Reader comments
Salt Lake drops 'domestic partners' phrase
84 comments | Read story
Thought | 5:14 a.m. March 26, 2008
Change the name to whatever you want in the end it is all the same thing.
Anonymous | 6:31 a.m. March 26, 2008
Who cares what other people choose to do in this case?
Why is it other people's business?
Get a life!
Why is it other people's business?
Get a life!
Comments continue below
City Council | 6:38 a.m. March 26, 2008
Quite clear these folks are in Violation of the Constitution
Registry sounds like a Nazi Ploy
Don't be fooled
Registry sounds like a Nazi Ploy
Don't be fooled
Off topic | 6:37 a.m. March 26, 2008
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
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
Good | 7:13 a.m. March 26, 2008
I like that better. The less we make this so called "partnership"
sound like marriage the better off we will be.
Lee | 7:31 a.m. March 26, 2008
Is it limited to 2 people of the same gender? Is it a disqualifying condition
if one party is legally married to someone else?
uncannygunman | 7:56 a.m. March 26, 2008
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."
Get a correct focus | 8:25 a.m. March 26, 2008
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.
Romeo and Romeo | 8:27 a.m. March 26, 2008
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.
By any other name would smell as sweet...
So, too, the fetid fragrance of obfuscation.
perverse | 8:29 a.m. March 26, 2008
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.
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.
WJ | 8:41 a.m. March 26, 2008
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.
Less Like Marriage? | 8:48 a.m. March 26, 2008
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."
at last ! | 8:58 a.m. March 26, 2008
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!
Linus | 9:05 a.m. March 26, 2008
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!
It's called FAIR!!! | 9:21 a.m. March 26, 2008
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.
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.
because nothing says LOVE | 9:28 a.m. March 26, 2008
like a "governmentally approved certificate"
un FAIR!!!!! | 9:32 a.m. March 26, 2008
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.
The fact that someone can declare , anyone, to be a "mutual commitment" is not fair to the business.
It's called TAXPAYER MONEY!!! | 9:34 a.m. March 26, 2008
just because you call it a "family" don't force me to buy health
insurance for it!
Hatuletoh | 9:43 a.m. March 26, 2008
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.
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.
@ Hatuletoh | 9:45 a.m. March 26, 2008
You state that, "Nor does this pet project of Mayor Becker cost taxpayer
money".
I ask you, did you read the article?
The final paragraph of the article states, "The fee for filling mutual commitment declaration will be $25. All administrative costs of the program will be absorbed by the city recorder's office."
Costs absorbed by the city recorder's office sounds like taxpayer money to me.
I ask you, did you read the article?
The final paragraph of the article states, "The fee for filling mutual commitment declaration will be $25. All administrative costs of the program will be absorbed by the city recorder's office."
Costs absorbed by the city recorder's office sounds like taxpayer money to me.
Come on | 9:46 a.m. March 26, 2008
This registry doesn't just apply to same sex couples. It applies to people
that reside in the same home and rely on eachother for monetary support. Why is
the focus of the registry always on same sex couples?
Grandma & Grandpa | 9:53 a.m. March 26, 2008
Changing the name is insulting all of your intelligence. Think about it. If
you let them pass this, you might as well assume they will go the next step and
want Gay Marriage etc too. Understand here you can add anyone to your
insurance, will, bank account, home, car, what ever. As far as elderly parents,
you get help with them already, through many gov programs.
Bottom line is, Our Children deserve to be raised in a home with a Mother & Father. We need to keep that a strong issue. Please protect the children.
Bottom line is, Our Children deserve to be raised in a home with a Mother & Father. We need to keep that a strong issue. Please protect the children.
Anonymous | 9:54 a.m. March 26, 2008
put a pink dress on a pig and it is still a pig.
It's Called PC!!! | 9:57 a.m. March 26, 2008
How fair is it that you get pregnant and I pay for your abortion?
How fair is it that you get someone pregnant and I pay for your child's upkeep?
How fair is it that you don't work and I pay for you not to work?
How fair is it that you can have an unlimited number of "mutual commitments" for which I pay the toll?
How fair is it that you get someone pregnant and I pay for your child's upkeep?
How fair is it that you don't work and I pay for you not to work?
How fair is it that you can have an unlimited number of "mutual commitments" for which I pay the toll?
BUT is it still a pink dress? | 9:58 a.m. March 26, 2008
I wonder
Hatuletoh | 10:19 a.m. March 26, 2008
To "@ Hatuletoh" @ 9:45: I stand corrected--there will be some tax
dollars used. However, since no additional money from public coffers will be
allocated for this program, the "adminstrative costs" probably amount
to the price of the paper and the clerks' time in filing them. I'd
prefer tacking another $5 or so on the filing fee to cover these cost, but the
outage to taxpayers will be (to use and accounting term) immaterial.
An honest, hopefully dialogue-inspiring question for you: are you maybe opposed to this registry for reasons of personal belief, but wish to debate against it from the more secure position of an advocate of fiscal responsibility?
An honest, hopefully dialogue-inspiring question for you: are you maybe opposed to this registry for reasons of personal belief, but wish to debate against it from the more secure position of an advocate of fiscal responsibility?
Anonymous | 10:20 a.m. March 26, 2008
There is a ridiculous amount of "misrepresentative" information in
this thread. Why do the censors allow it?
The fee is $25 which will cover the "costs absorbed" by the City Recorder's office.
No one is being "forced" to buy health insurance for anyone else and no businesses will be "forced" to do anything with the registry. This is an at-will registry and does not place any burden on businesses.
Contrary to someone's illogical ramblings, hamsters are not eligible to register.
To perverse at 8:29 a.m.,
Do you propose that we no longer allow infertile couples or post-menopausal women to get married? Because that's sure what it sounds like when you say start talking about not promoting "shacking up schemes" no matter what we call them. Sounds to me like you're arguing that married people should be required by law to procreate in order to receive the "benefits" of marriage.
To WJ 8:41 a.m.,
I'm not sure if the quotes are still the same, however, Buttars' comment, correctly quoted can only be contrued as calling a black human baby a "dark, ugly thing." Whether it was intended that way or not, it was a racist comment. Your comment is just dumb.
The fee is $25 which will cover the "costs absorbed" by the City Recorder's office.
No one is being "forced" to buy health insurance for anyone else and no businesses will be "forced" to do anything with the registry. This is an at-will registry and does not place any burden on businesses.
Contrary to someone's illogical ramblings, hamsters are not eligible to register.
To perverse at 8:29 a.m.,
Do you propose that we no longer allow infertile couples or post-menopausal women to get married? Because that's sure what it sounds like when you say start talking about not promoting "shacking up schemes" no matter what we call them. Sounds to me like you're arguing that married people should be required by law to procreate in order to receive the "benefits" of marriage.
To WJ 8:41 a.m.,
I'm not sure if the quotes are still the same, however, Buttars' comment, correctly quoted can only be contrued as calling a black human baby a "dark, ugly thing." Whether it was intended that way or not, it was a racist comment. Your comment is just dumb.
PW | 10:36 a.m. March 26, 2008
How fair is it that me and my same sex partner choose not to have children yet
have to pay for all your cheerio chompers because you and your wife decided to
treat her uterus like a clown car?
@ Hatuletoh | 10:38 a.m. March 26, 2008
An honest response...
I'm against the "registry" because I think it's just one more step in an attempt to legitimize deviant behavior; no matter how it's glossed over by the PC crowd.
As fare as being an advocate of fiscal responsibility, I merely read the article, read the comments, and noticed the inconsistency of the no taxpayer money argument.
I'm against the "registry" because I think it's just one more step in an attempt to legitimize deviant behavior; no matter how it's glossed over by the PC crowd.
As fare as being an advocate of fiscal responsibility, I merely read the article, read the comments, and noticed the inconsistency of the no taxpayer money argument.
To Hatuletoh | 10:39 a.m. March 26, 2008
Perhaps you should take some of your own advice. You first commented on how
"sexually repressed moralists" are fighting legislation such as this
but two seconds later you commented on how it's ridiculous that we always
turn everything into an issue involving sex. Hmm now I'm pretty sure that
you were the first one to do that. Oh ok now I see... we are only aloud to make
this about sex when it involves letting you and your perverted friends legalize
your corrupt ways. Gottcha. I'm glad you're not about double
standards at all. Good for you.
This is why... | 10:45 a.m. March 26, 2008
I don't live in Salt Lake. It's very easy for politicians to
circumvent the law of the land, but when God's laws are enforced, I'll
hate to say I told you so.
Anonymous | 10:51 a.m. March 26, 2008
When do you suppose it will be when people will mind their own personal
business?
WJ | 10:56 a.m. March 26, 2008
to our anonymous friend at 10:20, a "black baby" is an old term for a
stillborn, it has nothing to do with the offspring of African-Americans. Your
comment is just ignorant and ill-informed.
Don | 10:58 a.m. March 26, 2008
Fear not,oh glorious plebeians, for thou shalt still
be afforded the opportunity to offer the vile and evil, "polygamists", to the lions. And the mayor and
his supporters, will be the first to open the Lions Gate.:-)
be afforded the opportunity to offer the vile and evil, "polygamists", to the lions. And the mayor and
his supporters, will be the first to open the Lions Gate.:-)
Bye bye marriage | 11:07 a.m. March 26, 2008
This is a dramatic blow to marriage. As I see it a man and a woman can now
qualify to be "mutually dependent". No need to get marrried, become
committed, and now no messy divorce when you want a new partner. This is a
provision for selfish people.
John L. | 11:38 a.m. March 26, 2008
Oh No! You mean two people who are committed to each other and who take
care of each others needs may get the opportunity to state that commitment
publicly and then get insurance? How horrible? I believe the State should get
out of the marriage business altogether. If individuals want a marriage, get it
done in church. The State's interest should be in contracts. Easy to
construct and easy to enforce. It is not the State's business to inflict
it's moral code on everyone.
As far as the majority rules goes, the Constitution was made to protect individual rights. Otherwise, it would be a sad place indeed. What if the majority wanted gun control? First they came for the Jews.....
As far as the majority rules goes, the Constitution was made to protect individual rights. Otherwise, it would be a sad place indeed. What if the majority wanted gun control? First they came for the Jews.....
To Anonymous 10:51 | 11:31 a.m. March 26, 2008
Wow, this is the easiest question to answer that I've seen all day.
People will mind their own personal business when others stop sticking their personal business in our faces.
People will mind their own personal business when others stop sticking their personal business in our faces.
To Bye bye marriage | 11:39 a.m. March 26, 2008
Men and woman already live together for a period of time and then assume legal
obligations. It is called "common law marriage".
To Editor | 11:41 a.m. March 26, 2008
Comments by PW at 10:36AM seem to be more fit for Rolling Stone or Vibe than the
DMN.
Anonymous | 12:38 p.m. March 26, 2008
To my anonymous friend WJ,
Would you care to provide a reference for this origin of the phrase "black baby"? Funny, when I search on line, your comment is the only thing even mentioning such a connection.
It sounds like just another lame attempt at justifying the Senator's racist remark to me.
Would you care to provide a reference for this origin of the phrase "black baby"? Funny, when I search on line, your comment is the only thing even mentioning such a connection.
It sounds like just another lame attempt at justifying the Senator's racist remark to me.
Bert | 12:43 p.m. March 26, 2008
Most people's definition of traditional marriage hasn't been around
very long at all.
Most people think of marriage as two people who love each other mutually decide to declare that love and commitment to each other by entering into a partnership which society recognizes.
That definition of marriage hasn't been around very long at all.
For most of history marriage was more of a transfer of ownership from a father to a husband. Most were arranged by outside parties. Certainly the traditional wife didn't have any say about the marriage. It was never "traditionally" a declaration or commitment of love.
You want to go back to "traditional marriage" fine, just don't tell me my commitment to someone that I love is going to alter the definition of traditional marriage because you have accepted an altered definition already.
Most people think of marriage as two people who love each other mutually decide to declare that love and commitment to each other by entering into a partnership which society recognizes.
That definition of marriage hasn't been around very long at all.
For most of history marriage was more of a transfer of ownership from a father to a husband. Most were arranged by outside parties. Certainly the traditional wife didn't have any say about the marriage. It was never "traditionally" a declaration or commitment of love.
You want to go back to "traditional marriage" fine, just don't tell me my commitment to someone that I love is going to alter the definition of traditional marriage because you have accepted an altered definition already.
Anon | 1:23 p.m. March 26, 2008
They say no taxpayers will be hurt by this - The next step will be to force
business's in Salt Lake to have family plan insurance for all people - who
will pay the cost of that - We the consumer who will shop in Salt Lake. Yes
the camel's nose is in the tent.
Anonymous | 1:26 p.m. March 26, 2008
I get the biggest kick out of people like anonymous 10:51 - who, in defense of
their "argument",(if you want to call it that) expects us to believe
that people are doing certain personal and private things, that he does not
like, in the privacy of HIS home.
Give me a break!
Give me a break!
Bob Ross | 1:33 p.m. March 26, 2008
Unfortunately, there will be unintended consequences to these actions. Because
of very few limitations on who should be covered under insurance, the real
possibility exists that people will add friends and relatives to their list of
depenents in order to get them insurance. Some of these people may come from
out of state because they acticipate significant medical expenses and this is a
way to get them covered.
Sounds good, except that someone covers the cost.
Most organizations used to subsidize the medical expenses of its employees and dependents highly.
More and more, they are subsidizing the employee, but limiting or eliminating the subsidy for dependents.
The unintended consequence of this action will be to cause many business to limit subsidy of dependents since almost anyone could be defined as a dependent and so it is fairly certain this cost will increase.
Sounds good, except that someone covers the cost.
Most organizations used to subsidize the medical expenses of its employees and dependents highly.
More and more, they are subsidizing the employee, but limiting or eliminating the subsidy for dependents.
The unintended consequence of this action will be to cause many business to limit subsidy of dependents since almost anyone could be defined as a dependent and so it is fairly certain this cost will increase.
Anonymous | 1:36 p.m. March 26, 2008
And the U.S. loses another ally from the closet of the willing.
RE: to bye bye marriage | 1:37 p.m. March 26, 2008
You should read your law books. What is being proposed is far different than
what is known as common law marriage, especially in Utah.
Hatuletoh | 1:36 p.m. March 26, 2008
To "@ Hatuletoh": I appreciate your honest response, and I definitely
appreciate the fact-checking. I'm no politician and find factual errors to
be unacceptable.
As for "To Hatuletoh @ 10:39": the SLC registry is not "legislation". The "Legislature" passes "legislation"; it becomes "law" and we citizens are bound by it. Mayor Becker has instigated the creation of a list, which is not a binding law, it's simply a list. If you the citizen and/or business owner wish to ignore it, you are free to do so. As an American, I do not believe that equal rights can be denied to anyone on the grounds that we disagree with what they do with consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.
As for my characterizion of Mr. Buttars and Mr. Bramble as sexually repressed moralists, I must apologize for being unclear: that comes partially from the sexually repressive moralist legislation they propose, but mainly from my own personal interactions with them. They are decent men at heart, but they're full of fear and it dictates everything they do. I don't agree with much of what people do, but I'm a lot mored worried about my 401K & gas prices.
As for "To Hatuletoh @ 10:39": the SLC registry is not "legislation". The "Legislature" passes "legislation"; it becomes "law" and we citizens are bound by it. Mayor Becker has instigated the creation of a list, which is not a binding law, it's simply a list. If you the citizen and/or business owner wish to ignore it, you are free to do so. As an American, I do not believe that equal rights can be denied to anyone on the grounds that we disagree with what they do with consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.
As for my characterizion of Mr. Buttars and Mr. Bramble as sexually repressed moralists, I must apologize for being unclear: that comes partially from the sexually repressive moralist legislation they propose, but mainly from my own personal interactions with them. They are decent men at heart, but they're full of fear and it dictates everything they do. I don't agree with much of what people do, but I'm a lot mored worried about my 401K & gas prices.
marriage is about... | 1:52 p.m. March 26, 2008
Children! I fear the one group not considered in all this talk are innocent,
impressionable children. If you want to get married for tax benefits and
visitation rights, you have no idea what marriage is really all about.
Anonymous | 2:01 p.m. March 26, 2008
I get a big charge out of conservatives who are so concerned about children
especially the unborn. And once these children are born the get nothing!
No neonatal care
No daycare
No headstart
No school lunch
No food stamps
No welfare
No nothin'!
In fact, conservatives don't really seem to care about these children until they reach military age.
Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.
These types have a lot of nerve whining about what two people do or do not do in the privacy of their own lives.
No neonatal care
No daycare
No headstart
No school lunch
No food stamps
No welfare
No nothin'!
In fact, conservatives don't really seem to care about these children until they reach military age.
Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.
These types have a lot of nerve whining about what two people do or do not do in the privacy of their own lives.
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.
- Plenty of H1N1 vaccine available 6:38 p.m.
- Obama orders 30,000-troop boost 6:37 p.m.
- 2 arrested in Roy double slaying 6:33 p.m.
- Working on new HIV/AIDS vaccine 6:32 p.m.
- BSA to host audiocast over Internet 5:47 p.m.
- Garbage trucks to trash teen drinking 5:47 p.m.
- Court seeks judicial candidates 5:29 p.m.
- Simple candies for the holidays 5:15 p.m.
- Latkes from frozen hash browns 5:14 p.m.
- Cakes taking a starring role 5:14 p.m.
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game
- BYU says Hall incident resolved
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore
- 'Grandfamilies' a growing trend
- Witness: Mitchell wanted attention
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling
- MWC '09 season in review
- Jazz win 6th in 7 games
- Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet
- Jazz ready to be without Harpring
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
901 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime482
- Hall reprimanded by MWC401
- Max Hall issues apology387
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal342
- Utes won't respond to Hall272
- BYU says Hall incident resolved223
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game151
- BYU is champion of the state142
- Religion in politics is tiresome127
My husband was teaching his 6th-grade class in Salt Lake last year when...
Latest comments
Max Hall is not the only BYU affiliate who has harsh feelings against Utah....
I thought his speech was dynamic and "transparent," but like Senator McCain...
The LDS church did not have a prior policy of reporting incest and child...
Yepper's, you betcha, (as Sarah Palin would say), the same DNA is running in...
I'm with you, Big Time BYU fan. Well said.
As a Republican, I fully agree with what President Obama has said. Declaring...
Jorgensen repremanded last week, Hall this week. Wonder who will be next...
I usually watch channel 5 but man all those commercials drive me crazy....
I thought Sylvester was an excellent linebacker the past two seasons. I...
Would it have been different if BYU had lost and Max had made such remarks?...
Advertisements
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.