Here' a link to the Deseret News article. I will try to summarize the article here in my own words as fairly as I can.
The article began by quoting one of the individuals who is featured in "Voices of Hope." This person made a sweeping statement about supporters of same-sex marriage, suggesting that "they" were forcing a false, dichotomized choice between being out, proud, and in a same-sex marriage, or being closeted, alone and miserable. This false dichotomy was supposedly being used as the primary argument in support of legal same-sex marriage. "Voices of Hope" was presented as proof that gay people can be happy within opposite-sex marriages. Although it was acknowledged that "not all" gay people can make opposite-sex marriages work, the article implied that opposition to same-sex marriage was justified because opposite-sex marriage was a viable option for individuals whose happy marriages were documented in "Voices of Hope."
The main flaw in this article is that the argument in support of same-sex marriage simply does not speak to the situation of individuals, whatever orientation they consider themselves, who are happily making opposite-sex marriage work. Same-sex marriage is needed as a legal, viable option precisely for those individuals who cannot make opposite-sex marriage work, who have decided that their happiness, security, and well-being are best found in a loving, committed relationship with another person of the same sex. People in opposite-sex marriages, whatever their orientation, are already protected under the law. Legal reform is needed for those who are not protected.
For what it's worth, the kind of flawed logic presented in this article is precisely the kind of logic that is consistently being rejected by courts that are, one after another, striking down laws that prohibit recognition of same-sex marriage. Those who lean on this kind of logic will likely continue to be disappointed as the legal system works its way through a constitutional resolution of this difficult issue.
At issue here is a deeper problem. Our lives and our stories are sacred. Our stories deserve to be shared and listened to with empathy. Our lives deserve to be respected and protected. This is true of all people, whether you are in an opposite-sex marriage, a same-sex marriage, or single. Individuals' stories should never be used as ammunition to criticize others, and should never be used to undermine the credibility of other people's stories. To do so cheapens them and all of us.
My personal story of struggle to understand and know myself as a gay man, my near suicide as a young adult, and my ultimate decision to find happiness in my 21+ years long marriage to my husband, should never be used to imply that nobody with same-sex attraction could be happy in an opposite-sex marriage. Similarly, I believe it is immoral to use the story of an individual with same-sex attraction who has been happily married in an opposite-sex relationship, for however long, to deprive me and my husband of legal protections that we need and deserve.
Let's keep talking about this, folks.