Deseret News | Partnership registry proposed

Reader comments
Partnership registry proposed

154 comments | Read story

Raymond Takashi Swenson | 11:13 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

This ordinance is just another step toward giving full legal recognition to gay marriage. The strategy that has been followed in California is to gradually expand the legal status of homosexual, bisexual and transgender activities, to the point now where people can be fired from their jobs or otherwise sanctioned by government for simply expressing their view that marriage between a man and woman is the only legitimate place for sexual activity. The ultimate goal is not an expansion of freedom for people with variant sexual preferences (no one is actively stopping them, and homosexuals have higher than average household incomes), but punishment of those who do not embrace those variations as moral or good. As the new statute for California schools states, the state will not tolerate anyone who makes anyone feel less than totally accepted about their sexual practices.

Both atheists and gays want the law to censor anyone who disagrees with them.

oh please | 11:14 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

So the prevalance of homosexuality is going to bring on the death and destruction of society. umm okay. You keep thinkng that, and I'll sit back and watch.

interesting | 11:20 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

To: ENOUGH!!!! | 9:45 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008
It is interesting that you think all those against "equality" are LDS. The "your precious Mitt" comment shows you're a bigot.
Proof of failing families is everywhere. I am not going to do your research for you. If you look at ALL the facts (which you won't) you will find many problems due to non-traditional families.
Are you willing to allow all non-traditional families "legal" status? That does include Polygamy. I have worked with polygamists in the past. They are kind and good people too.

Comments continue below

CHOICES?? | 11:29 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Homosexuality is a choice? Then so is Heterosexuality, so is having 15 kids, but I have no choice in the paying of higher taxes to offset your financial short commings. If I made a choice to be gay, why don't you all step up and make the choice to pay for you choices too? I could use the raise. Also, all those who keep saying that marriage is ordained of God. So was stoning children for dis-respecting parents and adultery and so was polygamy. If they were ordained, why don't we keep them going too??

Finally, if you all think marriage is so sacred, when are YOU going to start treating it that way? I still see high divorce rates. Yes, even here in Zion. If it's sacred treat it that way.

Same-gender attraction | 11:41 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

ï¿½You serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily by your sexual feelings. That isnï¿½t your only characteristic, so donï¿½t give it disproportionate attention. You are first and foremost a son of God, and He loves you." You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings isï¿½just as it would be with heterosexual feelings. Do you violate the law of chastity?ï¿½-Jeffrey R. Holland
This is what it's all about. The flesh is weak, but the Lord isn't. It's hard, but with help it can be done.......

Displaced | 11:43 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

As someone who has just moved to UT from Southern California, I really have a hard time understanding the thought process around here. The mayor's proposal isn't about marriage, religion, or even homosexuality. It is about providing healthcare costs equitably. What if your employer today told you that he would no longer offer family coverage? That it was every man for himself? You would be upset. This proposal simply allows people not in a traditional family to share health care coverage. So it is not about politics, it is about money.

To anyone who thinks that being gay is a choice, that's phooey. Did I choose to be heterosexual? I don't recall ever having made that choice before or after I got married and had children. Yet here I am a heterosexual.

And to those that think the "left" platform is so bad, don't even get me started on Huckabee. He openly admitted to sabotaging Mitt's campaign because he hates Mormons. So Mitt won't get the nomination, and yet the blindness of the people on the Wasatch front will lead them to vote in Huck because of their hatred for the "left." Good luck with that, Red Utah.

Dan | 11:45 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

What an embarassment to the state of Utah this is. Please, Salt Lake... secede from our state ASAP.

RE: Enough is Enough | 11:46 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Prophetic voice vs. Voice of Man.....I think there is only one of the two worth following for a Prophet is the voice of God.

Right is Right, even when there is the world trying to say wrong is right.

RE: Kevin L | 11:52 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

I have an extended family member that has gone down the gay path in life. But it is her choice of actions that bring her continued sadness, not who or what she is.

You either choose to live according to moral laws or you don't. Having a mayor facillitate immorality is not right either as it does in fact undermine the strength of the family further.

BECKER - F on this one.

Polical Observer | 11:56 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Democrats have often said that you can be a "good Mormon" and a Democrat. As a leading Democrat in the State Legislature, I wonder if we are not seeing the truee Democrat in action now as the Mayor of SLC - one who does not follow the basic tenets of his faith as found in the Proclamation on the Family.

No wonder Democrats a disconnected with Utah voters.

Wilkey | 11:58 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Parents of children make sacrifices for those children that non-parents don't have to make. These sacrifices are, among many other things, financial. To provide gay couples with financial incentives for costs they're not bearing - that most of them never have bourne, and never will bear - is nonsense.

If you think children are irrelevant, or that we don't need any of them, or as many of them, then so be it. Most Americans wouldn't agree. We're constantly hearing about the need to have more children because birthrates are so much in decline. That is, in fact, a big, big portion of the argument for more legal and illegal immigration - to prop up our population so that we can prop up social security, "the economy," etc.

If you think we shouldn't provide financial incentives for children, or that Utahns are having "too many," then that's fine. Just make sure your logic on this and other issues, like immigration, is consistent.

To: Prophetic Warning, etal | 12:02 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

God, church, religion, families, etc., have nothing to do with the 'institution' of marriage as concerns the legal ramifications, which is what is being discussed here... the LEGAL ramifications.

Property issues are what lies at the issue of marriage licenses and partnership agreements. It's that simple, and also deeply rooted in both English common law and Nepoleonic civil code! Even here in the United States one is not required to have a 'religious' ceremony or even a judge preside over the signing of a marriage certificate, only two witnesses and the individual announcing the marriage as binding before the witnesses. Prior to 'civil' marriage, couples simply betrothed themselves to each other and nothing more, and the common law recognized them as married. Nothing to do with kings, magistrates, priests or bishops, just a common consent between two individuals to be married (ie.e coupled).

the 'civil' authority became involved when issues of property division became an issue upon divorce, which became more prevalent as the common person acquired more property rights, etc.

You self-serving religios and self-righteous homophobes need to get your facts straight concerning the 'institution' of marriage before tooting your inaccurate tin horns. Your out of tune with facts.

Hatuletoh | 12:04 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

All this talk of sexuality seems quite lurid and lewd to me. Mayor Becker's proposal mentions nothing about sex. It would be naive, of course, to deny that homosexual couples will be the primary users of this service, but I saw nothing requiring proof of a sexual relationship.

My very conservative, very religious grandmother always said: stay out of other people's bedrooms and you'll be a happier person. Christians spend more time thinking about intercourse than any group I've ever met. Has anyone ever once had a homosexual knock on their door and ask if they were interesting in hearing about their beliefs?

To the boycotters of SLC: thank you. We don't want you or your money.

Anonymous | 12:06 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

"The ultimate goal is not an expansion of freedom for people with variant sexual preferences (no one is actively stopping them, and homosexuals have higher than average household incomes), but punishment of those who do not embrace those variations as moral or good." - Raymond

Indeed. This is the new fascism. In Canada various groups have been punished/fined/jailed for expressing views that homosexuality is immoral, that Muslim immigration is bad, whatever. Noted author Mark Steyn is currently under investigation by Canada's thought police for just that reason.

And in San Francisco, businesses that don't provide "domestic partner benefits" are banned from competing for government contracts. If this is a level playing field then can cities ban businesses that DO provide such benefits from competing for contracts? I seriously doubt it.

Thought control is the eventual direction of every law related to discrimination or "hate crimes." That may not be their original intent, or their purported intent, but it's always their eventual destination. Such laws have already killed free speech and private property rights (through discrimination lawsuits). And through such a path lies the end to freedom itself.

Anonymous | 12:09 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

"As a leading Democrat in the State Legislature, I wonder if we are not seeing the truee Democrat in action now as the Mayor of SLC - one who does not follow the basic tenets of his faith as found in the Proclamation on the Family."

Wha-huh?

Becker is not, to my knowledge, a Mormon.

Opposed | 12:17 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

How can our new mayor use a state code that is intended to "impove the morals" to justify this action? That is a reversal of the intent of the code.

Wilkey | 12:27 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

"This proposal simply allows people not in a traditional family to share health care coverage. So it is not about politics, it is about money."

Precisely. But why should the government allow gay couples - or just plain "friends" - to share healthcare coverage? What's the point?

Married couples are allowed to share coverage because the husband or wife is often not working, or working only part-time, so they can take care of the kids. Even if they no longer have kids at home, they may have sacrificed career opportunities in the past to raise those kids. That's why a husband or wife may need insurance coverage through their spouse.

But why would gays need this, or friends or significant others? What are they doing with their free time that's any concern of mine? If one member of a gay couple wants to stay home while the other works then fine. That, too, is a "lifestyle choice" - but not one that concerns me or any other taxpayer the least bit. Let them fund that lifestyle choice themselves.

Bully | 12:30 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Sorry, folks, but your fantasy world is breaking down and the world is changing whether you like it or not. Gay folks are here and they will have their rights, even in Zion. Suck it in and live with it. Well done, Mayor Becker.

Jay | 12:33 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Waterfallhiker: Your 50 years of daily Bible reading was an apparent waste of your time. For argumentï¿½s sake, let's assume that God really had created Adam and Evan. Where would WE be today? Adam and Evan could not have had posterity, and the earth would be an unpopulated wasteland.
So much for Godï¿½s grand plan.

Laurie | 12:39 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

There's a fine line between tolerance and acceptance.
Every person derserves to be loved, we all agree on that. Every person deserves to feel validated. Every human being deserves the right to be at the bedside of a loved one if they are hospitalized or incapcitated. I don't think this is a gay/straight issue -- as so many of you are making it. I don't condone a "gay lifestyle" but I do feel that every human being deserves basic rights and respect. Remember, we're all in this together.

Good warning | 12:39 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

I think the warning posted first in the comments is a good one, and a valid one. Just because there are some who insist on doing whatever they want doesn't mean there isn't a God who established a plan for us and has certain laws he wants us to live by to show that we love Him so we can return and live with Him again some day. The liberals want to redefine the marriage relationship that God established and Becker's proposal is a step in that direction. Even nature itself tells everyone that a homosexual realtionship is a deviant lifestyle. But of course the homosexuals will protest wildly against this thought because they want to be able to live that way and they want everyone to accept it as a normal or natural way to be. The LDS Church's stance on this is that it is not a sin to have homosexual feelings but it is a sin to act upon those feelings. The spread of things like pornography & homosexuality are a sign of the times fullfilling prophecies concerning the level of wickedness prior to the 2nd coming of the Savior.

RE: Interesting 11:20 | 12:45 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Thank you for prooving my point. I asked for YOU to provide proof of gay rights equaling declining families and you tell me to look for myself. I have, and the data that I have found shows that there is NO difference in the types of problems that are found in same sex families or the "Traditional Family". That is why I am asking for proof. I WILL look at it all with an open mind. I want to make an educated decision, not a close minded one. You say that my Mitt comment makes me a bigot. Fine, but your attitude would declare that you are the same. And if you read closely, you'll see that my point on polygamy was simply reiterating the fact that so many fall back on what they say is ordained of God and instead choose to cherry pick what they follow. If polygamy is ordained of god, why isn't it followed? If polygamy was such a bad idea, why were the early saints told it was okaypractice it in the first place?

I'm still looking for proof. Anyone.....anyone...

To Wilkey | 12:45 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

I don't understand your attack of subsidizing certain things and not others, for the following reason:

You state that "That, too, is a "lifestyle choice" - but not one that concerns me or any other taxpayer the least bit. Let them fund that lifestyle choice themselves." That makes no sense. Corporate-offered healthcare is not a taxable event. So how in the world are you subsidizing anyone's healthcare? Before my wife and I had kids, I was on her insurance. My company offered insurance, but her plan was cheaper. So we went with it. Were you somehow funding that choice? No. Now that she is a stay-at-home mom (another "lifestyle choice" in your words), the healthcare comes through me.

In short, you're not actually funding this decision (at least not through taxes). The company may decide to increase the price of its goods to cover this extra cost, but that only affects you as a consumer, not as a taxpayer. So your point is invalid.

Anonymous | 12:46 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

To everyone who is arguing that gay relationships are harmful because "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity"

How far do you take that argument? What about widows and widowers? Should their children be taken away and given to a married couple? If they were to re-marry, it would certainly take some time to find a new spouse. Should their children be taken in the interim?

As far as using church doctrine to argue your point, I don't belong to your church, so why should I have to live by its rules?

Excellent | 12:49 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Thank you Mayor Becker, it's nice to see someone in the Mayor's office with guts enough to to what they said they would do. Now, just don't sell any real estate to the LDS church and you'll be fine.

And to those who won't shop downtown, I have to say thank you. You just made it easier for me to find a parking spot.

A thought. | 12:51 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

After reading these comments, it seems to me that you need to duck if your gay, not just Mormon.

I'm Sorry | 12:54 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Waterfallhiker, you must have skipped all the other books written by Moses. He is quite clear on this issue. It's wrong.

Second point. You can't call yourself LDS and defy what the prophets have said, which is condone man and woman marriage, and condemn homosexuality.

That is that.

RE: Annonymous12:46 | 12:59 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

I would add to your question, that should single parents who adopt a child be denied that opportunity? I have a good friend who adopted a little girl from India. A single, STRAIGHT woman who chose to give her all to a child already here. She had to choose from either India or Vietnam because she was single. That young girl couldn't have asked for a happier, more loving home. Should she be have been denied a great life because she wasn't going to a two parent family? What about the young lady who finds herself pregnant but not married? Should she lose her child simply because she is single?

Wilkey | 1:01 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

"Corporate-offered healthcare is not a taxable event. So how in the world are you subsidizing anyone's healthcare?" - To Wilkey

Whether private corporations fund healthcare for domestic parners is no concern of mine. This argument is about whether goverments should provide them.

On the other hand some cities and states, like San Francisco, do require corporations to cover domestic partnerships, so that is a concern. If it's goverment funding them, or a government requirement that private entities fund them - those are the issues I refer to.

I think it's safe to say that even if governments don't require businesses to cover domestic partnerships today that those mandates are in the very near future. That is the way of "progressives" - today they want to go from A to B; tomorrow from B to C; then the next day from C to D, though they only ever claimed they wanted B. Eventually you're at point Z and you have no idea how you got there.

To: RE: Interesting 11:20 | 1:01 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

I like the gist of your comment. I think that the Mormon population (of which I am a part) see the family declining. Unfortunately, too many of them want to point fingers, and the homosexual category is the new target.

But I disagree. I think family sanctity is eroding, but for different reasons. It is eroding because we just as husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers just aren't doing what we should. There are too many petty divorces, too much emphasis on money, and too much selfishness in the world. Many Mormons (or anybody, for that matter) don't like that answer because it is easier to lay the blame elsewhere.

But the fact of the matter is that we should always look inward to solutions before we place blame on the homosexuals, the Brittney Spears, etc. Not to say sometimes outside influences don't play a part. But we all need to fix our own homes first, and the world will be a better place.

But like I said, even in Mormon culture, it's just plain easier to live the status quo and place the blame elsewhere. It eases the troubled conscious to do so.

Is Becker Gay? | 1:07 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Is Becker Gay? Or is he just trying to make friends will all communities?

loophole | 1:18 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Who is going to enforce the "sole partner" clause of this proposal, especially in the same gender attraction community where multiple partners are common if not the norm.

I oppose this option, it's only a pre-cursor to legalized marriage for a gay couple.

As a christian man outside of the Salt Lake Mormon community, this proposal is deeply troubling. I've never historically seen a nation or empire embrace homosexuality and survive, ever. It always seems to be the final chapter before collapse.

DougS | 1:21 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

I think this is overall a pragmatic decision, but does Salt Lake City really have the legal authority to control the visitation policies that a hospital implements? I should think HIPAA (or its state-law equivalent) would pre-empt city action in this regard.

TO: To:RE:Interesting | 1:28 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Thank you. FINALLY someone who isn't looking for an excuse or a scapegoat but for a solution. I knew that eventually someone with intelligence and an open mind would come foreward. No it isn't easy to look at ourselves and ask "What have I done to make this happen?" but only when we are willing to accept our part in the situation can we begin to fix it. We can't blame others for our short commings no matter how badly we would like to. As a gay man, I'm tired of being the Boogie man for all of the worlds wrongs. We all need to accept our fair share of the blame for what is going on. There are no quick fixes or easy answers, and NO ONE SINGLE GROUP is resposible.

Political Clout | 1:37 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

I must say that I am surprised by this first, but by no means the last, political pay-off. To think that the U.E.A. was upended by the Gay Lobby does not bode well for the educators of the state.

Where are our priorities?

Marriage | 1:37 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

How did we go from equal recognition of couples, both gay and un married straight couples, to all this other garbage??
I have to say that if those of you who are opposed to this ordinance are this upset, what does that say about your marriage? If you are this threatened and fearful of another couples relationship having any recognition, and honestly feel that it could destroy your marriage, then maybe you need to look at your own relationship and stop worrying about the neighbors.
How will this ordinance destroy your marriage? Especially for those of the LDS faith that believe their marriage is for Time and all Eternity. Did I miss something? Or would this ordinance totally nullify everyone else's marriage? I didn't think so.
We need to keep a little perspective and remember that we are responsible only for our own actions, not for others' transgresions.

Religion and Government | 1:39 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

I like the Libertarian view of marriage: the government should get out of licensing and authorizing marriage altogether. If you want to solemnize your commitment, go to a religious institution to do it. Tax breaks for kids are okay, since raising children is inherently important to the continuation of our society, but leave out any discriminatory (negative or positive) practices (like tax breaks or benefits) regarding where, how, or who chooses to solemnize a commitment. It is not the business of the government to declare a union holy OR unholy: leave the moralizing to religious institutions and those who choose to participate in them.

Sad to Say | 1:39 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

It's really sad that people define themselves, not by who they are, but by their sexual urges. And then expect the rest of us to say, "We love you, so we condone everything you choose to do".

It's interesting ... | 1:40 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

... that many people posting on this board cite God's law, when this is an entirely secular matter.

If any one of you had been privileged to be born into a family espousing your current religious beliefs while living in another nation whose government policy is dictated by religious beliefs different from your own, how would you feel about them telling you not wearing a veil damns you to hell before God? What if your nation's law dictated that if you convert to a new religion, the law of God requires you be put to death.

Religion in Utah seems to have everything to do with public policy, and I know the convictions of the hearts of LDS believers tells them their worldview is the only correct and true one. The United States of America, however, was founded with principles of liberty in mind, not with electing on religious belief or worldview to dictate the rules of law of an entire nation.

"...why do you need the government to validate your already professed love...?" Why do you? Why not accept your religious marriage as enough and lobby for the dissolution of the secular engantlement and entitlements rewarding only your paradigm?

RE: I'm Sorry | 1:48 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

"You can't call yourself LDS and defy what the prophets have said, which is condone man and woman marriage, and condemn homosexuality.

"That is that."

That, apparently, is not that. You cite prophets and then pretty much say we don't need prophets. Otherwise The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would have no need for a living prophet, because "that is that," and it's already laid out in the Bible. So which is it?

Proud Cougar | 1:50 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Everytime I see a mayor whether its Mayor Newsom in San Francisco or Mayor Becker in SLC make laws like this that make a mockery of Traditional Marriage between one man and one woman it makes me sad. I am so glad I don't live in SLC and I live in a place in Utah where Traditional Marriage is still valued. Also to those of you who are LDS and support the Mayor's decision maybe you should re-evaluate your support for him and re-read the Proclamation on the Family which address exactly where your church stands on this legistation.

Legal not religious issue | 1:59 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

I don't think there is a contradiction between believing that we should support and promote traditional families, but that we can also be civil and non-discriminatory towards other lifestyles.

When Jesus was confronted with a woman accused of adultry, he stopped the stone throwing and gave the woman some dignity. We should do the same towards everyone in Utah.

Active LDS w/solution | 2:02 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

All legal partnerships whould be written legally.

If two people decide to form a "Domestic Partnership" they should do it legally fitting legal parameters. Cities should give licenses for these "partnerships" regardless of gender.

Marriages should be sanctioned and arranged between two people and their respective churches. Let the Prophet guide the people under his stewardship.

Governments should get out of the business of Marriages and Churches should get out of the "legal partnership" business.

(Who enters in a partnership buying a "Carwash" is none of the business of church leaders... Why is a "Domestic Partnership" anyone's business???)

Holy Cow, problem solved!!!

Next???

Scared godless | 2:06 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

It's frightening how many fanatical religious zelots there are posting here. Live and let live and worry more about your miserable lives.

JUST A THOUGHT | 2:07 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Doesn't your City Council have to approve/dissaprove this? Seems to me you should be petitioning the members of the City Council with your opinions not pontificating the pros and cons in a newspaper blog - THAT DOES NO GOOD AT ALL.

It's a Choice | 2:14 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

This is for all of you out there who are convinced homosexuality is a choice. I ask that you close your eyes and imagine yourself with someone of the same sex. Common, your an adult you can imagine it right? YUCK!! Isn't it? I get the same sick feeling to my stomach when I think of myself with somone of the opposite sex. Grosss! And the women in my office talk about sex with their boyfriends. Kill me!! Gross!! So QUIT thinking of me having sex and just maybe you will open your eyes.

Re: BAD ARGUMENTS | 10:51 a.m | 2:22 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Stop trying to hide behind logic!!

Anonymous | 2:31 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

OMG the gays are going to ruin SLC! Get over it people. Good job Mayor!

.....and be Mary. | 2:36 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Dear Legal,

He didn't accept the sin. He told the woman to go and sin no more. That's a far cry from your secular view of "If it feels good do it."

Uncle Romney | 2:47 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

A lot of people here think their imaginary friend will get mad if we let homos enjoy the tedium and misery of marriage. Gay people aren't going to ruin your marriage. You are going to ruin your own marriage.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.