Deseret News | Bill intended to stop domestic partner registry passed by Senate committee

Reader comments
Bill intended to stop domestic partner registry passed by Senate committee

123 comments | Read story

legal contract | 5:00 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Why burden a company (or tax payers) with people "shacking up"?

This is about people not wanting to enter into a contract of marriage. Marriage can be done at the civil level and not religious. This fact should end this argument.

This addresses heterosexuals. If you aren't willing to enter into a contract of marriage, then bugger off trying to demand benefits.

Currently homosexuals can not marry. But neither can a person and an animal. Both are prohibited.
Should someone's pet count as a dependent? No.
Should two same sex people count? No.

The argument about gays marrying is for another discussion since this article is about benefits allowed for domestic partners.

Mike | 4:56 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

As I've stated before, I want the word "gay" back. If the correct word for this deviance were used, it puts a light on. The correct word is homosexual. Please use it.

Re: Oh my | 4:57 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

"If you don't like the law, move. No one is forcing you to stay in Utah." Though I would presume we both belong to the same church, we obviously have very different ideas of what the term "love thy neighbor" means. How dare you suggest anyone different from you be required to move because you are in the majority and therefore get it all. How dare you.

Isn't that why the LDS people came here in the first place? How does your ability to become a hater like those who persecuted the early Saints work? I think your pioneer heritage would be very disappointed. For shame.

Comments continue below

Duckman | 4:58 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Legal Unions should be sanctioned by the Government, like any legal partnership.

Marriages should be sanctioned by a church.

Churches should stay out of approving legal unions and partnerships.

And:to Russ

So, what are we pretending there. Why shouldn't the DN and the Trib accept the ad???

Russ???

Agit8r | 5:04 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Sokol,

You have not read the proposal. If you had, you would see that the facetious scenarios you present are not possible under the proposed registry. It's true that you have, and are entitled to your opinion. It is also true that your opinion is just that, opinion, not fact and not indisputable truth. What you may see as repulsive, others do not. It is as hard for some people to understand you wanting to lash out at others as it is for you to understand why two people of the same sex could have a relationship. I don't pretend to understand it, but, I don't persecute, denigrate or belittle them for it either.

RJ | 5:05 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Funny how it all comes back to religion. Since the dawn of time, hatred and bigotry have been justified by religion. Catholics against Protestants, Jews against Muslims, and the list goes on and on and on.

As far as the so-called sanctity of marriage, if marriage is so sacred (religious term), then why is divorce or annulment permitted? After all, doesn't this harm the child? And let's not even think about multiple marriages/divorces by the same person.

Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs. However, what they are NOT entitled to is to force everyone else to adhere to those same beliefs. If that is the kind of society that you want, then you really ought to consider moving to a country where religion is the rule of law. Oh wait, you can't. It's not your religion and you would be forced to convert to theirs.

Lastly, Utah Resident said it... Religion is A CHOICE. You follow what ever religion you CHOOSE to. You are free to change from one to another to another to another.

Respectfully,
A straight man in a 15-year marriage that does not feel threatened by the gay community.

Clark Roger | 5:21 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

While I am LDS and a registered Republican, I feel it is foolish for the State Legislature to butt into the business of Salt Lake City proper. After all, isn't the Republican party all about smaller government?

I am personally opposed gay marriage, partly because, like many others, I worry about the slippery slope effect. I'm not troubled by the gay or lesbian couple down the street who are in a committed relationship. I am troubled by the sickos on the Internet, who are using gay marriage as a way to leagalize their own perverted "lifestyle."

Having read Mayor Ralph Becker's registery bill, I fail to see why the state legislature is so up in arms over it. If giving domestic partnerships many of the benefits that my wife and I enjoy, and if it helps in keeping the real sickos in our society from pushing their agenda any farther, than I say, Mayor Becker's proposal is a good idea and should be left alone.

Anonymous | 5:35 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

To RJ: You are also free to live in whatever state shares your values.

K Pope | 5:57 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

To Pathetic Argument- in question is not gay marriage, itï¿½s equal benefits. Not just about gays. Itï¿½s about everyone who is excluded. Fact is that there is no longer a ï¿½traditionalï¿½ family in America. Amendment 3 saw well to excluding everyone, even common law marriage.
Homophobia is a non-clinical term used to describe the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals and several dictionaries characterize this type of fear as irrational. It can also mean hatred, hostility, disapproval of, or prejudice towards homosexuals, or homosexual behavior or cultures.
To all the idiots: Those especially who can think of nothing more than becoming intimate with sheepï¿½
Those of us who scream intolerance are those who have experienced first-hand the idiocy of people who are intolerant and who do in fact discriminate. It is not about calling blame, itï¿½s equality, not religious beliefs;
Though Iï¿½m sure youï¿½d prefer blacks and women to stay behind the scene and in the kitchen while you do the voting and law making.
How weak your marriages and convictions must be, if you believe allowing others some legal rights over properties and taxes would erode the bases of your marital foundation.

DeLaval Milker | 6:04 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

I think religion and the zealots who profess it are eroding the foundation of freedoms, especially but not limited to here in Utah.

hmmm... | 6:12 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

well this is an interesting debate...very heated, very angry...its sad to read so many negative comments...half of which have very little to do with the issue at large...how does everyone know which religious affiliations each individual ascribes to?? should same sex relationships and non married heterosexual couples be afforded the benefits provided by their significant others place of employment...thats the issue being fought over, correct?? not knowing all the facts derived from all the studies done to show how this impacts utahns as a whole, my educated opinion is limited...however shouldn't we provide means for EVERY citizen to live a happy and healthy life...and can we do this without compromising the 'sanctity' of marriage?? we should be working together to create a solution that is beneficial to everyone...not name calling and hate-mongering just because we disagree with each other's lifestyle...

anywho...y'all come back now ya hear ;)

Head shake | 6:18 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

It's an archaic Mormon thing. They just can't leave their arrogant selves out of other peoples lives. It's the fundamental problem of Utah advancing into the 20th century and being recognized as something other than a joke amoung the rest of the nation. Yes, I said 20th century. This state is 100 years behind the times.

Richard | 6:31 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Jesus taught to "love one another". I really hope that the LDS people in this community branch out and start doing that.

SLC | 6:37 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Remember Stuart Matis--if you don't recall the tragedy of his short life--google it.

Transplant to Alaska | 6:43 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

To Everyone 3:41 and Mike 3:53 thank you.

Patients can request who they allow to visit them and can also request for people to not visit them. Chances are if someone goes to visit another person in the hospital and they are denied access to the patient it is because the patient requested it or it is the hospital's policy regarding privacy for their patients.

To RJ | 7:02 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

RJ - So it's okay for gays and lesbians in the workplace to go on and on about their sexual escapeds, but Mormons better shut up about their religion?

It's okay for high school students to verbally attack those who choose not to join the "Gay-Straight" club, but it's wrong for a Mormon student to walk down the hallway at school, holding a Book of Mormon?

It's okay for radio shock jocks like Howard Stern to promote their sickening brand of entertainment, but any news about Gordon B. Hinckley's death should be taken off the air?

Now, tell me again who's trying to force their beliefs on others?

re:RJ | 7:30 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

I am a straight, active LDS, Temple worthy, HP, Male, married 21 years to the most wonderful woman in the world, and I choose my own religion, and allow others the same right.

I also allow other consenting adults the right to enter into whatever relationship they choose (except "Sokol" and his/her sheep, because I do not believe the sheep can consent). I do not see it the role of government to legislate these decisions.

I do see it the role of religion to offer moral guidance to believers of their faith, but if I expect the right to make my own choices, shouldn't I allow non-believers to make their own decision?

Please, don't lump all of us LDS together, because while we may all be trying to get to the same place, we are not all the same person.

To:To:RJ (anonymous) | 7:41 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

"You are also free to live in whatever state shares your values. "

RJ is welcome to hang here in Utah with us LDS that don't give a rip what RJ does in RJ's house once RJ closes RJ's doors.

The rest of you judgemental types "forcing your beliefs on others" better realize that no matter what you hear in testimony meeting, you are becoming a loud minority of the LDS population in this state, and you really need to get over yourselves.

...And it is OK to walk down the hallways of a Highschool carrying a Book of Mormon.

always blaming mormons | 7:48 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Ironic how it always comes back to bashing the mormon religion in these posts. Check out the other states that don't have a mormon majority. Alot of states have some of the same kind of laws protecting marriage..etc.etc.etc. So be quite about the mormon card. Wanna talk about bigotry? It's right there.

Re: RSB | 7:58 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

So if child-bearing if the main impetus behind marriage, should any couple that fails to produce a child within X-amount of time have their marriage annulled? So much for "keeping the government out of your life"...

I live in Oregon and our domestic partner registry just went into effect last, and you know what? THE WORLD DIDN'T END! I'm just as married to my wife as before, the temple recommend in my wallet is just as valid, and my family is just as happy and secure. Heck, I was even able to go to church without be attacked by homosexual activists with their "agenda"?

As mentioned before, I've been married for six years and have a two year-old daughter. Will anyone please explain to me how extending some rights and protections to gays makes my family less valid ("Sorry, honey, but I just found out Larry and John can have their relationship legally recognized. Guess I'll have to divorce you.") I'm not being facetious, either. I really want to know.

Re:Mike | 7:53 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Dear Gay Mike,

Please, by all means, take your Gay word back. Thank you for your Gay post and how Gay it made all of us feel. I can tell you are a very Gay person and wish you continued Gayness.

Wishing You a Gay Evening,
Your Gay Friend,
Rodney Gay
Fruit Heights, Utah

to: Mike 3:53 pm | 7:58 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

"Demanding that everyone outside your group change so that you can feel "comfortable" is both childish and demeaning to yourselves."

Uhhhh, Mike.....

Ummmmm, isn't that what you are doing?

You need to rethink your arguments, my friend.

JNATT | 8:27 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

The word "Homophobia" was created by homosexuals to transfer their fear and guilt upon people who are decent and moral. I've never met anyone "afraid" of homosexuals, just those who know that it is abnormal and wrong. The cross these people bear are the unnatural feelings of homosexuality and they give in, making themselves no better than mere animals, fulfilling physical desires. God gave men brains to know what is right and wrong, unfortunately we all do not make right choices. Homesexuality will never be right nor accepted, period.

Oh JNATT | 8:46 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Xenophobia is a fear of strangers from a strange land. I have never met any one afraid of an Italian, or a Polish immigrant, but I have met those afraid of strange Italians from a strange Italian land.

There are others, several posters on this blog including yourself, who are afraid of homosexuals and their lifestyle. They are so afraid they want laws and constitutional ammendments stopping these consenting adults from living in committed relationships, and sharing this love, as a family unit, with young, unwanted children (rather that they be sent from foster care to foster care until they drop through the cracks at 18yrs. old without a family). These people are VERY, VERY afraid.

Now, while the perfect family is mom, dad and 2.4 children (up to 12.4 in Utah, no religion is mentioned for I too, am LDS), things in this terrestial world will never be celestial, no matter how hard we all try.

So, Please, Hohophobes, try to show a little less phobia and an little more Homotolerance in this state that has been a beacon of tolerance for 150 plus years.

I'll bet Gordon B. Hinckley knew tolerance.

Bart | 8:51 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Honestly, if Mr. Buttars would just mind his own business and quit trying to moralize for everyone but himself, we'd all be better off. This reinforces the notion nationwide that neanderthals run this state. How can we say that they are wrong when we continue to do the stupid things we do? Paranoia is alive and well here.

Anonymous | 9:01 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Jnatt-- i believe you will be proved wrong very soon. your dinosaur way of thinking is in the minority and is fading. can you hear it going?

Anonymous | 9:03 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

JNATT- Homosexuality is, in fact, accepted by many people, gay and straight. Just because you're not one of them does not make it wrong. it just makes you close-minded.

Words are words | 9:05 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

To the dude who wants the word "gay" back--go ahead and try using it to mean whatever you want. Nobody's stopping you. If people misunderstand what you mean, ("I feel rather 'gay' today!") you can just live with it or spend time and energy explaining in order to take your strong stand for your linguistic convictions. Good luck!

To the persons who don't like the word "homophobes"--it takes you two or three paragraphs to explain why you don't like it and why you're "not afraid" of gays, but just hate them or something, except you don't really hate them, you simply believe in some kind of vast societal benefit that comes from treating your fellow human beings like dirt, blah blah, etc.

It takes me one word to say "homophobe" and I don't have to explain a thing--everybody knows what it means.

APM | 9:25 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

I support the legislature in trying to keep marriage and marriage benefits between a man and a woman. There is not greater institution on earth than a family with a father and mother working together to raise a family. I do realize that there are people that love each other and that are of the same sex. However, that does not mean that we have to change the definition of marriage to accomodate their love. It seems to me that if we really cared about society that we would all be working together to solidify and strengthen the traditional family. Every community where families are strong you see clean neighborhoods and well functioning governments with low crime rates as well. On the other hand, when you see communities where the traditional family is not strong you see the worst communities as far as crime rates and good schools, etc. Anyway, it is to everyone's benefit to have a strong and healthy society based up the traditional family of man and woman working together to raise their children.

Thanks for the word back. | 9:25 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

I am going to go up, put on some gay pajamas, get in my gay bed, and ask my wife for a gay backrub. Then I hop I get some gay sugar, I'll watch some gay TV like "24"reruns, and hopefully have gay dreams.

I hope to wake up in the morning, put on my gay clothes with the right gay tie, get in my gay car, and go to my gay job (I demolish gay building with my gay buddies).

I'll come home and go to the gay temple with my gay wife, then kiss my four gay kids goodnight, and start all over again.

Hey, Mike, thanks for getting us the Gay word back!!!

I doesn't feel awkward at all.

It's a gay world afterall!!!

Re: Words are words | 9:48 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

It takes a two year old "no" words to throw a tantrum and they don't have to explain a thing- everyone knows what it means.

Re: Richard 6:31 pm | 9:50 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Interesting how we can "cherry-pick" doctrine. Yes, Jesus taught that we should "love one another". Newsflash! You can disagree with someone's actions and still love them! If that weren't true, no child would be loved.

Janey | 9:59 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

What a polarizing issue!! It seems so simple regarding homosexuals. If you are a Bible believer then homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. Anybody can get their hands on the Bible and read many verses about this. What more can be said than Lev.18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." How simple is that? Therefore, you don't have to be a "Mormon" to find this activity unacceptable as the Bible is universal to all Christians.

Homosexuality belongs to the secular "progressives," (Godless) or else it is hypocritical. I am one who does not agree that a non-acceptance for their chosen lifestyle amounts to hatred. I will spare them my pity. However, I do believe in the Bible. Christ's words about love cannot be construed to accept active homosexuality when it is an abomination to His Father. Therefore, I cannot support any legislation which gives perks to homosexual partners. However, the law needs to give help to children and real family members such as the elderly etc who are dependants of the workers.

I miss the word "gay" meaning happy. Also, for "rainbows" to mean God's promise.

Wow | 10:10 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

So much venom from those in "loving, committed, relationships". So much name calling and vitriol from those who support the homosexual "lifestyle". It must not be such a "loving" relationship for you to be so hateful.

Could it be that you have heterosexual envy? Or maybe you're just a heterophobe? Could it be that you are ashamed of your actions, and you must strike out at those who have the audacity to think you actually should be ashamed? Why else would you be so venomous in your pursuit to make homosexual behavior "acceptable" to the masses?

Anonymous | 10:27 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Janey- Thanks for your judgments, but I do believe in God, and I support the "agenda" that gay people should have the same rights as straight people. This domestic partnership bill would have allowed for that, while still "protecting" the institution of marriage to all you straight people out there that think your marriage would just fall apart and be meaningless if two people of the same sex who LOVE each other were allowed to be married. As it's been said numerous times before, if you honestly believe that, then there is an inherent problem with YOUR marriage.

Also, fyi, the Bible was written by people, abundantly flawed - and there are ALOT of things written in the Bible that one would not dream of continuing in todays society.

Above all of that, a city/state/federal government should function independently of church doctrine, so as not to deny major rights to portions of its population. It seems to me that this really is about viewing and treating each other as equals, and the far right's inability to do that.

Moessers | 10:30 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

No wonder the rest of the country doesn't want a Mormon for president! They can see what a ludicrous and backwards government Mormons run right here on a local level!

Anonymous | 10:38 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

and by the way, I'm straight
-anon 10:27

Voice of Reason | 10:43 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Let's get one thing straight here, just for the record. We are not, NOT, talking about "equal" rights for gays with domestic partnerships, gay marriage, etc. We are talking about giving homosexuality a very special, unequal preference similar to the very special preference we give to the traditional family. We know why we have always given such preferential treatment to the traditional family . . . what similarly compelling benefits does homosexuality bring to society to merit this special, preferential treatment under the law?
In a word, nothing. Homosexuality is inarguably more dangerous than straight sex. It is demonstrably more unhealthy. It brings no new members of society into the world. It denies children of both a father and mother. It does, however, bring a different flavor of sexual pleasure to a tiny minority of people, I suppose.

That's simply not good enough to merit preferential protection and encouragement under the law. The traditional family, however, of course merits such continued preferential encouragement under the law.

The very survival of society depends on its continued protection. God help us if we ever, ever, abandon the family as God intended it.

Anonymous | 11:13 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

It isn't about your relationship or mine. It is about all relationships. We (society) reward the relationships that traditionally benefit society as a whole.
A rule or law made to encourage non-traditional unions will not affect my marriage at all. It may not affect my children's future marriages, but it could eventually end all traditional marriages or be the catalyst to the law which does exactly that. That would be the beginning of the end of society. I don't fear my friends or relatives that are homosexuals, I fear the end of society because of the pandering to the minority.

Freedom | 11:15 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Why are we allowing the government to say who can and can't get married anyway? Why do we petition the government (apply for a marriage license) in order to enter into a relationship of our choosing?

It seems to me the better policy is to get government out of the marriage business altogether. "Marriage" would become what it should have been all along--between the consenting adults and their understanding of God, religion, morality, etc. No gay marriage, plural marriage, etc. would affect YOUR marriage because you could choose to be married by an entity that would define marriage the way that comports with your morality. The government could put very basic limits on the ability to receive legal benefits, such as limiting them to relationships involving consenting adults.

For the record, I am active LDS and "tolerant" of the gay community. I think we should all have equal opportunity to choose the relationships we desire. However, gays should be tolerant of other lifestyles as well. For example, I often tell members of the gay community I will fight for gay marriage if they'll push for allowing polygamy too. They won't--because polygamists are "sick." We should all be tolerant of all...

My 2 Cents | 11:45 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Just because someone doesn't agree with your lifestyle, doesn't make them "homophobic." Trust me, you don't scare us in the least. If anything, we find you pretty weird, so weird in fact that we don't want to publicly support your lifestyle. Society's tolerance of who you are needn't extend to supporting your domestic partnership demands. You are NOT a privileged class, just another corrupt sub-class demanding equal rights.

sarah | 12:03 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

I am tired of the gay community trying to force their lifestyle on all of us as being normal. Fact is,it is not normal.

I am grateful to the Utah Legislature for making and effort to protect our state from laws such as the one Becker is trying to enforce.

IndogItrust | 12:01 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Hey Voice of Reason, who's this "God" person you keep talking about? And why is it that you feel compelled to speak for him/her/it? If your sky God wants me to know something, I'm sure he/she/it will come down (you know, from the sky) and tell me. Otherwise...keep your God to yourself!

Janey | 12:12 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Dear Anon 10:27, Since I always read your posts and I appreciate your personal answer, I would like to ask your meaning. I find it odd that you felt I was worried regarding my marriage. I don't think I even hinted at saying that my marriage was in jeapordy if I accepted homosexual benefits. The point I was making is Christian vs Secular etc. We are all products of our faith or lack of faith, ponderances, and thinking issues through. Our decisions are made accordingly. I take a lot of pride in not being a member of any political group and will make up my own mind based on my beliefs and character without a party loyalty.

We cannot pick and choose parts of the Bible to disqualify for the weaknesses of the authors. I really think I am fair minded as I believe you are. We are just on opposite poles. It's our right as Americans. This is not a hate issue with me, only the belief I am entitled to.

Forgive me if I have been too familiar but I wanted you to understand where I was coming from.

Anonymous | 2:22 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

How does disagreeing with same sex marriage make a person hateful?

How does supporting and voting for what you believe to be right make a person hateful?

Hate or bigotry is not living and doing what you believe to be right. It is when you begin to hate and judge those with whom you disagree.

I have my beliefs and vote accordingly. I hope everyone will do the same. We have one voice, our own. Use it and move on. Whichever side of the issue you are on, support it. That is all you can do.

Calling people names like bigot and hatemonger will not change peopleï¿½s minds. And if you blame it on their religion, then you become a bigot.

I think if every person looks real hard at his or her lives, they will find times when they have been discriminated against. They will feel the pain of that discrimination and find greater tolerance.

The nasty comments made in the comment pages of this or any paper help no one. If you really want to help, then find positive ways to do so. If you just want to call names, then you are no better.

SLC | 6:20 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Janey--I hope you have never disobeyed your parents, eaten shellfish, or worn blended fabrics, because those sins are right in the same chapters as the one you quoted from the Old Testament--just to name a few. But No, like all bigots, you cherry just the one that suits YOUR favorite prejudices.

RSB | 8:16 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

I did not say that child bearing is the main reason for marriage. I strictly said that sexual fulfilment is ancillary to child bearing.
I am saying one of the reasons why I have a strong distaste for the homosexual movement is that it degrades marriage into a relationship based on one's sexual preferences. I view marriage to be much more than that. This is not the forum to state what that view is, because it is highly personal, but it is impossible for any other relationship that attempts to imitate marriage to even come close to what is marriage.

Utah Resident | 9:13 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

RSB--Do you know any gay couples? I truly doubt it based on your remarks. I do, and their relationships are no more all about sex than yours or mine. Those I know truly love, care, and provide for each other.

Re My 2 Cents | 9:32 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

You are such a hypocrite. What you have said about gays is exactly the same thing that people all over the country say about Mormons. Everytime someone offends the Mormons, you cry and cry that it is not fair. But here are you denying the same right to respect to another group because you think they are wierd. News flash: the world thinks you are wierd (though the LDS culture prefers the word peculiar).

I am a Mormon. I am a heterosexual. All I am asking is that we be kinder. Denying them Constitutional rights will not make them reconsider their sexuality. So we might as well learn to live together amiably. That requires words like sub-class to exit your vocabulary immediately. President Hinckley pleaded with us to be more respectful of our neighbors. Living in CA, I had no idea why he even needed to address that issue. Now I know. He was talking to you, My 2 Cents. Are you listening? Or are you going to ignore him, making you no better than the sub-class you attack?

Polygamist | 10:01 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

I love it! wife # 3 has included me!

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.