Deseret News | Buttars aims to block domestic partner registry

Reader comments
Buttars aims to block domestic partner registry

Jeff | 7:22 a.m. Feb. 5, 2008

Is it really the state Senate's business to butt into people's private lives? Most people aren't interested in what people do in their own homes. Would Buttars like someone prying into his relationship with his wife? It's amazing that religious conservative's second-biggest concern is gay marriage, after abortion. With all the things going on in the world: the climate, genocide, starvation; Buttars and the conservative clones are worried about consenting adults' private relationships.

Buttars is Utah's embarrassment | 8:11 a.m. Feb. 5, 2008

Why is this man so single-minded, so obsessed with all things gay? Utahns used to be so ashamed of Rocky; I think Buttars is much more embarrassing. This citywide registry does nothing but give businesses - if they choose it - a tool to dole out benefits. If the city didn't have this registry, businesses that chose to offer domestic partnership benefits would be vulnerable to people trying to take advantage of them by claiming a false partnership. Adding the step of the city registry will weed out a lot of that potential fraud. It's just a practical, rational response. Buttars needs to find something more productive to obsess over.

fr1nk | 8:32 a.m. Feb. 5, 2008

Get rid of buttars!!!

Comments continue below

uncannygunman | 9:00 a.m. Feb. 5, 2008

I'm all for the city registry, but this seems like one of those instances where privatization might work just as well. If the only purpose is to register people and prevent fraud, couldn't Equality Utah or some other organization set up their own private registry with strict guidelines that businesses could look to to establish benefit eligibility? The City could then add its voice of legitimacy to the registry by offering benefits to those on it.

Government, at least at the state level, seems to be incompetent to manage personal relationships, as evidenced by its continuing exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from its recognized relationships, i.e., marriages. Rather than reform goverment's involvement in the marriage business, why not just get government out of it altogether?

Plus, it would make it just a little harder for Buttars to mess with.

Lo | 12:36 p.m. Feb. 5, 2008

Let's turn over the county and city governments to the state legislature. They do seem to know what is best. Look ar REAL, airport, rigistry, nuclear power, waste, vouchers, education, recreational facilities, guns, and now a registry. When will they stop?

Dutchman | 2:05 p.m. Feb. 5, 2008

All local governments are creatures of the State deriving all the powers they have directly from the State. Right or wrong the State is in charge and they can pretty much do what they want.

I thought | 2:15 p.m. Feb. 5, 2008

I thought the registry was a Salt Lake City deal, not statewide. Does he have the authority to over ride the city council's decision?

farce | 2:33 p.m. Feb. 5, 2008

It is truly hypoctical to claim that a domestic registry is about "compassion" or "tolerance" for alternate lifestyles, while simultaneously excluding politically incorrect, but historically, religiously, biologically and socially more common alternate lifestyles such as polygamy. Do it or dont do it, but dont be half witted about it and claim to be morally superior. Butters aside; it is disapointing that SLC is continuing the hypocrisy of the Anderson regime.

RE:DUTCHMAN | 2:35 p.m. Feb. 5, 2008

You may be right, but the State derives it's power from the people. We need to remember that "We The People" have the power and that power is loaned to the political leaders and that we can revoke it which we need to do in the case of Buttars.

Brad | 3:15 p.m. Feb. 5, 2008

Some people just do not give it a rest. They want absolutely nothing being done in anyway shape or form that might lead to gay people being happy, having benefits, etc. This in no way is going to impose on marriage.

Dutchman | 3:34 p.m. Feb. 5, 2008

Actually, the State derives its power from the State Consitution which the people ratified and change from time to time. Sorry for the civics lesson. Buttars can be defeated in an election. If that's what they want then the people can campaign against him. My sense is this piece of legislation will die in a committee.

Kita Kazoo | 3:33 p.m. Feb. 5, 2008

Unfortunately I have met an awful lot of people whose marriages are frauds...

Freaking Buttars | 3:34 p.m. Feb. 5, 2008

Look, I am a conservative republican but Buttars is just a nut job (I don't even want to dignify his name by using his title).

Buttars, are you now going to try to legislate who somebody is or is not attracted to?

RE:Brad | 4:02 p.m. Feb. 5, 2008

You said "That might lead to gay people being happy." As a gay man, believe me, I am very happy. I just want to be treated as an equal not as a second class citzen. I was born in Utah and have lived here all my life. It's my home. My family and friends are all here, and I will not be driven out by the likes of Butters and his kind. All I want is the same rights given to those who "choose" to come to this country illegaly. All I want is the leaders of a religious organization to remind people that we are people too and should be treated with compassion and understanding.

roseparker | 5:34 p.m. Feb. 5, 2008

this sounds more like the Butters we all know and love. wouldn't it be nice if he could extend the love and compassion he professes for animals to his gay constituents.

Buttars Stud | 2:40 a.m. Feb. 6, 2008

Dang democrats always trying to stop discrimination. I enjoy my gay lover Buttars, and we don't want to register because we enjoy using the gay word so we can stay in the legislature while we do what we want in the closet.

Melanie | 11:17 a.m. Feb. 7, 2008

Setting aside all my thoughts on state-regulated marriage and the heterosexual limits thereof, I still don't understand how anyone could have a problem with this registry. Couples on the registry wouldn't be getting any sort of a blank check, would they? Wouldn't it just assist those employers who do choose to extend benefits to them in ascertaining that the couple really are domestic cohabitants? My understanding is that the choice will still be the employer's, as far as whether they would even recognize the registry.

tracy | 10:46 a.m. Feb. 19, 2008

We are in the middle of a health care crisis. This bill would help a number of people, including myself and my daughter, not only gay people. People are going to live there lives the way they want whether this passes or not. Everyone deserves the right to have affordable health insurance.

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.