Reader comments
Salt Lake drops 'domestic partners' phrase

A couple of things stand out to me here.

1.) The city is streamlining the process for business who don't have the resources to validate the relationship? This assumes a business must validate a relationship to extend benefits. That isn't true.

2.) Both people must sign a paper showing they are committed to each other? That sounds pretty technical. This assumes a company must have a signed document and will only accept a governmentally approved certificate in order to extend benefits. That isn't true either.

The real reason for this ordinance is to attempt to legitimize the "domestic partnerships" in the eyes of the public. While I respect the right of people to choose to live their own lives, I don't see a lot of real life need for this sort of thing being generated at the government level. Businesses can already offer insurance and benefits to whoever they see fit.

Change the name to whatever you want in the end it is all the same thing.

Who cares what other people choose to do in this case?
Why is it other people's business?
Get a life!

Quite clear these folks are in Violation of the Constitution
Registry sounds like a Nazi Ploy
Don't be fooled

This is a matter of who decides
Sometimes off topic is needed
It addresses the real problems
One is those disobeying the right to freedom of the press and freedom of speech
The Media is in Violation of the Law

I like that better. The less we make this so called "partnership" sound like marriage the better off we will be.

Is it limited to 2 people of the same gender? Is it a disqualifying condition if one party is legally married to someone else?

If I were Becker, I would rename the registry something boring and wonkish like the Mutually Agreed Rights and Responsibilities Indicator. Then let the legislature flip out when people start referring to it by an acronym, as in "We got MARRIed this weekend."

What is wrong with doing something to improve someone elses life. If people would stop fighting this and instead focus on the golden rule and improving their own marriage, and their own kids we would all be better off.

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet...

So, too, the fetid fragrance of obfuscation.

Society has a vested interest in children being born and raised into functional adults. The "traditional" husband-wife family unit is the best (and in fact only) way to predictably do this. Childrearing imposes financial and other demands on the family, society recognized that by extending benefits to the families of breadwinners. Society has a vital interest in promoting the stability of husband-wife families.

When you extend those family advantages to everyone then they are no longer advantages. When you dilute the available resources you can not provide meaningful assistance to the childrearing families it was originally intended to assist.

There is no benefit to society to subsidise or promote shacking up schemes of any sort, no matter what you call them. It is preverse to give other relationships the same status as husband-wife family units. Our society has taken family stability for granted but it is eroding away. Society will not outlast the "traditional" family.

Call it what you will but this is a nail in the coffin of a stable society.

In some circles this kind of policy is certainly seen as fashionable hip and enlightened; thinkig it doesn't make it so, however.

the DMN misplaced the quotation marks arounds Buttars' comments, perpetuating the misinterpretation of what the man meant. I guess a dark and stormy night, a black night, is a racist comment.

Seems to me "mutual commitment" is exactly what a marriage contract is. Change the name, it still quacks like a duck. Either term gives the couple the same or similar rights (depending on the actual laws passed) as a married couple but with different paperwork. Let's just call it what it is: "same-sex marriage without the spoken vows."

I can sign up my hamster as my special other. Calling it a "domestic partnership" seemed a little wierd and, well, creepy; but "mutual commitment" fits to the T. thank you Salt Lake taxpayers!

The Mayor just didn't get it, did he? We, the voters, expressed "the will of the people," and the Mayor and his gay constituents are determined to get around it one way or another. In the end, the majority rule will be overthrown by the minority who will not give up. So much for democracy!

I think this is a wonderful idea, to have a "governmentally approved certificate" that allows all serious, and committed relationships to be recognized, whether caring for an aging aunt or anyone else you truly love.

It only seems fair, that all workers should receive benefits for their particular "family" if everyone else is for theirs.

Just because my "family" is different from yours, doesn't mean it should be valued and treated as less.

Kudos to the mayor.

like a "governmentally approved certificate"

This is an UNFAIR thing to force upon businesses.
The fact that someone can declare , anyone, to be a "mutual commitment" is not fair to the business.

just because you call it a "family" don't force me to buy health insurance for it!

To "Linus" @ 9:05: The citizens of Salt Lake City elected Mr. Becker as mayor, based in part upon his support for this registry. He has fulfilled that campaign promise and the registry has no effect on anyone who could not vote for Salt Lake City mayor. Unlike, for example, the moral measures foisted upon the entire state by sexually repressed moralists like Misters Buttars and Bramble. Nor does this pet project of Mayor Becker cost taxpayer money, unlike, for example, the pet project of Sandy's mayor, Mr. Dolan. I would say that our system of representational government, which is not actually democracy, is working very well in SLC.

To "perverse" @ 8:29 & and others like him: whenever Utahns say things like "society will not outlast the 'traditional' family", I must smile. I'm fairly sure the Missourians said something similar to my ancestors as they violently drove them out of the state. Mind your own house, and try not make everything into an issue of sexuality (I realize this can be difficult). This registry makes no mention of sex, and those business who choose to are free to ignore it.