fail when they are visited by misfortune, extended joblessness, homelessness, and violence. These all victimize children.

    As for children themselves, some 41% of children in this country are not even born to intact biological families. They're born to unmarried girls or women.

    Utah has laws regarding child welfare, and these laws apply to all children, regardless of their family structure or lack thereof. Utah has marriage laws, and these laws apply to all marriageable couples, regardless of their procreational status. It's interesting to note that child welfare laws are not linked to marriage laws, not in Utah.

    It's entirely disingenuous to fabricate a supposed linkage simply to argue a court case when none of your state laws even mention it.

    The actual logic couldn't be simpler:

    If children are not required by marriage, then lack of childbearing ability is not a reason to deny marriage.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    April 6, 2014 11:27 p.m.

    One side cares about what is best for children while the other side cares about the wants of consenting adults.

  • 5thGen Holladay, UT
    April 7, 2014 6:46 a.m.

    Jasonlivy in Orem, if homosexuality is inherently selfish because "there is no way for a homosexual couple to create a family, the real, and pure, purpose for sex", then we can assume that the only time you ever have sex is if you're trying to make a baby. If not, how utterly selfish of you.

    This might come as a surprise to you, but homosexual couples have children and families too.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 7, 2014 6:55 a.m.

    I read this article,
    and then check it for integirty.

    If this is REALLY about children,
    Then the same would apply to:

    Adopted Familes,
    Single Parent Families,
    Bi-Racial Families,
    Divorced Families,
    Re-Married Families,
    Step-Children Families,

    Since it singled out ONLY gay Families,
    The arguement fails.

    And MOST Children with Gay Parents,
    came from previous Heterosexual marraiges, that ended in divorce.

    BTW -- Most Heterosexual Families end in divorce.
    Clease the inner vessel,
    Mote eye, Beam eye -- get it?

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    April 7, 2014 7:41 a.m.

    @LovelyDeseret, who says, "One side cares about what is best for children..."

    If by that "side" you mean Conservatives, Republicans and "religious traditionalists," there's no evidence to support your claim. Your side:

    --Opposes nutrition programs such as WIC and food stamps.

    --Fights laws that empower women to make the best reproductive choices for their families, thereby driving many of their children into poverty.

    --Opposes domestic violence laws that would protect women and their children.

    --Opposes universal healthcare that would cover every child in America as a matter of right.

    --Refuses to increase spending on education.

    --Opposes universal preschool.

    --Opposes gun control laws that would reduce the number of children killed and injured by firearms.

    --Opposes mandatory vaccinations.

    --Opposes teaching science, reproduction, or sexual ethics in school.

    --Favors isolating and repressing children who defy your religious ideals, and the adults they grow into.

    --Disowns, exiles and ostracizes children who reject your religious beliefs.

    So, no, you don't favor what is best for children.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 7, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    I'll leave all the what's best for the children argument to others here, but buried in this mess of right wing thoughts is a real gem from one of the usual suspects

    Tekakaromatagi said; "So, if we are going to give marriage benefits to non-procreational couples to recognize their love..." , then he/she carry on with a completely non-seneschal thought of wanting their aunt and uncles social security. The point being he/she dismiss the thought that we do in fact grant marriage licenses to people to recognize their love for one another.

    As a matter of fact we don't even require a reason to grant a couple a marriage license. They may want one so they can have children. They may want to marry so they can consolidate family fortunes. They may want one to create a political dynasty. We don't ask nor care. So to presume one possible reason is valid and another is not is....well you fill in the adjective, but valid isn't it.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    April 7, 2014 8:31 a.m.

    Science says "Mom and dad are best". That's all there is to it. If you want to try and use science to justify changing marriage, you have no argument. There is nothing "progressive" about throwing out truth we've discovered through study and life experience to justify a personal satisfaction.

  • AlysaSLC Salt Lake City, UT
    April 7, 2014 9:38 a.m.

    I would like to point out a direct quote from the source that this article used: "Note: this Child Trends Brief summarizes research conducted in 2002, when neither same sex parents nor adoptive parents were identified in large national surveys. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about well-being of children raised by same sex parents or adoptive parents."

    If the original source does not draw conclusions involving same sex or adoptive parents it is inappropriate for this article to do so. Show me data with a large sample size that includes these families and I will take this stance into serious consideration.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    April 7, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    @Jamescmeyer: Unfortunately for your assertions, science says the exact opposite of what you claim. If you have any interest in the objective truth, I suggest you read the 43 page brief you will easily find if you google, "An amicus brief filed by the American Sociological Association in the Amendment 3 appeal" (With the quote marks.)

    It not only rebuts, but shreds the Regnerus brief, a finding further validated by two weeks of bench trial in Michigan, where Regnerus's testimony didn't stand up in court and his own school disavowed his work and conclusions. The court even suggested that his "scientific opinion" was bought and paid for by a conservative think tank and didn't represent science at all.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    April 7, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    Why do so many of the comments desire to refute a cited study that basically sets forth a standard of common sense? Most of the comments posted seem to want to create rules based upon exceptions, rather than to support rules based upon common sense, experience and biological fact.

    As the parent of both natural born and adopted children, I can say that the preferred situation for a child is to be born into a committed, loving and stable mom and dad situation. Children don't have a choice in all of this, but they seem to do better when this is the case. Everything else is a situation where the facts are exceptional. If mom and dad can't or won't be parents, then there needs to be some understanding of what is in the best interests of the child.

    No questions asked when we brought a child into the world through the means ordained by God and nature. I was asked plenty of questions about my ability to parent when we brought children into our family - which children were brought into the world through the same means as our natural born child.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 7, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    The best family situation for children is a stable home led by a mother and a father.

    No ones' rights are taken away by this statement of fact.
    No one is harmed by this statement of fact.
    No ones' children are harmed by this statement of fact.

    Children are short-changed when we place them in a sub-ideal home. That is when harm occurs.

    I'll take the truth any day, over the ridiculous tirades about validating people's self-serving lifestyles at the expense of children.

    General Conference was great, and filled with pure truth!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 7, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    Man... I'm glad I'm not a child growing up in this wacky generation...

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 7, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    re:Mikhail
    "Why do so many of the comments desire to refute a cited study that basically sets forth a standard of common sense?"

    I'll speak to that.

    I don't believe the study was flawed. Using the study as evidence against same-sex marriage is a misapplication/misrepresentation of the findings. As noted by others, the researchers themselves stated their research should not be used arguing against same-sex marriage simply for the fact they did not study same-sex marriage--apples to oranges comparison. As others have pointed out, the research could also be used to illustrate the harm of many other family arrangements--adoption etc.

    Instead, why don't we focus on improving the lives of children such as reducing poverty, reducing unplanned pregnancies, improving education etc etc?

    Because, it isn't as easy as singling out a specific group of people.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 7, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    @LDS Liberal 6:55,

    Did you read the article... or just start writing with your assumption that it "singled out ONLY gay Families"?

    The research finding was...
    “Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the MOST is a family structure headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage,”

    Research didn't even MENTION "gender"!

    ---

    The research didn't single out gay families (as you stated). And it did include all the ones you listed (I took out one because it was irrelevant).

    Adopted Familes,
    Single Parent Families,
    Divorced Families,
    Re-Married Families,
    Step-Children Families,

    It did NOT single out ONLY gay families (as you stated).

    ===

    The research finding was that family structure matters. And that your whole list... was not optimal (for the children). It did not just single out gay families.

    ===

    You said "I read this article, and then check it for integrity".

    If Integrity is so important to you... why do you violate the one account per person rule?

    And if integrity is so important to you... why do you totally MISREPRESENT the research findings?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 7, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    @Jamescmeyer
    Midwest City, USA, OK
    Science says "Mom and dad are best". That's all there is to it. If you want to try and use science to justify changing marriage, you have no argument. There is nothing "progressive" about throwing out truth we've discovered through study and life experience to justify a personal satisfaction.

    8:31 a.m. April 7, 2014

    ========

    Science says nothing of the sort.
    Science [and nature] says survival of the fittest.

    Marriage is modern, man-made institution.
    I support it, but let's at least be honest.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    April 7, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    Perhaps a harbinger of things to come, this late-breaking story from the Christian Science Monitor may be of interest regarding Supreme Court recognition of religious rights regarding denial of same-sex marriage:

    "Two weeks after hearing argument in a case examining whether corporations may be exempted from providing religiously objectionable contraceptives in their employee health plans, the US Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up a case testing whether a commercial photographer in New Mexico has a First Amendment free speech right to refuse to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony."

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    April 7, 2014 12:18 p.m.

    Lets just go to the source that should make this a clear cut decision. Since a majority of the US is Christian, lets look at what the Bible says about marriage.

    1. It says that marriage is between man and women. Period.

    2. It also says that divorce is not acceptable except for thing like infidelity, and a few other things.

    Just based on those 2 revealed truths, we know what the best thing is for society. Rather than looking for new ways to justify sin, how about we look into how to boost God's truths?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 7, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    @2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    10:54 a.m. April 7, 2014

    Yes - I read the article.
    And it singled out biological Moms & Dads being the best situation for children.

    But,
    I deal with the real world, with real situations.

    The fact is:
    Most appearantly perfect marriages end in a divorce.

    And the other half that do survive,
    50% are dysfunctional with issues of abuse.

    I simply wanted the truth and facts to be mentioned,
    not someone's pipe dreams of a perfect world filed with perfect marriages.

    BTW --
    Half of my counsins were adopted.
    some are mixed race,
    other family memebers who are alcoholics, drugs, and even gay.

    So, I have a pretty good idea of what a real family looks like.
    and it is not some 1950's TV version.

    BTW --
    Even the Brady Bunch fails your perfect definition of family.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 7, 2014 1:14 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal,

    You realise that in your original coment you said "the research singled out ONLY gay Families"... right?

    I quoted the research findings statement from the article verbatum...

    “Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the MOST is a family structure headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage,”

    Now you say, "Yes - I read the article. And it singled out biological Moms & Dads being the best situation for children" (which is not what you originally said).

    There's a big difference between singling out "biological parents", and singling out "gay families".

    Now you pretend you said it singled out "biological" Moms & Dads being the best. But you didn't (back then). Remember integrity. That's all I was saying.

    ===

    The research said that "two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage" is the best situation possible.

    I didn't say that's what most American children have today. It's possible what most American children have today isn't the optimal situation (for children).

    Just becasue most have it today... doesnt' mean it's the best!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 7, 2014 2:47 p.m.

    OK 2 bits --

    If all we are going to do is look at what is BEST for children;

    Breast Milk,
    Fruits and Vegatables,
    limited Sugar,
    limit TV, video games and internet,
    2 hours of Homework,
    9 hours of sleep,
    not moving,
    early to bed, early to rise,
    a solid sense of security,
    one on one time with parents,
    dinner at the dinner table, every night as a family,
    household chores and other responsibilities,
    A parent who genuinely listens and is concerned,

    NOW --
    Are biological Moms and Dads ALWAYS doing that?
    Are biological Moms and Dads the only ones capable of providing that?

    Being a parent is far more than a providing a sperm cell or egg.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 7, 2014 2:56 p.m.

    Parental gender plays a limited role, if any, in producing well-adjusted children.
    It’s not the gender of the parent that’s the key. It’s the quality of parenting that’s
    being offered by whoever is there, husband or wife, two women, two men, a
    single parent, as long as the factors that we listed . . . are present: good mental
    health, good parent-child relationships, what we call an authoritative parenting
    style, which is warmth, stimulation, structure, and the availability of resources.
    Then we’re going to have a child who is much more likely to be healthy.
    Michigan federal district court conclusions of law, findings of fact page 21 (Deboer v. Snyder)

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 7, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    @LovelyDesert
    Please back up your claim that "one side only cares about children" with fact. Otherwise, court evidence and findings of fact will take priority over personal opinion.

    "State defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people (families). NO court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples. It is the Court’s fervent hope that these children will grow up “to understand the integrity and closeness of their OWN family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694. Today’s decision is a step in that direction, and affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail. -Michigan Federal District Court Deboer v. Snyder, page 30.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 7, 2014 3:34 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal2:47

    I think that's what the research is saying... That "a family structure headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage".... most often provides the things you listed.

    That doesn't mean they ALWAYS provide those things. Just more often than the alternatives.

    It doesn't mean adoptive parents never do a great job. Or step parents never do great. It just indicates children get the things you listed... most frequenly from "a family structure headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage".

    I know some people pretend that's a leave-it-to-Beaver thing that doesn't happen now.... but it still does. In MANY families.

    The research just said that it's the most likely place to get the best outcome for children... not your absolutist thinking that if it doesn't provide the best outcome EVERY time we should not strive for it... or something like that.

    Some gay parents do great. Some single parents do great. Some step parents do great. The research didn't say that anything outside the "family structure headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage" will fail!

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 7, 2014 4:32 p.m.

    @Mikhail
    "Most of the comments posted seem to want to create rules based upon exceptions, rather than to support rules based upon common sense, experience and biological fact."

    Common sense says that there's no requirement that married couples have children, and so if your issue is with same-sex couples having children, your problem is with same-sex couples adopting and people outside of heterosexual marriages having in-vitro fertilization. There's no reason in there to ban same-sex marriage, that only harms the children being raised by same-sex parent(s) since you're limiting them to one legal parent.

    "what is in the best interests of the child."

    To have good loving parents/guardians. You don't get that by stereotyping and assuming all straight white upper-middle class married couples from New Hampshire are better than everyone else (I threw in race, class, and state to try and find a more "ideal" situation based on statistical averages, I mean if it works for sexual orientation why not use it for other things?).

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    April 7, 2014 5:14 p.m.

    My major problem with this op-ed is the source material that the D-News referenced in making their case. There have been plenty of posters before me, especially Karen R from Houston who did a masterful job in detailing these references, where just to many people and evaluations find fault with this data. Especially glaring is the Child Trends issue where the researchers tell you up front that it shouldn't be used in any same sex child evaluation yet it is. The D-News has the right to state whatever opinions they want. I have the right to either agree or disagree. But I feel in this case the data which is suspect at best was picked over and molded to fit the argument. I would have been able to accept a 'from the heart' or 'we believe' op-ed better than this one. Judging from the comments shown a majority of the posters share my opinion. If you are going to rely on data make sure it is sound proven data. In this case I don't think that happened.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    April 7, 2014 6:20 p.m.

    Redshirt. The bible also say a man can divorce his wife for any reason.

    People are not perfect. They are not around perfection. Life happens.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    April 7, 2014 8:07 p.m.

    Following the lords teaches and adherence to traditional family values matter the most. The February Journal of Psychiatric Research study titled "Best Religious Based Environment for Healthy Child Outcomes" ranked 10 western religious beliefs and performed over 20,000 longitudinal studies ranked the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints with families demonstrating the overall best outcomes for children. It clearly determined that faith promoting emphasis on the importance of a mother and father and that families living a moral lifestyle, were (among 10 variables studied) the two strongest contributors to stable healthy and overall healthy family units.

  • Brown Honeyvale, CA
    April 8, 2014 12:39 a.m.

    Fantastic Article! Nothing new about the distorting of facts by the gay marriage side...and the double standard.

    So very disappointed with the individuals who rudely speak of 'equal protection' for gay marriage and yet feel no responsibility whatsoever to protect the rights of children who will most assuredly end up adopted into gay marriage situations, proven not to be the best opportunity for unrepresented children. Once again a double standard.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    April 8, 2014 6:30 a.m.

    LibertyForAll,

    That's an interesting citation you put forth. I went to the publication's website, where they list the titles of all their articles. That article's title not only isn't listed, but a search of google turns up no results at all. Are you sure you're citing the right article and publication?

    In fact, the only articles in that journal I could find remotely related to a spiritual practice involved:
    --> Use of Yoga in reducing stress of prison inmates,
    --> Effect of Yoga practice on schizophrenia,
    --> Hatha Yoga in the treatment of major depression, and
    --> Suicidal ideation and attempts being lower in those who attend religious services regularly.

    On the face of it, the article you cite doesn't seem to fit the type of research that the Journal of Psychiatric Research even publishes. It would seem like something more appropriate for a sociology journal or perhaps a non-scholarly/popular publication. Can you please check the source of your information and verify that citation?

    I am having doubts that such an article would survive peer review in a scientific journal without being more widely cited subsequently.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    April 8, 2014 7:57 a.m.

    To "K" you are wrong. In Matthew 5:32 it states "32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery". Seems quite clear that infidelity is about it for justifiable reasons for divorce.

    Or does your Bible say something else?

    Still, the point remains. If society worked to keep marriages together, rather than making divorce so easy, do you think that would help improve society or not?

  • Hank Jr Draper, UT
    April 8, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    A mom and a dad. Enough said.

  • nbholladay Winterville, NC
    April 8, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    The issue at stake is whether the Supreme Court can legitimately overturn the will of the people or the law of one of its States regarding gay marriage on federal constitutional grounds. The equal protection clause of the Constitution may be used to argue that gay marriage must be allowed in order to afford gay couples the same privileges as heterosexual married couples. However, this arguably should not be used if it cannot be demonstrated that heterosexual marriage and gay 'marriage' are equivalent. The overall effect on children is indeed a significant issue that supporters of gay marriage may either want to argue does not exist or may want to overlook. Unfortunately, observational evidence (from studies where people are not randomly assigned to one or the other case, which of course we cannot do with the gay marriage question) is problematic and can be misused, as is the case with the review of 59 studies mentioned in the article. The DN article brings out a very important point about the selection process for the studies-- selection bias makes these results misleading. If the Supreme Court judges in favor of gay marriage based on misconstrued evidence, the effect will be devastating.

  • Kally Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2014 11:18 a.m.

    @ Liberty: Like Testimony, I also searched the Journal's website looking for the article you reference and was also unable to find it.

    In addition, I searched the site of the publisher for the article - it was not there.

    I also did a google search, which also returned no results for an article of that title.

    A general google search using the title you provided as keywords returned numerous hits, but none of the ones on the first several pages make any claims similar to what you claim - very few of them even claim to have studied what you claim was studied.

    Your citation seems to be faulty. Perhaps you could check your sources?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    nbholladay: "However, this arguably should not be used if it cannot be demonstrated that heterosexual marriage and gay 'marriage' are equivalent. The overall effect on children is indeed a significant issue that supporters of gay marriage may either want to argue does not exist or may want to overlook. "

    ----------

    What is actually being overlooked is that gay couples are already raising children - without marriage. They have adopted them, brought them from previous marriages, used surrogates or in vitro fertilization. They are there already. Somehow, gay marriage foes think that by denying gays "marriage," there will be no children. Wrong.

    nb, can you tell me how denying these children's parents from marrying helps these (already here) children? Does it support them in any way? Does it give them the stability and benefits that can help them become a stronger family? Why doesn't Utah want to support All families and by doing so, support the children ALREADY here?

    What do you expect to do with these children that your anti-gay marriage laws will marginalize?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    "TObviously there is no way for a homosexual couple to create a family, the real, and pure, purpose for sex. What is it's purpose? How does it benefit communities, cities, and nations? I would argue there is no benefit to society. It is inherently selfish."

    --------
    Obviously there is no way for a older couple to create a family, the real, and pure, purpose for sex. What is it's purpose? How does it benefit communities, cities, and nations? I would argue there is no benefit to society. It is inherently selfish.

    Obviously there is no way for a infertile couple to create a family, the real, and pure, purpose for sex. What is it's purpose? How does it benefit communities, cities, and nations? I would argue there is no benefit to society. It is inherently selfish.

    -----------

    May I suggest that being married has many benefits to society, whether or not the couple produces a child. They are happier, healthier, wealthier and support one another during times of trial, rather than rely on society to help them. It is a well known fact that marriage is good for people. Are children the only reason you got married?

  • HTSJCCAFALG Richfield, UT
    April 9, 2014 6:08 p.m.

    Children are a blessing or a reward of a relationship consisting of a man & a woman; it is that simple.

    If you are in a marriage that can produce, under normal circumstances, child then you are entitled to that reward.

    If you are not, then you are not entitled to that. An infertile man & woman couple? Easy. Under 'regular' conditions they could. If you are an older couple? Easy. There are conditions in their life that they could also.

    A homesexual couple. Easy. There is NEVER a condition or situation that they could produce a child. Go ahead and have a civil union. Go ahead and get benefits like insurance, inheritance, etc... You deserve that right. You do not, however, deserve the reward of what your relationship will never produce under any circumstance.

  • nycut New York, NY
    April 10, 2014 6:58 a.m.

    So the DesNews, with its well-known religiously-based opposition to legal marriage equality for gay people, now appeals to the authority of science.

    This, on the same day that the State of Utah files a last-minute brief distancing itself from the exact same studies (which they previously trumpeted), now acknowledging this:

    "First, we wish to emphasize the very limited relevance to this case of the comparison addressed by Professor Regnerus."

    And this:

    "The Regnerus study cannot be viewed as conclusively establishing that raising a child in a same-sex household produces outcomes that are inferior to those produced by man-woman parenting arrangements."

    To recap: even the lawyers for the State of Utah are backing away from the studies that the DesNews opinion is championing, underscoring the irrelevance of the "for the children" ploy to justify excluding gay people from legal marriage-- a legal right that has neither a procreation requirement nor a child-raising one.

    They'd have been more honest to follow the lead of so many commenters here: drop the pretense and simply state "we still want to exclude gay people from legal marriage because we think they are bad."

  • Bob K portland, OR
    April 10, 2014 3:25 p.m.

    For anyone who postulates that the DN, and official lds policy it represents, prefers to see the world in a fantasy of what 1953 was like:

    This editorial provides proof.

    It does not matter how many Zach Walls there are, or how many testimonials from Gay parents or their families -- the DN is going to cater to the worst and oldest ideas of its more conservative readers.

    I would venture that few, if any DN editorial writers, or the commenters we see here, have taken the trouble to go out and meet a few Gay families.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2014 9:45 p.m.

    It's great what a few days does. Now the State of Utah is even backing away from the "experts" in this article. Please do better research in the future. It only took a simple Google search to find out that these guys were not following scientific standards.

  • sayswho Hurricane, UT
    April 11, 2014 12:27 a.m.

    In years past, the Catholic Church has been of the opinion that marriage is for procreation ONLY, so that a person that could not procreate, was not allowed to marry. Persons with disabilities, older persons, persons with no intentions of procreating were forbidden to marry. This "teaching" seems to have diminished during my lifetime, and I no longer hear priests forbidding two people from marrying even though the wife or husband may not be able to bear children. What a nice change! Are we going back to that definition of marriage. For many years my wife and I were unable to have children naturally, so we adopted. Should I now feel bad because I, her father, was not her natural father? If two same-sex partners raise a child and one dies, is the child better off being torn away from a loving second "parent" and forced to live with complete strangers just because they happen to be of oppotite sex? I think not. Let's do what is in the child's best interest and not let our prejudice decide the issue.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    April 11, 2014 12:51 a.m.

    liberal larry
    salt lake City, utah
    "....why demonize family structures that don't fit someones definition of the "perfect family unit"?

    The answer is obvious -- we are about to see the same sort of thing that took place in the 15-odd years between the latest possible date for the lds church to accept Black priests and look Christian to the rest of America(ca 1963)and the date they actually got the revelation.
    -- Pretty much everyone of good will knows that churches standing in the way of equality is not a good idea, and has to do with fear of having to adapt.

    This time, information sources are 1000 times better than they were 50 years ago, including the access to outside information by young lds people. The DN and many who post here exemplify the "ostrich mentality" that does not work in 2014.

    I personally believe that if the DN truly understood the best interests of Utah, it would be helping to open the door to equality.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 12, 2014 3:49 p.m.

    HTSJCCAFALG says:

    "A homesexual couple. Easy. There is NEVER a condition or situation that they could produce a child."

    Cloning.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2014 8:25 a.m.

    Haha, that's funny, Ranch hand. Yep that would be a situation. But it really does not matter. HTSetc's argument is meaningless. Marriage does not require that the people involved be able to produce children, or even have the potential to. It's an argument based on what HTetc wants to define marriage as. But it's, of course, a silly argument. The state has no such requirement. Never has.

  • HTSJCCAFALG Richfield, UT
    April 13, 2014 6:44 p.m.

    I know the state has no such requirement. It should.

    I'm thinking our world did not start with two dads or two moms.

    Just a guess though; you know how people like me are.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 14, 2014 2:25 p.m.

    HTSetc, I have no idea how people like you are. I don't know you.

    But you think there should be a law that determines if a couple can produce children before they can marry?

    Well, here's what I know about you based on that statement: you are for a incredibly large, intrusive government, that has the power to place itself in the middle of the most personal, private decisions people can make.

    Well, such is your right. Myself, though, I like a far smaller government.

  • HTSJCCAFALG Richfield, UT
    April 14, 2014 4:48 p.m.

    Re Mark:

    Based on your second comment I'm starting to see where your coming from. No I don't think there should be a law that allow people to marry if they can produce children.

    Quite the contrary.

    All I'm saying is I really don't care who you want to live with. That is your right, BUT if it is in a relationship that cannot produce children under normal circumstances (i.e.: same genders do not produce children ever) then you don't deserve the benefits that come from a hetrosexual arrangement. If you are in a hetro arrangement and have some condition that doesn't make children possible then you should adopt or whatever. You deserve that right. However, if you are not in that kind of relationship, you should not be able to adopt or have children. Basically you reap what you sow. I chose to live with a member of the opposite sex so I can enjoy the blessing of children. You choose the same sex, good for you. I'm sure you see rewards that come from that. But you will never produce a child.

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    Dec. 22, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    Parents that are committed to providing a loving and educational environment, protecting them from harms way, do so by using their brain. There are too many stories of a mom or dad leaving their child in a hot car, forcing them to stay in a filthy home, abusing and letting them die e.q. Blackstone, MA, and some saying "God told me to do it". We have learned and are still learning that good parenting is not about sexual orientation and with all of the single parents, unmarried parents, same-gender parents, etc. the malarkey about a child deserves both a mom and dad is simply wrong.