Sandy Police Chief Stephen Chapman and Rep. Jennifer Seelig, D-Salt Lake, speak following a press conference about ending domestic and sexual violence Monday, Feb. 4, 2013.
Ravell Call, Deseret News
SALT LAKE CITY — A bill labeled the Dating Violence Protection Act passed the House on Friday but not before a lengthy debate over whether it should be amended to include a recognition of traditional marriage.
Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, said he wanted to amend HB50, sponsored by House Minority Leader Jen Seelig, D-Salt Lake City, to change the bill from being what he called a "romance version of protective orders" by singling out daters.
But Rep. Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, said the only purpose of inserting recognition of "policies and standards of conduct regarding marriage" into the bill was to weaken protections for same-sex dating couples.
Christensen's amendment was defeated on a voice vote. The bill was approved 61-11 and now goes to the Senate.
Seelig said the bill extended needed protections to people who are dating rather than married or cohabiting.
"This bill does not create a protected class," she said. "It does not expand any homosexual rights."
Later, she told reporters the sexuality of someone seeking an order shouldn't be an issue.
"We don't ask sexual preference in a protective order," Seelig said. "We think it's more important to protect people from acts of violence and sexual violence than it is to judge them."
The bill would allow dating couples to seek the same protective order available to cohabiting couples except for the duration of the order. Seelig said dating couples would have a 180-day "cooling-off" period, while orders can be indefinite for cohabiting couples.
During the House floor debate, Rep. Marie Poulson, D-Cottonwood Heights, described how her daughter was stalked by a man who had convinced himself he was her boyfriend after hearing her speak at a church event.
Poulson said that was the real purpose of the bill, to offer redress for people like her daughter. She urged lawmakers to stay focused on the victims and "get back to the meat of this bill."
Rep. Kay McIff, R-Richfield, said during the debate that he is a strong supporter of the traditional definition of marriage but understands that everyone needs protection.
"The thrust of this bill is to protect anyone who's in danger of being beat up," McIff said.
E-mail: lisa@desnews.com, Twitter: dnewspolitics
- Miss Utah USA's bungled interview creates...
- Doug Robinson: Utah man's new running shoe...
- Miss Utah USA gets second chance at question...
- 7-year-old girl who met Justin Bieber passes...
- Man charged with attempted murder in Ogden...
- Bear scare: 'Baden and Logan saved my life.'
- BYU poll: Majority favor impeachment,...
- Ogden man shot as he knelt to pray is...
- Miss Utah USA's bungled interview...
38 - BYU poll: Majority favor impeachment,...
27 - Video: Miss Utah USA flubs answer at...
26 - Teen's family apologizes to family of...
21 - 2 others back up extortion claims...
21 - Attorneys for AG John Swallow say...
20 - Gunman caught after shooting...
20 - Doug Robinson: Utah man's new running...
17



It really speaks volumes about the intelligence of our legislators when they seek to amend a bill to include a definition of marriage when there is already a Utah Constitutional Amendment defining marriage. What is the purpose, then, of a state More..
As a man I would like this bill to be 'sex neutral'. What about if I am abused by my spouse, where are my protections? I am all for changing the verbiage! Reports show that 40% of domestic violence victims are male.
@mytwocents
So using your logic we should do away with all criminal law get rid of our pice department and people should just hire their own body guards and/or self defense, right.