Utah in gay marriage filing: Kids need mom and dad

*Utah state attorneys filed their opening argument to the federal appeals court reviewing the state’s same-sex marriage ban, saying the optimal environment for raising children is with a mother and father. …

The state contends redefining marriage poses “real, concrete risks to children” because not having a mother or father leads to emotional damage. The state said its duty is to look out for the long-term interests of children who can’t defend themselves. The state also believes allowing same-sex marriages would lead to reduced birth rates, which would bring demographic and economic crisis.

“The diversity of having both a mom and a dad is the ideal parenting environment,” wrote Gene Schaerr, an outside attorney who has been hired by the state to defend the law. “That model is not intended to demean other family structures, any more than giving an A to some students demeans others.”*
Story Arizona Daily Star

Well said. Hope it makes an impact.

When judges put the interests of the children in the forefront, rather than the feelings of the adults, this is the kind of judgment that comes out.

Wow. This argument is DOA. I would think that they could have done better. Is traditional marriage really so indefensible? I find it hard to believe that they took this tack. Utah taxpayers might not be getting much value from their state atty’s office.

That they do indeed! :thumbsup:

So, when are they going to start taking kids away from single parents?

I stand with the moral opposition against gay marriage.

But I’m skeptical of, “The state also believes allowing same-sex marriages would lead to reduced birth rates, which would bring demographic and economic crisis.”

I grew up in a single parent household and would have rather been adopted. I firmly believe a two parent home is the best option and adoption should be considered a very important option for those unable to provide a stable two parent family.

In upholding the ban on homosexual marriage in Nevada, part of the opinion says:

Human beings are created through the conjugation of one man and one woman. The percentage of human beings conceived through non-traditional methods is minuscule, and adoption, the form of child-rearing in which same-sex couples may typically participate together, is not an alternative means of creating children, but rather a social backstop for when traditional biological families fail. The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women. The institution developed in our society, its predecessor societies, and by nearly all societies on Earth throughout history to solidify, standardize, and legalize the relationship between a man, a woman, and their offspring, is civil marriage between one man and one woman.

( “It is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” - See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190,211 (1888) )

“Should that institution be expanded to include same-sex couples with the state’s imprimatur, it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently, opting for purely private ceremonies, if any, whether religious or secular, but in any case without civil sanction, because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined, leading to an increased percentage of out-of-wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes after the dissolution of what amount to common law marriages in a state where such marriages are not recognized, or other unforeseen consequences.


In a brief amicus curiae in Connecitcut it says:

In The Future of Marriage, sociologist David Blankenhorn reports the results of polls taken by the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), a collaborative effort of universities in over 40 countries. In 2002, the ISSP polled 50,000 adults in 35 countries, asking whether they agreed or disagreed with six statements about the value of marriage:1) Married people are generally happier than unmarried people; 2) People who want children ought to get married; 3) One parent can bring up a child as well as two parents together; 4) It is all right for a couple to live together without intending to get married; 5) Divorce is usually the best solution when a couple can’t seem to work out their marriage problems; and 6) The main purpose of marriage these days is to have children. David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage 222-24 (Encounter Books 2007). The poll suggests strong correlations between societal attitudes devaluing marriage and the adoption of same-sex marriage. Positing that statements one, two, and six indicate support for traditional marriage and statements three, four, and five reflect a lack of support for traditional marriage, Blankenhorn concludes:

Support for marriage is by far the weakest in countries with same-sex marriage. The twelve countries that . . . have marriage-like civil unions show significantly more support for marriage. The two countries with regionally limited recognition of gay marriage (Australia and the UnitedStates) do better still on these support-for-marriage measurements, as do those . . . without gay marriage and without marriage-like civil unions

In some instances, the differences are quite large. For example, people in nations with gay marriage are less than half as likely as people in nations without gay unions to say that married people are happier. Perhaps most important, they are significantly less likely—38 percent compared with 60 percent—to say that people who want children ought to get married. They are also significantly more likely—83.1 percent compared with 49.7 percent—to say that cohabiting without intending to marry is all right, and are somewhat more likely to say that divorce is usually the best solution to marital problems. Compared with Australia and the United States [respondents in the countries with gay marriage] are significantly more likely to say that divorce is usually the best solution

Similarly, a study done by The World Values Survey, a Stockholm, Sweden-based group reveals the same correlation between acceptance of same-sex marriage and societal devaluation of marriage. The Survey, which polled over 100,000 people in 80 countries, id. at 231, 7 contained three statements about marriage with which respondents were asked to approve or disapprove: 1) A child needs a home with both a father and a mother to grow up happily; 2) It is all right for a woman to want a child but not a stable relationship with a man; and 3) Marriage is an outdated institution. Id. at 239. Again, the highest percentage of those who approved the second and third statements lived in countries with same-sex marriage. Id. at 231.8 By significant margins, support for marriage was highest in countries that do not recognize same-sex unions of any kind. Id. Thus, the correlation between societal devaluation of marriage and the acceptance of same-sex marriage is indisputable. As Blankenhorn concludes:

Certain trends in values and attitudes tend to cluster with each otherand with certain trends in behavior. A rise in unwed childbearing goeshand in hand with a weakening of the belief that people who want to have children should get married. High divorce rates are encountered where the belief in marital permanence is low. More one-parent homes are found where the belief that children need both a father and amother is weaker. A rise in non marital cohabitation is linked at least partly to the belief that marriage as an institution is outmoded. The legal endorsement of gay marriage occurs where the belief prevails that marriage itself should be redefined as a private personal elationship. And all of these marriage-weakening attitudes and behaviors are linked. Around the world, the surveys show, these things go together.9


I think the word “need” is a bit ambiguous. “Need” for what? Happiness? To turn out well? Lots of people from single-parent homes turn out to be successful, well-adjusted people.

When people are asked, “Is [ABC] needed for [XYZ]?”, they might interpret the question differently. Some might take it literally. Some might take into consideration the context in which the question is asked.

Is there a word that means “beneficial” and “more conducive to general well-being”?

Regarding the idea that gay marriage will lead to less straight marriage: I still personally believe it’s a correlation and not causation. The real cause, in my opinion, is the general degradation of the fabric of society that devalues traditional, faith-based ideals.

There’s a difference between the difficulties that arise when a child grows up in a single-parent house versus the state officially certifying an arrangement that guarantees such a child’s fate in that house as well as officially labeling it with the same monicker as that unique institution which is male-female marriage.

You are free to articulate what is poor about pointing out that children fare best in married, mother-father arrangements. I would think it’s in the best interests for the government to avoid deviating from recognizing anything less as a marriage.

Sounds good…. but is not true.


Utah allows singles to adopt. Singles and gays, more often than not, adopt so-called ‘unwanted’ children who are hard to place in homes and who, if not for gay adoptive parents, would spend their lives in the unstable world of foster homes. In such situations are best interests of the child trumped by sentiment opposing gay people adopting?

Here is a fascinating article, “How gays won the right to raise children without conservatives even noticing.

I am quite sure that in all the nations that have opted for non-traditional marriages, the marriage rate among the population as a whole has fallen, rather than risen.

It is not a causal relationship, but a meaningful correlation. When marriage becomes redefined in such a frivolous way, there should be no surprise that marriage loses any sense of gravitas and improtance.

Most states that passed gay marriage already had a low and/or declining birth rate.

It comes as no surprise to me that it is states in the latest stages of dying, as the culture of death fully sets in, that become so fascinated and open to these kinds of laws. More vigorous states in which children are the ultimate value have no identification with such a culture

The rosy picture painted by SSM advocates was that this would reinvigorate the institution of marriage. There was a real load of organic bovine fertilizer, as it turns out.

Funny how they argue that, since there is absolutely no evidence for emotional problems in children caused by LGBT parents. In fact, children with such parents are absolutely normal, maybe with a bit less prejudice though.

That’s because SSM only makes sense in a society where marriage is just about love and in that context it is perfectly rational to extend marriage to same sex couples indeed it’d be a double standard not to. Note this is not approval of same sex marriage, merely noting that when marriage is only about love it doesn’t make sense to not extended it to same sex couples. To attack the legalization is merely to attack the symptom, not the root causes.

I don’t believe I’ve ever heard that claim except by people claiming SSM advocates claim that.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.