Deseret News | Partner registry under fire

Reader comments
Partner registry under fire

120 comments | Read story

Proud of SL | 10:59 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

There are certainly gay ramifications in SLC's registry. However, not necessarily so. What is wrong with two people who live together and support each other receiving health benefits if their employer approves? Domestic partners can already take out a mortgage and enter into all sorts of business contracts together. A conspiracy? Okay. So was the civil rights movement. Things change. I still remember all the animosity at making Martin Luther King's birthday a holiday. By the way, I'm straight and do not see a threat to my marriage. I love my wife and the registry does not change that.

Mike | 11:02 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Just how far is argument going to go? Just how much slander or near slander is the DMN going to permit? What about, "Stop Chris Buttars and the Eagle Forum before the skeletons in their closets are found out!"

What about this statement, "Failure to recognize gay marriage - the secular tax rate recognition - amounts to unequal treatment under the law, and goes to the issue of citizens right to freely associate."? Unequal treatment under the law? The right to freely associate? Come on, first you attempt to redefine marriage and now you want to redefine the Constitution? Is there no end to this nonsense?

Marriage has been defined by our representatives. So, for those who only believe in the secular state, that law has been written by legally and lawfully elected representatives. Marriage has also been defined by our religious leaders - the religious leaders of many different faiths. So, whether you believe in God or not, whether you believe in religion or not, whether you believe in representative government or not, marriage has been legally and lawfully defined in statutes that are legal and binding.

RE: Left Narrow | 11:10 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

And some of the comments posted by those who are obviously Right leaning are ever so open minded and simply oooze understanding and tolerance and are more than willing to examine another person's views. I think you need to get a new bottle of Postum, the one your using now has fermented.

Comments continue below

The View from California | 11:18 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

All of the issues regarding hospital visitation, medical care, etc., could easily be cleared by granting powers of attorney, either mutually or not. An elderly friend granted me power of attorney to conduct her business affairs and to make medical decision when she is incapable. It works well. Registries and domestic partnerships are not necessary to assist someone else.

RE: Left narrow Minded | 11:13 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

I would be more open minded if you right wingers would provide some FACTS to back up your claims. I'm still waiting for PROOF.

DanO | 11:40 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

I was raised Mormon and everything from the pulpit was about compassion. Unfortunately, I don't feel that compassion is wholly acted upon. This string only goes to show that to be the case. One might be best served to open the New Testament and stop spouting the antiquated teachings of Mosaic law which have been greatly misrepresented to control and demean others. "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." Try it sometime.

Phil | 11:35 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

How are you being "forced" to accept anything? Just because the state recognizes something exists, doesn't mean people have to accept it.

Bigotry, Hatred,& Descrimination | 11:42 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Dear Legislature,

Nice bigotry and hatred. Did voters REALLY put you in office to use the law to descriminate against people who are different from you? Strom Thurmond thinks this is bad form.

Sincerely,
People With Good Values

OH NO!!! | 11:50 a.m. Feb. 12, 2008

If they allow anyone (even gays) to get insurance benefits, my wife and kids will leave me! My family will be ruined forever!!! What will I do??

My Family is about me, my wife and my kids. My family has nothing to do with yours or the type of family you live in. If you marry a man, a woman, a goat or a tree, I am still married to my wife. What do I care?

I grew up in a condo complex that was 75% single moms. I'd much rather see families with 2 gay parents raising the kids than single parent families.

I'm LDS, and I have a hard time beleiving that Christ would single out homosexuals. What happened when the Pharisees brought the harlots and the adulterers to him (which is an equal sin, according to LDS)? Did he condemn the harlot or the Pharisees? Be a Christian: Live your life how you see fit and love your neighbors.

Voice of Reason | 12:22 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

"What is wrong with two people who live together and support each other receiving health benefits if their employer approves"?

Nothing, Proud of SL. If we came up with a law that, say, allowed each adult with health insurance to choose one other adult for coverage under their policy, and the law was TRULY silent in every way on what adult that could be - spouse, parent, sibling, friend, homeless person on the street - then I think Americans would largely approve. What a great way to expand helath insurance coverage in America!

But that's not typically what is pushed by gay activists, who instead constantly push for laws which expicitly identify gays as a uniquely protected or preferred class, on a par with marriage. Simply expanding health benefits isn't the real goal of most gay activists, Proud. Enforcing approval and acceptance of gay sex on an unwilling populace is. Visitation rights, health benefits, etc. are only secondary goals for them to the ultimate goal of forcing everyone to approve of homosexuality, at least publicly.

Darin M | 12:24 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

To Re: 8:49a,

Facts? Here's one: Marriage is alive and well in Massachusetts; the institution did not fall apart when gays were given the right to marry.

On point two, yes, you are right -- gays can marry people of the opposite sex. Alas, a true "counterfeit marriage"! How many unhappy marriages have been created under religious pressure to form unions that should have never been? Not even the LDS church advocates this position.

Regarding my third point, well, if you can't see "fair is fair", I'm not sure how to help you -- but I'll try. Wanting the same thing that you have is not the same as taking it away from you. If you cannot show that you or anyone would be harmed by granting others access to the same rights that you enjoy, you have no basis for denying access to those who want it. This would be called discrimination, a fundamental concept abhorred in a true democracy - a concept not difficult to grasp when the mind is free of bigoted notions and fanatical nonsense. There is no rational reason to exclude gay couples from legal recognition.

RangerGordon | 12:29 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

First of all, people need to read the ordinance before making uninformed comments.

What it does NOT do: The domestic-partner registry does not provide health insurance for anybody. It does not have anything to do with whether or not the city provides health benefits for its employees or their spouses, domestic partners, children, grandmothers, etc.

If the city decided it made good sense to provide domestic-partner benefits for its employees, it would not need to go through the trouble of creating a registry to do so; it would simply deal with the issue internally.

What the domestic registry DOES do: If a business decides it wants to provide domestic-partner benefits--as many do because it helps them attract and retain an educated workforce--the registry may help them decide who does and who doesn't qualify for those benefits.

The registry helps business by helping them prevent insurance fraud. That's all.

The reason Buttars is so against it is because he can't see the big picture; all he's worried about is whether or not it will give "legitimacy" to gay relationships.

Buttars is not a conservative or he would support the registry. Buttars is bad for business.

Perversion? | 12:32 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

I find it offensive that those trying to protect the sacred nature of marriage seem to view it only as a contract designed to ensure health insurance and other benefits. THIS ATTITUDE is what devalues marriage.

Isn't God's sanction the one and only thing that makes marriage a sacred covenant?

What does health insurance have to do with the sanctity of the institution?

What does the exchange of money have to do with your covenant with God?

What does marital status have to do with the right to a healthy life?

Maybe the people accusing us Mormons of not being Christian have hit the nail on the head. Didn't Christ dine with publicans? Did he exalt himself over anyone? Christ only condemned the HYPOCRITES!

Maybe we should limit benefits to those sealed in an LDS temple. As ridiculous as it sounds, it would probably get votes from our corrupt and money grubbing state representatives.

These are the same people that claim to have a right to Jazz games, concert tickets and free meals, because of their "status" as state lawmakers, and would waste your time and mine to fight to keep these "rights". The hypocrisy is almost unbearable.

lifer | 12:55 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

"The View from California"

A power of attorney just to guarantee hospital visitation rights???? A power of attorney is a formal and legal document typically used to (you guessed it) grant someone an exclusive legal power or authority to handle things when the grantor cannot.

No offense, but that suggestion is absurd.

But then so is spending so much time and energy to stop adults from practicing behavior that has absolutely no deleterious affect whatsoever on any other person or perceived sacred societal institution.

Give them tax exempt status | 12:56 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

My personal feeling is that if the state of Utah and the United States of America are willing to deny two homosexuals the right to reap the same benefits as those of their heterosexual counterparts then they should not have to be subjected to paying taxes or anything else that would benefit the state of Utah or the good old USA. Why should they or any other GLBT person in this country have to pay their "fair share to the government" when that same government denies them the rights of every other person in this country, regardless of race, creed or even if they are legal or illegal? Step down off your religious soap boxes all you representatives and senators from state and federal governments alike and start representing ALL your constituents instead of just a chosen few. If the GLBT community and their money is ok to take to pay your salaries and contribute to society through their tax dollars, then they should also be able to reap every benefit afforded to every other tax-paying person in this country. The time for double standards needs to end now!

Anonymous | 1:00 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Why does the Right insist on sticking their noses in other people's business?

DleeD | 1:09 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

I think it is about time to acknowledge that there are many functional family configurations - adult kids taking care of their parents, adult siblings, adult partners, etc. It would be a good idea to allow people living together and supporting each other financially to have the ability to have employer benefits. This is a matter between employers and their employees, the ones who pay the premiums. Allowing a registry can give employers some confidence that they aren't being scammed about a domestic partnership.

For those concerned about a "blank checkbook" perhaps it's time we start charging premiums based on numbers of people covered instead of having singles dinged for the expenses of families. We are a community and watching out for the health and welfare of everyone benefits all of us.

Robert | 1:04 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

I wish people would actually know what the issue is about, this IS NOT an effort to define what a marriage is, but to provide insurance and benefits to partners who in most casses are straight, this just does not affect those in the gay community. Lets try just for once to be understanding of each other instead of being hateful and divisive.

RE: MIKE | 1:25 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

It's called Freedom of Speech ever heard of it? And maybe a little Freedom of the Press. Why is it almost slander when it's against someone you support, but there are those who will blatantly refer to homosexuals as pedophiiles. I'd call that "slander or near slander" as well. Guess it's one of those things that can go both ways.

Judy | 1:38 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

I believe in the last days it was prophesied that Salt Lake would wind up being the most wicked of cities. You are on your way. Have a nice day !

Poor arguement | 1:46 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

It a really poor argument to suggest that people stop shouting mosaic scriptures and instead turn to the New Testament because it says to love one another. Well I have a shocking statement-

READ ROMANS CHAPTER 1

Last time I checked its in the New Testament and it strongly speaks out against Homosexuality.

We can love the sinner, but hate the sin. Loving a sinner does not necessarly mean giving them the same rights that we have. We can't morally give them the benefits of marriage for to do so is to spit on God's law. We can not morally give them the same rights because it is a perversion of natural law. We get benefits in life by following natural laws. its called cause and effect. To give them the benefit is a perversion of natural law.

So in precis,

Love the sinner, but hate the sin. Call me a bigot all you want, but I'm on the Lord's side on this. Are you?

Love? Hate? | 2:09 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

I'm trying to understand the "liberal" mind set here; please explain this. Why is it that if I disagree with someone's actions, I automatically hate them?

Last time I checked, when a responsible parent disciplines their child because of their actions, they do so out of love not hate.

Utah Native | 2:15 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Judy, please show me the source of that "prophesy". I've asked for it many times, and have yet to see it. I believe it's nothing more than a Utah urban myth perpetuated many, many years ago when SLC began to fill with "gentiles".

Re: Anonymous 1:00 p.m. | 2:20 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

It's pretty simple really. The reason "the right insists on sticking their noses in other peoples business" is because you keep sticking your business right in our face.

If you want to "do your thing", go do your thing... but keep it to yourself! Don't whine about the choices you make when you know the consequences beforehand. Don't demand things that your actions don't justify. Don't ask people who love you to support your bad decisions.

Sorry if you don't like the answer, but you asked!

Apocolypse | 2:27 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Of course, all those countries and even states that recognize some sort of Gay union have suddenly vanished without a trace! Maybe that was why Mitt Romney decided to run for president. He left just long enough to make sure his state wouldn't evaporate with him in it since he helped pass gay marriage laws in Mass.

I love these doom and gloom comments. But if you really think that the world is getting that close to the ending, why are you spending so much time blogging about this issue instead of cleaning your own house?

Re: Poor arguement | 2:26 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

AMEN!

The Argument is a Waste of Time | 2:34 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Dear Utahans in the middle of the desert:

CA passed an ammendment to the State Constitution declaring marrige to be between a man and a woman.

It was found to be unconstitutional.

"Article IV of the United States Constitution

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state..."

So a marriage performed in Maine is legal in Utah...

" The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
ï¿½ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Any State Law will be found not to give "Full Faith and Credit".

Although the open comtempt for "Gayness" makes for a fun and exhilirating argument, in the end, it is a State's right, that Utah must honor, HATE, and all.

Anonymous | 2:28 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Love? Hate? 2:09 -
You are confusing words.
It's the neoconservatives that run on hate - not the liberals.
Liberal minds mind their own business and don't stick their noses in other people's private lives.

RE: love? | 2:35 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

You can disagree with me all you like, but it would be nice if the "Conservative" mind set could be a little more open to discussion. Using religion to justify your actions is wrong! Whose religious dogma do we use?

Secondly, we are not children, so please don't try to treat us like we are. How do you discipline a child who doesn't think that they are in the wrong? Many gays don't feel like we are wrong, and who are you to decide we need to be? And at what point does your discipline become abuse?

re:Mike | 2:39 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

This whole "Gay" thing is getting to you, isn't it?

You really want "your" word back...

"Marriage has been defined by our representatives".

...or has it?

What would it take to make "you" gay???

Maybe it really is something your are born in to. Wouldn't it be sad if you really are just a hateful, intolerant, bigoted person with good intentions?

Sokol | 2:43 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Utah should protect itself from fraud and abuse in
the name of Domestic Partnership...Who defines what
a partnership is...Can I get benefits for my pet gerbil named Felix? We have been in love for years.
Marriage between a man and a wife is the most sacred
aspect of our society. It does not need to become
diminished, demeaned and circumvented. Marriage participants have legal documents to prove their
domestic partnership. Maybe Governor Huntman will have to fund Domestic Partnership Investigators to
investigate and videotape for evidence of an actual
parntership. Who defines or confirms a partnerships existance? While you are at it, please ban the adoption or the 'theft' of foster children by septic
same sex couples.

RE:Utah Native | 2:47 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

See Mike above, and Senator Buttars...

Funny... | 2:59 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

If I remember my history, the early saints were denied their basic right of freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to gather peacefully, in short they were denied their basic rights. Now the desendents of these early church members are actively seeking to deny basic rights to another group and for the same reasons touted by those who opposed their ancestors. And they use the same excuse that "They go against what the bible says", when polygamy was introduced I'm sure that those outside the church thought it would be the end of the "Traditional Family" as well.
This country is flexible and resilient and it will survive and maybe even benefit. One thing that will hurt us all is hypocricy, hate and a stiff neck. I believe those are also condemed in the bible.

WOW!!! | 2:56 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

I thought the followers of Fred Phelps and his Baptist protesters left after President Hinckley's funeral. What happened? Did you all miss the bus?

Conservative mindset | 3:13 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

I'm an active LDS Republican bordering Libertarian, and my conservative mindset tells me any act between two consenting adults should be legal and have the same protection regardless of gender.

The hateful, intolerant Mormon is an outspoken, dinosaur, and a minority that need to clean up their own backyards...

We allow others to believe what they want...

Henry Drummond | 3:10 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Chris Buttars and his friends are helping to cause the very thing they are trying to avoid. Every time they come up with these unreasonable paranoid laws they simply increase sympathy for the "gay agenda". Before Republicans went on their anti-gay crusade five years ago, few people thought homosexuals should be allowed to be married. Today 56% are in favor of it. The Republican conservatives are just making fools of them and furthering the very cause they are trying to defeat.

Keep in up guys and even Utah will wind up recognizing gay marriages.

The Bible is proof | 3:12 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

It may not be scientifically proven that a Gay marriage or partnership is bad, but coming from the Bible's standpoint we know what is right. Noah warned the people that the earth would flood because of the wickedness and no one believed him. The earth was flooded and the wicked were killed. Jeremiah and other prophets warned the people of Jerusalem to repent of their wickedness or they would be destroyed. The wicked didn't listen and the Babylonians destroyed the city. If you choose to believe it or not, we have modern day Prophets warning that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. Those who bluntly disobey this message will someday be destroyed or judged harshly. Pride, ignorabce and stubborness are huge stumbling blocks to many today. No one is perfect but it's often too bad that the laws of the land will never be as strict as the laws of God. We have our choice to do what we want today, but we will stand before God and be held accountable.

Kevin | 3:15 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Why is it only gays and lesbians need this "special" registry?

First they found "gay marriage" where none has ever existed in the history of the planet.

When that didn't work they then tried to send everyone on a guilt trip by calling them 'homophobic'

Now since the marriage argument didn't work, they say it's not about marriage. Interesting, first it was, then it wasn't. Sounds like a certain politicians voting habits.

Now they say they need to be registered or?? I can think of a registery in place already that would fit them 100%. Any takers?

Logic Makes Sense Right? | 3:16 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Gays are paying taxes along with everyone else yet everyone else gets the rights that we dont have. So WE are funding your rights yet we cant have the rights that we fund for you. We all bleed red right? So why does it matter who we love? Love is what matters not who it is. God preached love and thats what his Religion is about not condeming the sinner or focusing on what they did He said love thy neighbor and love thy mother and father. Love doesnt know what gender is it is all based on your feelings for the other person. I am LDS and Gay I love the church with all my heart i just dislike the followers when they say they are christian but arent following his true example and when they think they are above everyone else. Jesus helped the poor and they dying both spiritualy and physicaly he didnt care abouth the sins of the person he cared about the person. He treated them all with love and respect so why cant you?

Super | 3:26 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

"Poor Argument": Your reasoning is flawed. Passing a law that allows people who are attracted to the same sex to get married does not harm God or people who believe in him in any way. If the law required the church to allow those marriages in its temples your reasoning might stand up, but no one is even beginning to suggest such a thing.

"The Argument is a Waste of Time": There is a recognized exception to the full faith and credit clause of the constitution for a local communities strongly held moral beliefs. Sorry, same sex marriages in other states would never hold up in the courts on that basis.

Anonymous | 3:29 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

What do you suppose our world would be like if the Right would stop sticking their noses into what people do or don't do in the privacy of their own homes?

Mike | 3:31 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Notice that the first thing that those who advocate for gays try to do is to eliminate God from the equation, i.e. "Using religion to justify your actions is wrong! Whose religious dogma do we use?"

God is very much a part of the reason that we're having this discussion. I'm not writing about LDS theology or even Christian religious teachings, I'm writing about core values found in many religions that agree the homosexual activity should not be practiced.

When God is absent, who is present?

If it is believed that man is fully capable of defining right from wrong without religion, then what will be the basis of those definitions? If we were to categorically state that what is good for the few must also be good for the many and that any unless it is the preferred model then it must not be allowed, homosexual practices would not be allowed.

Whether our legislators are influenced by religion or whether they rely totally on logic, they will certainly pass legislation that sustains traditional families and traditional marriage regardless of the demands of the few who insist on living outside social norms.

re:super | 5:48 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

"There is a recognized exception to the full faith and credit clause of the constitution for a local communities strongly held moral beliefs."

That would be so very cool for those of you who want to hate, the ammendment the LDS pushed in California, that passed overwhelmingly was declared unconstitutional in the Federal Courts, and the Supreme Court has refused to address the issue, meaning if an ammendment to the state constitution won't stand, a law passed by our "Fine Legislature" will be struck down faster than "Sokol and his Gerbil Felix" (2:43pm) can get their Partnership Announcements addressed.

Are our legislators really this dense? Do they need a victory after the voucher fiasco?

Can't they just go enjoy their Hotels, Jazz Games, and per diems without wasting energy on silly, stupid legislative games?

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

"re:super": The exception I refered to was to the full faith and credit clause/doctrine, not any marriage defining statute or amendment to a state constitution. All the exception would do is allow utah to not give 'full faith and credit' to same sex marriages pronounced legal in other states.

Next time read carefully.

re:Mike (From CTR LDS) | 6:15 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

So, what if we get to the Celestial Kingdom, and there is no organized religion, no LDS theology, only God's Pure Love for all of his children?

I hope you are busy keeping the undesirable ones out.

Oh, and in response to:

"Whether our legislators are influenced by religion or whether they rely totally on logic, they will certainly pass legislation that sustains traditional families and traditional marriage regardless of the demands of the few who insist on living outside social norms."

-- The same legislators that decided that under the Compromise of 1850, California entered the Union as a free state; the Utah Territory and New Mexico Territories were opened to slavery on the basis of popular sovereignty, and Utahns owned slaves???

So we can trust that slavery sustained traditional families and traditional marriage???

change is good | 6:28 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Typical response from the radical right.
When all else fails - act as the moral adviser and with an air of a God-given right.

reSuper | 6:26 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Reading your "carefully", you said "local communities strongly held moral beliefs." Is this local community SLC, the community that has the partnership registry???

...and the exception would not stand in the case of a legal marriage, let alone the law outlawing a partnership registry.

Think carefully on this one... Do you think the Federal Courts would in any world imagined give an exception to allow a State to eliminate a Partnership Registry of a City?

The whole argument is a huge waste of Taxpayer's money, which our Legislature seems to have no problem with.

Super | 8:22 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

"reSuper": I'm not sure you are properly comprehending the exception I refer to. The full faith and credit doctrine only deals with whether state A's laws (i.e. laws about marriage) apply in state B, in spite of state B's objection. The exception is loosely articulated in a U.S. Supreme Court case named Williams v. State of North Carolina (317 U.S. 287, 302). You can also look at the explanation given in AMJUR CONSTLAW ï¿½ 983, articulating the effect of conflicting state public policy rationales for state statutes.

My only point is that the statement "So a marriage performed in Maine is legal in Utah..." is not necessarily true just because of the existence of the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution.

olywa | 9:03 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

In my opinion we need to cut the side issues and return to the basics.

re"Super Case to Quote??? | 10:15 p.m. Feb. 12, 2008

Argued Oct. 20, 1942.
Decided Dec. 21, 1942.
Petitioners were tried and convicted of bigamous cohabitation under 4342 of the North Carolina Code,1 1939, and each was sentenced for a term of years to a state prison.The State further contended that petitioners went to Nevada not to establish a bona fide residence but solely for the purpose of taking advantage of the laws of that State to obtain a divorce through fraud upon that court.

In this case there is no conceivable basis of jurisdiction in the Nevada court over the absent spouses,6 and, a fortiori, over North Carolina herself. I [317 U.S. 287, 320] cannot but think that in its pre-occupation with the full faith and credit clause the Court has slighted the due process clause. -----

Sorry there Super Duper, but I don't think the case claims what you state. Bigomy and fraud and not allowing due process from 66 years ago has ANYTHING TO DO WITH your claim that: Sorry, same sex marriages in other states would never hold up in the courts on that basis.

In other words, this case in no way applies whatsoever.

Peace

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.

1 photo

Keith Johnson, Deseret News

Salt Lake Mayor Ralph Becker listens Monday to Sen. Chris Buttars, foreground, speak against Salt Lake City's domestic partner registry. Becker defended the registry.