Quantcast
Opinion

My view: Same-sex marriage is not inevitable, in spite of what Sen. Hatch may believe

Comments

Return To Article
  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    June 12, 2014 2:19 a.m.

    Re: "The tactic of broadcasting statements that declare a certain outcome to be 'inevitable' is not a new one. It is a battle cry that has risen from the lips of over-grasping governments and social engineers for many a century."

    It is a battle cry that has also risen from the lips of the religious:

    "For just as when, in the days of primitive Christianity, an upheaval in the religion of pagan states meant corresponding revolutions in the political world, so in those remote regions where the thin edge has already entered, the inevitable triumph of Christianity will be followed by great social upheavals presaging the collapse of the old order of things" ("The Churchman," August 12, 1899, p. 184).

    "They are facts which, if fairly faced, must compel assent to the reasonableness of the faith in God, in the Bible, in Christ Himself as the only Saviour of men, and in the inevitable triumph of Christianity as the universal religion" (Howard Agnew Johnston, "Scientific Faith," 1904, p. 52).

    Would you characterize such statements as "Borg-like intimidation tactics," too?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 12, 2014 3:56 a.m.

    "With the passage of the means of production into common property, the individual family ceases to be the economic unit of society.”--Engels

    Prior to the industrial revolution, the family was the basic economic unit of society. People lived and worked on small family farms, or family shops, or banks, or newspapers, etc. The industrial revolution moved the locus of power away from the family and into large corporations. This was the case when Engels was writing.

    A great many nineteenth century conservatives were opposed to industrialization, capitalism, and free trade for the precise reason that the economic order that was emerging supplanted traditional families and communities, which they saw as being essential to the survival of traditional conservative virtues. Conservatives today seem to have forgotten their history. It was not communism or socialism that wiped out the family as the basic economic unit, it was capitalism.

  • slcdenizen Murray, UT
    June 12, 2014 4:58 a.m.

    "And marriage — including lifelong vows of sexual exclusivity — will still be the best way to maintain and foster life."

    Great! Let two adults make vows of sexual exclusivity, reap the governmental benefits, and start or continue raising children. This author is well on her way to supporting marriage equality.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 12, 2014 5:06 a.m.

    "Even if it is temporarily killed, marriage will rise like a phoenix from the ashes of judicial arson that set it aflame"

    Seriously, DesNews? I mean, seriously!? So, this is what the propaganda machine has come down to - baseless, useless opinion pieces that incorrectly divine that marriage equality somehow kills heterosexual marriage. I personally wonder why anti-equality advocates give SSM folks so much power over them. For me, no matter what a court says or who marries whom, I will always love my wife and no one can weaken our marriage but ourselves.

    Indeed, someone ought to remind Ms. Ells that in actual "traditional marriage" she would have been considered chattel and never given the right to offer up her opinions in a public forum. It was those dang liberals who expanded women's rights to the chagrin of conservatives, it was those dang liberals who expanded marriage rights to interracial couples to the chagrin of conservatives, and it is now those dang liberals who are expanding marriage rights to any couple to the chagrin of conservatives. At some point, history must take an accounting of repeated conservative missteps on the subject matter and deem their position invalid.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    June 12, 2014 6:18 a.m.

    I think the author is confused about who has been the aggressor and who has been oppressed. It's not the marriage equality proponents who are the Borgs; it's the majority who is telling gay and lesbian couples that they should just accept what they have voted into law who are the Borgs.

    She also uses an analogy of Moses being trapped at the Red Sea as they leave the oppression and slavery at the hands of Pharaoh. You see, the Hebrews that Moses were delivering weren't allowed the freedoms that the Egyptians enjoyed. They were escaping that. So, then, who does Moses really represent in this attempted parable? I would say he could be the "activist judges" that so many have been complaining about.

    It's time those who are fighting against marriage equality stop playing the victim; your freedoms are not being lost.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    June 12, 2014 6:58 a.m.

    A weird piece. Engels against Moses and Captain "Piccard" (sic). Judicial "arson." Only Luke Skywalker is missing from this fantasy . . .

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    June 12, 2014 7:13 a.m.

    Wow, this is some drivel right here. And it was never explained HOW gay marriage isn't inevitable. So lets pretend the SCOTUS says that states do have the right to define marriage as they want to. Polls pretty consistently show that young people are fine with gay marriage, even people who define themselves as conservative and who are religious. If it's not allowed through the courts, it will allowed through the ballot box. Sen Hatch is right, it's over.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2014 7:23 a.m.

    It is here, this editorial effectively advocates for a police force to carry out criminal sanctions.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    June 12, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    Engels? Sharks? Enemy aircraft? Seriously? This is your comparison to SSM?

    For an organization "which works to protect the family in society," they're doing anything but. Nothing they stand for will in any way strengthen anything. Robbing Peter does not pay Paul.

    First, let's look at what's at stake in this marriage "argument."

    1) Banning SSM doesn't create more opposite-sex families. Asserting otherwise is empirically unsupportable. Completely illogical.

    2) Banning SSM doesn't end creation of same-sex families. Single or divorced lesbian women who tried being "straight" already bring their natural children to new households. Adoption agencies already place children with the best available families, some of whom are same-sex. And assisted fertility services are available to all. Already.

    So, all it comes down to is simply denying civil marriage rights to a minority out of some "us v. them" pettiness, supported by a doctrinal belief specific to only some denominations.

    So far, courts which have examined the arguments, the rationalizations, the excuses, the assertions, the causality, and the doctrine, have decided that banning SSM makes no legal, Constitutional sense.

    Try supporting the families that already exist.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    June 12, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    Amen to this article. True marriage is the only way for society to survive and prosper.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    June 12, 2014 7:37 a.m.

    Inevitable? It's already happening and no matter what the legal outcome will continue to be available in the most populous states. Utah continues to hold out hope that it will remain the land of the lost.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 12, 2014 7:46 a.m.

    I know I'm a little off target here but what happened with the DN today? A letter about Benghazi stand downs, one about how the President should somehow promote thought control, and now this.

    One expects a certain slant here, but the opinion page today is a leap into nuttiness.

    Sorry for the interruption...carry on.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    June 12, 2014 8:05 a.m.

    The objections to SSM are primarily founded in religious belief. These beliefs were imposed on all citizens in numerous states about a decade ago. This violation of the First Amendment is now being corrected.

    Those who cherish their right to free exercise of their beliefs should be applauding this. Yes, it means you will have to live in a society where acts you consider immoral are legally protected. But don't we all? I and many others believe that what you teach about LGBTs and how you treat them in your churches and temples is immoral. But even if SSM is declared legal, you will still get to practice these things in your churches and temples, and you will still enjoy legal protection to do so.

    So what are you losing? Government sanction of your religious ideas? You were never entitled to this in the first place and seeking it actually undermines the right you seem to cherish most.

    I really think you're trying to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory here, but your moral objections to SSM are preventing you from seeing this.

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    June 12, 2014 8:36 a.m.

    "The tactic of broadcasting statements that declare a certain outcome to be “inevitable” is not a new one. It is a battle cry that has risen from the lips of over-grasping RELIGIONS for many a century."

    No need to read further.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    Simply a case of denial. In state after state, not one judge or court has upheld their ban on SSM marriage. And to compare this struggle for equal treatment to Star Trek, George Washington, and Moses is so unrelated or convoluted, that it is simply bizarre. We are not in some metaphysical struggle of good vs. evil. Some rising Phoenix is not going to free us from the judicial system's obligation to protect the Constitutional rights of equal protection and due process for all citizens.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 12, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    pragmatistferlife

    "I know I'm a little off target here but what happened with the DN today? A letter about Benghazi stand downs, one about how the President should somehow promote thought control, and now this."

    Remember who owns the DN.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 12, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    The writer of this piece may feel strongly about the issue, but it is her vision that is clouded. Wishing won't make it go away. Hatch was absolutely correct. Can't we just get this over with. Allow gay marriage and then we will hear virtually nothing about it afterwards, like in many other countries.

  • cocosweet Sandy, UT
    June 12, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    Completely odd article. Anywho I've always felt sorry for those that think gay marriage will weaken straight marriages. How sad that their marriages are so weak.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2014 9:38 a.m.

    "Even if it is temporarily killed, marriage will rise like a phoenix from the ashes of judicial arson that set it aflame"

    Except that straight couples can still get married, so marriage wouldn't be rising at all. All that would be "rising" is striking down same-sex couples from being able to marry and well... the younger generation is strongly against that idea.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    June 12, 2014 9:45 a.m.

    Another flip flop from Hatch?

    Wow! It's only Thursday and I've already been served plenty of pancakes!

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    June 12, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    Another crazy fantasy driven editorial!

    Man, we certainly do live in a bubble! No where else would they call this news. In any other place this would be placed in the comics or movie section!

  • erwad whoville, UT
    June 12, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    Ahem - it looks like Senator Hatch is being 'primaried' by the Tea Party.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    June 12, 2014 10:12 a.m.

    My cousin and her partner adopted a little girl doomed to poverty in a third world country.

    When I see the smiles on their yearly Christmas card, its hard to understand why so many people are invested in their failure.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    June 12, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    Seriously, this is drivel.

    The side against marriage equality knows that the only arguments they have are fallacious appeals to religion, to tradition, to debunked studies, so this is what they are reduced to: content-free screeds that compare the other side to Engels and the Borg, and their own side to Washington at Valley Forge.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    June 12, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    "Even if courts rule in a way that devalues the worth of a father or a mother to a child....."

    No. the courts did not "devalue" traditional marriage, they simply give same sex couples and their children equal rights as their traditional marriage counterparts.

    The author may believe heterosexual couples are superior than same sex couples, but that is not how the courts of law see it.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2014 10:18 a.m.

    Great article Kimberly!

    Yes, we will and we must keep fighting. The traditional family model composed of a man married to a woman is the model conceived by The Deity as the best possible model for humanity. Senator Hatch had his temporary lapse and suggested the sky is falling, but we know that the sky is not falling - truth will always trump error.

  • NT SomewhereIn, UT
    June 12, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    Regardless, marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.

    Funny how Orrin "Compromise" Hatch suddenly finds the backing/support of many who wouldn't give him the time of day.

    At the end of the day, I for one am not going to jump on any bandwagon designed by the "world," no matter how popular.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    June 12, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    Somehow I don't think this editorial would pass muster at most college (high school?) newspapers. The comparisons are so off base and far fetched that the author only affirms the correctness of the thing she opposes.

  • rwils Provo, UT
    June 12, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    Well-stated essay! No doubt will be prophetic.

  • Seldom Seen Smith Orcutt, CA
    June 12, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    What's the definition of marriage, whatever you want it to be, the term has been rendered meaningless. Our country has no cultural norms, we are morally bankrupt, America is disintegrating.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    If you don't believe same-sex marriage is inevitable, poll 1,000 voters under age 30 and you'll get a different perspective. Those who are over 50 are primarily the voters who oppose SSM. Whether the Supreme Court finds in favor of equal marriage rights or not (they likely will), it's just a matter of (not very much) time before voters make this happen.

    Also, I am an extremely strong supporter of 'traditional' marriage and 'traditional' families. I am a married, heterosexual male with 3 nearly grown heterosexual children. I know that SSM is absolutely zero threat to my marriage nor the future marriages and families for my children. I can support both traditional marriage and SSM as both can co-exist without harm nor threat to the other.

    And I can tell you definitely that 100% of the under 30 voters in my household support equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    June 12, 2014 11:00 a.m.

    Same tired arguments from SSM advocates. No ones rights are being violated when you allow SSM. Wrong! The logic is also flawed because if you allow SSM based on the argument of rights you must allow polygamy or any other form of marriage for the same reason. Force society to acknowledge SSM will have many unintended consequences.
    People seem to forget that the constitution does not guarantee the right to marry. Its not about the right to marry. States acknowledge traditional marriage as the union of one man and one women because that is what is best for society.
    Traditional marriage is best for society. We should promote and support it. If you allow people to redefine marriage in any way they want the concept and institution of marriage becomes meaningless.

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    June 12, 2014 11:00 a.m.

    Unfortunately while SSM advocates cry discrimination, they are discriminating against those who hold a different opinion. Those that hold a different view about the value of SSM are now being persecuted by society. Talk about the propaganda machine in motion (in the media, TV and movies) then complaining when someone voices an opinion they don’t like labeling it as propaganda. The real tragedy in all this is that many in society have lost their way. They want us to believe that wrong it right and right is wrong.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    @1 Voice
    "The logic is also flawed because if you allow SSM based on the argument of rights you must allow polygamy or any other form of marriage for the same reason."

    Did arguing for interracial marriage mean you must allow any other form of marriage? No. Why are you applying a double standard?

  • Sonny2 Springville, Utah, UT
    June 12, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    Isn't it great that we are still free to voice our opinion! I applaud Ms. Ells for sharing hers. My freely expressed opinion is this: puny man can not legislate away what was set in place by a Higher Power, even God (yes, I believe in Him) and create for himself what he wants without serious consequences. Read the Bible. It's all there. We can already see some of those man-made consequences in Mass. and other states that have legalized SSM. Religious freedoms of those who disagree with the mandate of SSM are being trampled over. Yes, religious liberty is at stake here in this "land of the free and home of the brave." Big government should not be legislating this important issue. Let the states decide....let the voice of the people be heard...not judges who are legislating from the bench. And, I happen to feel strongly that every child needs both a father and a mother. Two mothers can not replace a father; two fathers can not replace a mother. God put the family together. He really does know best! Yes, isn't it great to be able to express our feelings and opinions!

  • pburt Logan, UT
    June 12, 2014 11:48 a.m.

    Advocates of same-sex marriage are not anti-family. They want families, want to be in families. You may hold that the ideal is that every child have a father and a mother, but that does not preclude other configurations. Better two fathers or two mothers or only one father or mother than none, or institutional life, or life with abusive or incompetent parents. I welcome willing, enthusiastic parents into the pool of parenthood.

    And changing the definition of "marriage" most certainly does not render it "meaningless"! If a parent gets divorced or dies, the other parent does not become meaningless. Better any good parent than bad parents or abandonment to the foster system.

  • Taking a Stand Provo, UT
    June 12, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    I agree with Mz Ells, It is time to start speaking out and debunking the myths surrounding the same-sex marriage debate that to re-define marriage will not hurt children or traditional families or religious liberty. We can look to places where same-sex marriage has been legalized. Legalizing same-sex marriage eventually requires laws to be changed that weaken a parent’s relationship to their biological children. It opens the door allowing the government to claim more rights to the teaching of children without parental consent in the public schools. It creates a battle front for religious freedom, and a host of other considerations.

    I believe we can do better to show respect and kindness. We need time to work through laws that will allow any needed benefits to same-sex couples and the children in their family without re-defining marriage.

    I am well aware that not every child will be raised by their biological parents. Still I believe strongly that for the sake of children, we should do all we can to support, in our teachings and in law, the ideal that every child deserves a Mother and a Father.

  • Jeremy234 SLC, UT
    June 12, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    What even was this article? Was there a single coherent thought or argument in this entire diatribe? Hey if the Continental Army can survive Valley Forge, then somehow gay marriage will be defeated despite the glaring unconstitutionality of it. Does that analogy somehow make sense to people? A better analogy would be George Wallace's famous 1963 inaugural address where he said "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever." Those were the words of a stubborn, yet dying age.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    June 12, 2014 11:50 a.m.

    I am a strong supporter of marriage equality. However, no matter what side one is on I think everyone would agree that this is one of the strangest opinion pieces to come out in a while. The piece just seemed all over the map and never once gave a clear explanation for any of the points the author brought up. If this is the best the opposition to marriage equality can do then that's proof enough that same sex marriage is inevitable.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    June 12, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    @Sonny2
    Springville, Utah, UT

    God put the family together. He really does know best!

    ==========

    And He/She created all of us.
    And all of us are His/Her Children.

    And some of them might even happen to be Gay.

    So...
    How would our Heavenly Parents expect us to treat our Brothers and Sisters?

    We are - after all - the same Family.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    June 12, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    @Sonny2: Here's where your argument fails: According to my religion, God believes in the love and care of ALL of His children. He, for His own reasons, makes some of his children gay, but He wants them to live happy, secure lives, looking after their birth families, their neighbors, and finding their own happiness with each other.

    He also wants us to respect all of His children -- our brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, neighbors, colleagues, and strangers sojourning among us -- and treat them as we would be treated.

    Your religion is no less entitled to its doctrine than ours is to ours, but yours is not the only one, nor the universal viewpoint, even among Christians.

    This is not a case of Religion versus the Secular World. It's only YOUR religion versus the secular world on this particular issue. Mine is not only at peace, we pray that the rest of Mankind may learn that Equality is God's desire. This includes not withholding the right to marry from that particular minority of couples you wish to exclude.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    June 12, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    Reading over these comments, it appears I am not the only one at a loss to explain what this editorial is trying to say. The references to Engels, arson, and Star Trek seem completely out of place as well. This just doesn't seem like an appropriate way to approach a serious subject like this.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 12, 2014 12:17 p.m.

    It may or not be 'inevitable'. But, it's the right thing to do. So let's get it done.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    June 12, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    Unhinged and embarrassing is how I would describe this editorial.

    Is this a Trojan horse, back-handed way for the DN to discredit the anti-marriage equality side? Just provide the zealots a platform and let them, in their own words, illustrate the weaknesses of their position and why their arguments are not winning the day -- either in court, or in the court of public opinion.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 12, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    Hutterite... you'll hate me for this but I take the opposite view. I think marriage as traditionally defined should be left to a man and a women, and a new construct established for legally recognizing non-traditional families, but I do think it will inevitably be made legal, because you can't have separate treatment under the law..... and is the right thing to do.

  • The Shootist 1 Perry/USA, UT
    June 12, 2014 12:57 p.m.

    You go girl! :) That was a great article. The critics are only showing themselves to be part of the problem – most likely members of the LGBT community. Some of them didn’t grasp that you were only using examples of situations that looked pretty bleak and went right, in the end. They’d complain about whatever examples you chose to use. I think some people just look for their 15 seconds of fame at someone elses expense. Too bad the majority IS mostly silent. Don’t be discouraged by nut jobs. Your article was spot on!

  • artbetty Provo, UT
    June 12, 2014 1:05 p.m.

    It is a biological reality that every child has both a mother and a father, and they have a right to have a relationship with both a mother and a father. A political movement that attempt to end that right will "inevitably" fail. No one can beat biology.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    June 12, 2014 1:54 p.m.

    The Shootist wrote:
    "I think some people just look for their 15 seconds of fame at someone elses expense."
    _____

    Transport yourself back to late October, 2008 in any of California's media markets. Do the names Rob and Robin Wirthlin, or Professor Richard Peterson ring a bell?

    How about these names?

    Gar W__ of San Francisco
    Daniel of Covina
    Suubi of Santa Margarita
    Geoff of Brentwood
    Jenny L____ of Santa Monica
    Barbara of San Jose
    Adam, student - UCLA School of Law
    Alissa of Palmdale

    All of these people appeared in saturation Yeson8 advertisements in California to assure voters that a "yes" on 8 vote would produce very specific outcomes. So, voters, by a slim margin, DID vote "yes" on 8 in 2008 and what has happened since? Well ----- it turns out a "yes" on 8 vote did not, in fact, mean what these people said it meant.

    There they are, their 15 seconds of fame, preserved for posterity, boldly standing up and making claims that turned out not to be true. While my husband and I are now civilly married, in the eyes of the state of California and the government of the United States. And hurting no one.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 12, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    "The traditional family model composed of a man married to a woman is the model conceived by The Deity as the best possible model for humanity."

    As 50% of them steadily march in and out of divorce court--often repeatedly

    "Regardless, marriage is between a man and a woman. Period."

    Except where it isn't (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland.......)

    "Force society to acknowledge SSM will have many unintended consequences."

    Name one...

    "Those that hold a different view about the value of SSM are now being persecuted by society."

    How many with an opposing view have been beaten and left tied to a fence post in the middle of nowhere to die slowly? How many have had their loved ones funeral picketed by LGBT for holding that view? How many have been told by the county clerk they can't get a marriage license because they are anti-LGBT and how many have been told by merchants that they will not be served because of their opposing view?

    "Legalizing same-sex marriage eventually requires laws to be changed that weaken a parent's relationship to their biological children."

    Name one.

  • frisbeemathgirl Payson, UT
    June 12, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    Great article! Every child deserves a father and a mother!

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2014 2:21 p.m.

    artbetty
    Provo, UT

    And yet, in spite of this right you claim children have to a relationship with both a mother and a father, there will be thousands and thousands of children who will not have that. No matter how hard you fight against SSM, there will still be thousands of children being raised by single parents, or grandparents or in foster homes. There will even still be thousands of children being raised in same-sex parent households. The only difference your opposition to SSM will make is it will prevent same-sex couples from being legally wed as they raise their children and it will prevent children languishing in foster homes or other less than desirable situations from being adopted into a loving, SSM marriage households. In essence, you are saying a child is better off in a bad opposite sex household than in a good, loving, SSM household. I'm sorry you feel that way but I have to strongly disagree with your assessment.

    A good, loving, SSM household is far and away better than the situatioins thousands and thousands of children are faced with today. Legalize SSM today and do it for the sake of those children!

  • Partridge Provo, UT
    June 12, 2014 2:45 p.m.

    Same sex marriage is not a simple issue of good vs. bad or enlightened vs. bigots. The real conflict is between one good and another good: The equal dignity and worth of all persons (including homosexuals) versus the right of a child to be raised, wherever possible, by their natural, biological parents.
    Changing the definition of marriage also by default changes the definition of parenthood. Marriage as a social institution came about to meet a social need: The need of a child that could be produced as a result of sexual reproduction to be cared for emotionally, financially, and morally by their father and mother who created them and for that father and mother to be in a committed, permanent relationship in order to do that. Social Science data affirms that a child does best when raised by it's biological parents. Same sex parenting denies a child that opportunity. Most people I know who oppose SSM don’t do so because they hate homosexuals, they oppose it because SSM has led to same sex parenting and they are trying to preserve the right of a child to be raised by it's biological parents.

  • TexinCali Sacramento, CA
    June 12, 2014 2:46 p.m.

    This editorial was pure comic gold. It reminded of John Belushi rallying his frat brothers. "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    June 12, 2014 3:48 p.m.

    @Partridge: You have it exactly backwards. SSM hasn't led to same-sex parenting.

    You have had same-sex parenting in Utah all along, through the entire marriage-ban period. There are children who live in households with unmarried same-sex parents. Why won't you allow their parents to get married? Why won't you allow their only legal parent's lifelong partner to also adopt them? Who exactly do you think you are you punishing?

    It hasn't been marriage that led to parenting. It's the parenting that has led to the realization that the only way they can offer their children maximum security, through thick and thin, sickness and health, whether richer or poorer, is to get married.

    And even those couples who are not parents, and don't seek parenthood, they realize the same thing. The only way they can take care of the person they love through life's tribulations is to get married. When you deny them that, you're denying them what we all take for granted, including the right to bury their loved one at the end. These people deserve next-of-kin status. It makes all the difference.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2014 3:50 p.m.

    Partridge: "Most people I know who oppose SSM don't do so because they hate homosexuals, they oppose it because SSM has led to same sex parenting and they are trying to preserve the right of a child to be raised by it's biological parents."

    ---------------

    I believe you.

    But you are being mislead. Stopping SSM will not stop gay people from having and raising children. They have been doing so for decades. They will continue to do so whether or not SSM is the law.

    All your fighting against SSM does is deny those children the right to be raised in the most stable environment that our government can offer - having parents that are married with all privileges afforded to their families.

    Why not support ALL families, whether or not they are ideal? Why not support single parents, grandparentss raising grandchildren, couples adopting children, gay couples raising their adopted, surrogate, or in-vitro fertilized children, or older siblings raising younger brothers and sisters. This is reality. Families come in all sizes and shapes, but most of them are trying to love and raise good children. Let's legally support all of them - for the good of the children?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 12, 2014 3:55 p.m.

    @TheShootist1;

    Situations that looked bleak then went right? Marriage equality! Barely 10 years ago states were passing constitutional amendments banning marriage equality. Today, marriage equality is almost a certainty nation-wide.

    @artbetty;

    As a biological "reality", some children are created in test tubes. Another biological reality, some children lose their parents to death. Time to face the facts; families come in all manner of flavors and sizes, not just your restrictive form of a "mommy and daddy".

    @frisbeemathgirl;

    Next, I expect you'll be taking children from single parent households and placing them in good "perfect" mommy/daddy households.

    @Partridge:

    "Most people I know who oppose SSM don’t do so because they hate homosexuals, they oppose it because SSM has led to same sex parenting and they are trying to preserve the right of a child to be raised by it's biological parents."

    So, you're saying they're bigoted against same-sex parents, right?

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 12, 2014 4:15 p.m.

    @Partridge

    "Changing the definition of marriage also by default changes the definition of parenthood."

    That's plain silly. How will granting marriage equality change the definition of parenthood?

    "Same sex parenting denies a child that opportunity. "

    More silliness lacking in fact.

    "Most people I know who oppose SSM don’t do so because they hate homosexuals, they oppose it because SSM has led to same sex parenting and they are trying to preserve the right of a child to be raised by it's biological parents."

    Baloney. They hate homosexuality and, therefore,homosexuals. Their concern for the children rings hollow when you look at the numbers of kids sitting in orphanages, foster homes, or single-parent homes. The hypocrisy is that those who oppose SSM would deny a child an opportunity at a stable and loving environment just to preserve religious bigotry

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    June 12, 2014 4:24 p.m.

    Partridge: "Most people I know who oppose SSM don't do so because they hate homosexuals, they oppose it because SSM has led to same sex parenting and they are trying to preserve the right of a child to be raised by it's biological parents."

    ========

    Every Gay parent I know IS already raising their biological child/children.

    So,
    The only other conclusion reamining for those who oppose them is because they hate homosexuals.

  • prochild Springville, UT
    June 12, 2014 4:30 p.m.

    I understand Kimberly's article to be a rally speech. She is rallying and encouraging those of us that feel as if we are almost standing alone. She is inspiring those of us who know that there are many things unique and important about man-woman marriage to society and especially to children that will be undermined if we go mindlessly on our way toward the feel-good concept that "anybody can love each other - so that means it should be called marriage". The benefits that children and society receive from stable families have been undermined by changing divorce laws to recognize "no fault" and therefore much more easily obtained divorces. These changes as well as the widespread decline and abandonment of high morals and good character have caused marriage to be less stable than it once was.

    Let's consider how to strengthen marriage, not undermine it. Children's right to have the living arrangement shown to produce their best outcome will be weakened not strengthened by changing the definition of marriage to mean something other than the legally recognized complimentary union that can naturally produce children and then nurture and raise up that child.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    June 12, 2014 5:42 p.m.

    @Prochild
    "Let's consider how to strengthen marriage, not undermine it."
    Agreed 100%. Gay people are gay whether they can legally marry or not. Prohibiting a class of people from marrying does not strengthen marriage. Allowing gay people to marry will have the exact same benefit it has for straight people--it strengthens commitment, connects people to their extended families and communities, and provides legal rights and obligations.

    "Children's right to have the living arrangement shown to produce their best outcome will be weakened not strengthened by changing the definition of marriage to mean something other than the legally recognized complimentary union that can naturally produce children and then nurture and raise up that child."
    This is not true. Dozens of lawyers have had the chance to prove a nexus between prohibiting same-sex marriage and superior outcomes for children. They have all failed. Allowing gay people to be legally married allows kids who currently have one gay parent to now have two parents and they are better off. No one will take kids away from married straight couples and give them to gay people.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    June 12, 2014 5:58 p.m.

    I ask again: how is anyone's religious freedom affected by same sex marriage? How are you not able to practice your religion because of same sex marriage. Yes, I know you believe God hates same sex marriage, but how does that affect YOUR practice of religion? Seriously, I would like an answer.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2014 6:00 p.m.

    @Partridge:

    "Most people I know who oppose SSM don’t do so because they hate homosexuals, they oppose it because SSM has led to same sex parenting and they are trying to preserve the right of a child to be raised by it's biological parents."

    Just one problem... gay people get kids in one of three ways.
    1. Adoption - biological parents are already out of the equation there no matter where those kids go
    2. surrogate parenting/in-vitro fertilization - surrogate parenting, whether for gay or straight couples (like Melissa Harris Perry), automatically results in the kid not ending up with the biological parents, in-vitro oftentimes doesn't either
    3. from a previous heterosexual union - in which case you're banning the kid from getting a stepparent

    So what exactly do you want to ban from this list?

  • LouBird Provo, UT
    June 12, 2014 6:18 p.m.

    It is incredible to me that we keep talking about the rights of adults to marry who they want, but we rarely talk about the rights of children to have the parents they need. People love to quote dubious “scientific” studies that support their positions, but the most rigorous studies have repeatedly shown that children thrive best when they are raised by their own married biological parents. The state has an interest in marriage only because it is the institution which best insures that connection. When you alter the definition of marriage, you alter the definition of parents. Adults are free to choose whatever relationships they want. Unfortunately children can’t. Since children do best when raised in homes with their biological parents, our society should work to strengthen cultural commitment to that ideal, through laws and education. There will always be problems that stand in the way of reaching the ideal for each child, but our culture and legal system should promote the best conditions for raising children. Anything that weakens the protections provided to children by the natural family amounts to a war on children.

  • Zabet Spanish Fork, UT
    June 12, 2014 6:47 p.m.

    Since when was marriage a right? Cousins can't marry cousins and siblings aren't allowed to marry each other. Why? To protect their potential children from the natural consequences that cannot be legislated away. And as much as I love my same sex friends and relatives, changing the law to protect their "right to marriage" will not change the natural consequences that require a man and a woman to bring new life to this world and that studies prove will provide the best chance of a healthy, happy life for the child.

    Children are our hope for the future and they deserve a mother and a father to nurture and provide the optimal family relationship.

    Equal rights that are guaranteed in the constitution are provided in numerous ways, but redefining marriage creates a Pandora’s box of consequences that obliterate so many other rights – the primary being the rights of children. Children are our hope for the future and they deserve a mother and a father to nurture and provide the optimal family relationship.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    June 12, 2014 7:29 p.m.

    @LouBird
    "It is incredible to me that we keep talking about the rights of adults to marry who they want, but we rarely talk about the rights of children to have the parents they need."
    How does prohibiting gay people from marrying make more kids grow up with biological parents? What am I missing in your argument? I need you to walk me through the logical leap.
    Will people who are currently married with kids in opposite sex relationships abandon their families and turn gay when gay marriage is legal?
    Will kids growing up be more likeky to be gay because gay marriage is legal? Will straight people become more promiscuous and less committed because gay people are becoming more committed?
    I want you to know that gay people love and want to protect kids as much as anyone. If I thought gay marriage hurt kids, I would not support it. I believe marriage benefits adults and kids, so I do support it.

  • Hugh1 Denver, CO
    June 12, 2014 8:55 p.m.

    "... we’ll keep fighting." Fighting what? To devalue gay children to make them feel horrible about themselves? How would you tell your gay child that he is unfit to raise a family? Fortunately, it's inevitable and you will have nothing to say about it.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2014 9:48 p.m.

    I have to laugh at this debate that occurs every time the DN runs an article about this divisive subject. The same contributors (mostly) comment over-and-over again (including me) and I don't see anyone being influenced to change their existing view by this debate. I guess it makes us feel better to exercise our fingers on the keyboard or something? SSM may become legal, if it does it will not solve most of the problems debated about. Conservatives will never fully accept SSM just like we have never accepted abortion after all these many years. Just like we tolerate couples who live together out of wedlock and engage in fornication, we will tolerate same-sex couples, but we will never fully believe their life style is morally correct. Resentments will linger forever over the way the gay community attempted to force acceptance of SSM through man-made courts of law. The very attempt to take religion and God out of the debate in the public square will forever resonate in a negative way with those who cherish their traditional faith systems.

  • Mr. Bean Phoenix, AZ
    June 12, 2014 10:06 p.m.

    cocosweet:
    "I've always felt sorry for those that think gay marriage will weaken straight marriages. How sad that their marriages are so weak."

    It doesn't weaken conventional marriages. It weakens the institution of marriage, which will soon disappear..

    Did you not see where polys are popping up. If the courts approve SSM it must also approve all other forms of marriage.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    June 12, 2014 10:15 p.m.

    @ Partridge

    "Changing the definition of marriage also by default changes the definition of parenthood."

    So this is the latest iteration in the opposition's search for a valid argument. Sigh…

    I do agree that most opponents of SSM probably don't hate LGBTs. But when they persist in their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and despite myriad examples of the harm they cause, it does open them to this charge. After all, rejection and condemnation don't exactly feel like the warm fuzzies.

    Personally, this stubbornness comes across to me as worshipping the religion rather than the god. I understand that some don't see a distinction, but every religion I know of has once espoused doctrine that was later retracted as wrong. So if your god can't be wrong, then your religion can't be your god.

    In the case of homosexuality, I think some are mistaking their religion for their god. It may have been god-inspired, but it was man-written and men make mistakes.

  • seancampmsw Murray, UT
    June 12, 2014 11:04 p.m.

    Wow. The vast majority of these comments are calling out the author's arguments as specious and tangential, and are in favor of same-sex marriage. Here -- on the Deseret News!! Times really are changing...

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    June 12, 2014 11:37 p.m.

    Zabet,

    Funny you should mention cousins. From time immemorial until a "liberal" social movement following a questionable mid-19th Century Massachusetts study on "idiocy", first cousins were allowed to marry pretty much everywhere in the Western world. Laws banning such marriages only first got rolling in the United States in the 1880s, and later elsewhere, but several states, especially on the Eastern seaboard, never enacted such bans, and only a few states today have laws on the books that don't recognize legal marriages from other states or countries.

    As it turns out, "traditional" marriage, especially in European royal families, often involved marriage between first or second cousins. Wikipedia suggests 20% of all marriages throughout history were between first or second cousins, and are still popular today in some jurisdictions, involving up to 55% of all Pakistani immigrants to the UK.

    Modern geneticists say there is only a modestly elevated chance of genetic defects from first-cousin marriages alone. Genetic counseling is recommended not only for them, but for unrelated members of several previously-isolated populations, such as Ashkenazi Jews, as well as for older parents of any sort.

  • Zabet Spanish Fork, UT
    June 12, 2014 11:42 p.m.

    If you'd like to see how same sex marriage affects the society we live in just look to Massachusetts where courts have ruled against parental rights when their kindergartner and first grader were taught same sex morals. Look at the adoption agencies that quit so they wouldn't have to place babies in same sex homes when mothers and fathers were available and anxiously waiting children. Those children's rights to a mother and a father were not considered.

    "Someone might object: What does it matter if a small percentage of marriages are open, group, or temporary? Those arguments were made in the no-fault divorce debate in the 1960s, but the introduction of such laws had a dramatic impact. After all, law affects culture. Culture affects beliefs. Beliefs affect actions. The law teaches, and it will shape not just a handful of marriages but the public understanding of what marriage is." Ryan Anderson

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    June 13, 2014 2:13 a.m.

    Meckofahess
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Resentments will linger forever over the way the gay community attempted to force acceptance of SSM through man-made courts of law. The very attempt to take religion and God out of the debate in the public square will forever resonate in a negative way with those who cherish their traditional faith systems.

    --- Try reading the US Constitution, rather than repeatedly trying to shove your belief that the ways of your church should govern civil law onto the rest of us.. If you want Utah to seceded from the Union and become a theocratic country, OK, please say so.

    Yes, man made courts of law. The US system of Government says that people who feel aggrieved by what they consider unjust laws or unjust actions by the Government can bring suit, and let the Courts give them a remedy, if they prove their case.

    Religions were also made by man, whether or not inspired by God. Religions consist of imperfect people, since we all have human failings.

    It seems the very height of hubris to suggest a lingering resentment over people earning their equality, considering that the Gays could resent you eternally for Prop 8.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 13, 2014 8:16 a.m.

    @Bob K;

    It's more than just Prop-8. Mormon leadership was involved in every single state where constitutional amendments were passed violating the civil rights of LGBT citizens. Every state!

    @Zabet;

    Cry me a river. If an adoption agency is so bigoted as to refuse to place children needing homes with LGBT couples, then maybe they should quit. And, just fyi, the Catholic Charities was willing to place hard-to-adopt children with LGBT couples, it was the Catholic heirarchy that put a stop to the practice and shut down the agency.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    June 13, 2014 8:41 a.m.

    I don't know which is grater, my shock at the absurdity of this opinion piece, or my weariness of this topic.

    Marriage equality is the right thing to do.

    Period.

    If it is not inevitable, that is a sad commentary on our society. It should be inevitable.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    June 13, 2014 8:48 a.m.

    Zabet,

    You really should look at Massachusetts, as you suggest. With one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, highest graduation rates, lowest murder rates, lowest poverty rates, it shines in almost every category. Home to premier institutions of higher education, and leading medical and technical research, development, and commerce, it's the very picture of success and societal stability.

    Your allegations are nonsense, nothing but unfounded scare-tactics, which have been debunked in these comment threads many times. For example, no adoption agency was ever told who they could and couldn't place children with. As always, if they wished to get state money for their services, they needed to comply with the state's nondiscrimination law, which Catholic Charities already did, placing some adoptions with gay couples. When Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, they did not change the nondiscrimination law. It remained exactly the same. However, the Catholic Bishops shut down the service in a fit of pique. God forbid they should have eschewed state money and continued God's work with their own funds.

    LDS Family Services still operates adoption services there, using private money, as they always have.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    June 13, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    Zabet,

    Please understand that your credibility in this debate is damaged when you offer incomplete, misleading or erroneous information. Please get your facts straight and formulate your arguments based on accurate, complete information, rather then just repeating someone else's talking points.

    Point 1. In Utah, first cousins actually ARE able to marry, in some cases. They may marry, subject to proof that they are NOT able to procreate. (Pssst, this hurts your argument in two ways).

    Point 2. In Massachusetts, Catholic charities of Boston made a VOLUNTARY decision to cease adoptions. They were accepting state funds to provide adoption services and so, were bound by the state’s non-discrimination laws. Rather than place children with qualified gay couples, they chose to shut down. Incidentally, they could have done what LDS social services does, which is to remain COMPLETELY private, accepting no public funds, and proceed, problem-free, with adoptions according to their doctrinal beliefs.

    I'll close by citing this line from an official LDS statement made during the prop 8 era in CA:

    "No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information."

  • p5mom American Fork, UT
    June 13, 2014 9:25 a.m.

    Ms. Ells may be on very solid ground asserting that traditional marriage will always rise again. Nature has bestowed on man/woman relationships a monopoly on natural child-bearing. Maybe we should be asking: Why does nature favor traditional man-woman relationships so decisively? What survival advantages does it bestow on a child? What might be the danger deliberately depriving a child of either a mother or a father? Perhaps the needs of a child should always trump the desires of adults. The distinction of traditional marriage protects children while still allowing same-gender couples the freedom to love and live together. Congratulation to Ms. Ellis.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    June 13, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    P5mom asks a thoughtful question regarding consequences of allowing family formation without two opposite-sex parents.

    I'd like her to also consider these other, interesting questions:

    What might be the dangers of:

    ..a) depriving a child of a well-rounded public education?
    ..b) depriving a child of comprehensive health care?
    ..c) denying a child immunizations?
    ..d) denying a poor mother first-rate prenatal care?
    ..e) depriving a child those opportunities that poor parents can't provide?
    ..f) depriving a child of parental attention because both parents need to work?
    ..g) living in substandard housing because that's all their parents can afford?
    ..h) inadequate nutrition and too much fast food?
    ..i) television and videogames instead of time with friends and loved ones?
    ..j) environmental pollution because business comes before people?
    ..k) failure to instill a love of books, music, the arts, and learning?
    ..l) sugary snacks and drinks?
    ..m) insufficient exercise or play?
    ..n) insufficient supervision?
    ..o) parents living in poverty?

    It really doesn't matter who your parents are if they love and protect you and each other, and give you the best head start in life they can.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    June 13, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    Some people continue to oppose SSM based on "the children". There is such a disconnect. People including gays aren't waiting for marriage to have children. There is no law you can pass that will make this the case, so stop harping on the children. Marriage makes it better for the children that will be raised regardless, so in reality you are hurting the children by opposing SSM.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    June 13, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    @ P5mom

    The ability to procreate without outside assistance only affords an advantage in CREATING a child. How the child does thereafter is dependent on many things, including parenting ability. Sexual orientation has been repeatedly shown to have no bearing on this capacity.

    @ Meckofahess

    "The very attempt to take religion and God out of the debate in the public square will forever resonate in a negative way with those who cherish their traditional faith systems."

    Yes, some believe religion has no place in the public square. Personally I don't see how you prevent it because we all carry our beliefs with us wherever we go. But no one's beliefs should be afforded special deference simply by virtue of their nature. They must win the day on their merits. Is this so unreasonable to ask? When we know that religious belief can be harmful as well as beneficial, is it unreasonable to objectively assess the consequences of a religious belief first before we subject everyone to it?

    Nurse a grievance if you must, but your rights remain intact. It's the pedestals that some religions constructed for themselves that are taking a beating.

  • Kei ,
    June 13, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    While it’s true that not every couple has children, every child does have a Mother and a Father. Same-sex marriage automatically “divorces” children from one of the natural parents who created them. Children want and need both.

    Yes, we recognize that many different family forms exist, but when we make laws we need to promote the ideal for children.

    Decades of research shows that children do best with a married Father and Mother in the home. Early research in the 1950’s showed how critical Mother-attachment and bonding is for children. More recent research shows the many ways Father-presence matters. For example, Pres. Obama cited the fact that children without a father are 5 times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime. How can we continue to insist that fathers are essential, if the law says fathers are optional?

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    June 13, 2014 11:41 a.m.

    @Kei:

    Same-sex couples will continue to raise children, whether or not marriage equality is the law.

    Denying marriage to same-sex couples will simply deny benefits to those families.

    Denying marriage to same-sex couples will hurt children.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 13, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    Kei says:

    "...when we make laws we need to promote the ideal for children. "

    In that case, poor people should not be allowed to have children, criminals should not be allowed to have children, young people should not be allowed to have children, etc. as each of these scenarios not "ideal" for the children. Why, I have to ask you, is it ONLY LGBT couples who are not "ideal" in your eyes who have to be denied? Why not ALL of these non-"ideal" situations? The only thing I can think of is that you just don't like LGBT couples, otherwise, you'd want to ensure only the "ideal" for every child, not just those who are in LGBT families (which, btw, smells greatly of hypocrisy - condemned many many times in your bible).

  • RockOn Spanish Fork, UT
    June 13, 2014 12:17 p.m.

    Zabet is right. The author was right.

    For those spouting "marriage equality" you simply have redefined marriage. And equality is all things is absurd and well accepted in all societies. Based upon the mindless drivel the haters have infused in this discussion against the author they are currently incapable of thinking this out.

    Men and women aren't equal but the outcomes can be equalized. The crime for years has been in not honoring the contractual wishes of two people -- regardless of sex. If they wish to form a contract to share benefits, have "family" visiting, etc., those rights must be honored per the contract. That is the only equality that matters in this discussion. What is really wanted by SSA couples is that what they do be talked about and honored just as their Dad and Mom's relationship was. But, it is NOT the same relationship. Isn't that obvious?

    As for having children, the State has an obligation to promote fundamentals of society. Stats have long proved this -- children have a greater chance of success when raised by a father and a mother. That's what the state should be promoting.

  • Stenar Salt Lake City, UT
    June 13, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    Wow! This is one weird opinion piece.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 13, 2014 12:36 p.m.

    @Meckofahess
    "Resentments will linger forever over the way the gay community attempted to force acceptance of SSM through man-made courts of law. The very attempt to take religion and God out of the debate in the public square will forever resonate in a negative way with those who cherish their traditional faith systems."

    Amendment 3 advocates attacked first.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 13, 2014 2:18 p.m.

    @Meckofahess

    "Resentments will linger forever over the way the gay community attempted to force acceptance of SSM through man-made courts of law."

    Resentment will linger forever over the way the church community of the state of Utah attempted to deny ALL Utah citizens their civil rights based on nothing but their religious dogma and in violation of the United States Constitution.

    "The very attempt to take religion and God out of the debate in the public square will forever resonate in a negative way"

    The continued attempt to force YOUR religion on ALL in the public square in contravention to the United States Constitution will be met with untiring and fierce opposition from those whose rights you insist on trampling.

  • Partridge Provo, UT
    June 13, 2014 3:17 p.m.

    @lane myer
    "Why not support ALL families, whether or not they are ideal? Why not support single parents, grandparentss raising grandchildren, couples adopting children, gay couples raising their adopted, surrogate, or in-vitro fertilized children, or older siblings raising younger brothers and sisters. This is reality. Families come in all sizes and shapes, but most of them are trying to love and raise good children. Let's legally support all of them - for the good of the children?"
    I'm not saying we shouldn't support all families that do exist, but why create situations that will bring about more children being raised away from their biological parents? Because that will happen. We will have more people using surrogate mothers with the intent to separate the child from their biological mother.
    Another note, Robert Oscar Lopez, raised by who he acknowledges were 2 good, loving lesbians parents is a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage for the very reason that he LIVED the reality that he needed both a father and a mother.

  • BTRP Orem, UT
    June 13, 2014 4:02 p.m.

    Statements such as gay marriage "divorces" children from their parents drive me crazy. That would lead someone to believe that children are being plucked from their homes and from their biological parents which is so far from the truth. More often than not, children up for adoption are coming from parents who couldn't/wouldn't take care of them. Yet people are willing to deprive them of a loving home because their adoptive parents are gay? I'll tell you definitively, with gay couples, there are not any "oops" babies. The time, effort and $ required to adopt a child is not something two people who are not deeply invested in that child would ever undertake. Doesn't that say something about gay couples wanting to adopt? Last I checked, there are plenty of children without homes.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 13, 2014 4:14 p.m.

    Partridge:

    "I'm not saying we shouldn't support all families that do exist, but why create situations that will bring about more children being raised away from their biological parents? Because that will happen."

    ---------

    The way to supprot all families that exist is to provide for them the most stable situation to raise their children in - marriage.

    Gays HAVE children! 25% of the gay couples in SLC are raising a child. Whether or not gays are married, if they want children, they will have them.

    Somehow you think that gays will stop procreating if they are not married. Not true. Gays were as surprised to be able to marry as the State of Utah was in December. Many already had procreated and brought their children with them to their marriages.

    Your saying that they cannot marry will not change any gay couple from procreating (yes, they are individually able to procreate) and creating the families that they want and cherish.

    Robert Lopez is one individual. I can name you 50+ children right here in Utah who are wonderful, caring, loving, tax-paying, responsible individuals who were raised by gays. Can you name that many who are discontented with their gay parents?

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    June 13, 2014 5:45 p.m.

    “Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!” (Ghostbusters, 1984)

    That was a great movie. The editorial should have used some Ghostbuster quotes.

    Ten years ago, under Governor Romney, marriage equality became the law in Massachusetts. To date, there have been no plagues of locusts. :o)

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    June 13, 2014 10:53 p.m.

    Kimberley , what a great article which clearly presented what the
    SSM group is trying to pull off. Also what courage to write this knowing
    50 posters opposed to your view are going to try to tear it apart.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    June 13, 2014 11:23 p.m.

    An awful lot of comments to a terribly biased article, where the woman dares to bring up the co-founder of communism in contrast to Orin Hatch.

    More of the comments ought to have been in despair of the DN for publishing such tripe

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    June 14, 2014 2:14 a.m.

    Those opposed to SSM simply cannot explain their rationale with respect to children in a way that makes the slightest sense. If we lived in a world where one couldn't have children until marriage they'd at least be following the logic of causality, but we don't live there. People have children in all sorts of situations, married and not.

    Thus, the anti-SSM side is not about "the children" that MIGHT occur after SSM marriage is legalized, but about denying the benefits of a stable family to those children that will be born into these families whether or not SSM is legal. Continuing to argue as if the anti-SSM side is protecting children is thus obviously ludicrous in the extreme, and I for one wonder how they expect anyone else to buy into such poor logic. Give that this seems to be the sum total of the anti side's rational, and it's obvious why SSM will be the law of the land shortly.

  • Charlie0 American Fork, UT
    June 14, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    What if those who oppose gay marriage turn out to be right? What if it is really important to protect traditional marriage? Would those who are for gay marriage come to realize it wasn't ever about hating anyone. It was about trying to help others because of love.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 14, 2014 3:13 p.m.

    @Charlie0;

    What if they turn out to be wrong?

  • JBrown14 BOUNTIFUL, UT
    June 14, 2014 11:11 p.m.

    What a beautifully written article. I could not agree more. There are many times in the history of this country where unexpected endings have occurred. I believe marriage will be preserved as more people are educated about the consequences to children of redefining marriage. The more children who are raised in inherently unstable situations will lead to more dysfunctional adults. This will effect crime rates, substance abuse rates, and increase the amount of dependence on government, which will raise taxes. Every single person has a stake in strengthening marriage and fighting against attempts to change it.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    June 15, 2014 2:21 a.m.

    @JBrown14
    What are the consequences to the children of redefining marriage? I can see a lot of children--real live children with names--who will be better off and no child who will be worse off. Please tell me a situation where a specific child will be harmed by legalizing same-sex marriage.
    "The more children who are raised in inherently unstable situations will lead to more dysfunctional adults."
    I agree with that statement but am super confused how you think this supports your argument. Gay relationships are not inherently unstable. Legal recognition and social acceptance will improve stability, which helps their kids.
    The more I think of the children, the more I support marriage equality.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    June 15, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    Wonderful article. Loved every phrase.

    It is especially satisfying to see the agonized comments from the anti-traditional marriage crowd.

  • Charlie0 American Fork, UT
    June 15, 2014 8:25 a.m.

    Ranch
    They won't

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 15, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    @JBrown14: "The more children who are raised in inherently unstable situations..."

    You argue that children should be raised in stable situations but argue against SSM that would stabilize gay relationships. You can't have it both ways. Marriage is either good for children because it gives stability or it isn't. Arguing that some marriages are good and others bad displays bias.

    @Kei: "Decades of research shows that children do best with a married Father and Mother in the home."

    During those decades researchers examined Dad/Mom and single parent families. Not gay or lesbian couple raising families. The limited studies that have been run show kids do best in families headed by 2 loving, committed parents. More studies are being done, but they require funding, willing subjects and much time to develop the data. To date the biggest observed difference between SSM and OSM households is the the former tend to divide child care and household duties by interest and ability, while the latter follow socially set gender roles. The key is parental involvement, not gender.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    June 15, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    @ JBrown14

    I understand that you believe that same-sex marriages are intrinsically unstable, but belief is not evidence and there is no evidence to support your belief. What the evidence does show is that laws prohibiting SSM create unstable situations for these families.

    What it also shows is that belief can cause blind spots in some.

    @ Charlie0

    When do you consider the fact that YOU may be wrong? We've lived centuries as if your position is correct and yet the "problem persists and the "solutions" have caused far more harm than good. This isn't just supposition. We have a multitude of evidence to back this up.

    So what is it going to take for you to consider that your good intentions may be misguided? Is it loving to ignore truth in favor of a demonstrably unfounded belief?

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    June 15, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    @iron&clay

    Agonized? We're trying to explain to you why it's inevitable.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 15, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    @ Iron&clay

    " It is especially satisfying to see the agonized comments from the anti-traditional marriage crowd."

    Funny, I read all the comments and I didn't read any that i would classify as "anti-traditional marriage".

    I found some against Children raised by LGBT parents. But all of them were pro-family and pro-traditional marriage.
    Marriage by love, two adults in a monogamous relationship committing their lives for each other.

    OooH!! You are from Utah. No, Polygamy was traditional only in Utah! But that is over even for Mormons after President Wilford Woodruff manifest. Interesting reading!

  • OregonGirl Kaysville, UT
    June 16, 2014 12:32 p.m.

    Thank you for your article and courage!Love the Beatitudes - after reading some of these comments I started to think of this one: "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." Matthew 5:10-12.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2014 9:45 p.m.

    Deseret News, we expect better from you. This letter is just weird. Can't you publish something that more people would respond positively too? And I'm getting tired of the constant letters/articles against our elected President. My Church does not teach we are to continually demean that high office. We are to support and give our all to help. Continually publishing articles against that high elected office is getting tiring.