"Sexual complementariness"? "Child-centric"?
These concepts form the basis of the arguments our lawyers intend to raise should the Supreme Court decide to review two lower court’s findings that Utah’s ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional ("Utah’s gay marriage case is on the way to high court," Tribune, Aug. 6).
But what, gentlemen of the bar, do these phrases mean?
I, like authors Burke, Tolman and Mackay ("Supreme Court must affirm right for all to marry," Aug. 10), concluded that "sexual complementariness" was not about the fit of organs during sexual congress, nor post-coital kudos. But, unlike them, I thought it might be a restatement of the position that opposite-sex couples make better parents than same-sex couples, a notion that research has consistently proven false.
The "child-centric" argument seems based on the premise that Utah is unique among states in its emphasis on the welfare of children, but if that were true, our legislators would surely have found a way by now to properly fund our cellar-dwelling educational system, and our governor would not be withholding the benefits of Obamacare from many of our lower-income families.
So, how about it, gents? A primer would be helpful, in plain English please, explaining the arguments you are making on our behalf; so far your strategies seem somewhat inaccessible or deficient or both.
Allan W. Smart
Salt Lake City
Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.