Reader comments
Salt Lake drops 'domestic partners' phrase
84 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
Frank | 2:04 p.m. March 26, 2008
People with no idea of what marriage is about get married all the time. Can we
stop them, no. They have the same rights and someone with a full understanding
of marriage. Just like there are people who should not wear shorts ever, but
they do and they have that choice. All we as a whole can really do without
stepping on each-others rights is work damage control and try to tape things
together after the mess.
Re: Anonymous 2:01 | 2:09 p.m. March 26, 2008
And it's the conservatives who hate...
Comments continue below
WJ | 2:29 p.m. March 26, 2008
to our anonymous friend at 12:38, it was Buttars himself who said that was what
the term meant. He has been accused of many things, but never of being a liar,
so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on what he meant. BTW, at least
I can be identified as "wj", not one of the many "anonymous"
that post.
alternate | 2:27 p.m. March 26, 2008
What happens if down the road the SLC Mayor and commission create rules that in
order to have a business license, a private company must provide benefits to the
designated "mutual committers".
2nd Question. How easy will it be to change the committers?
How long before, on the same road, people figure out that if you need quick bennies for something big, you find a willing sponsor, get the bennies, then cut up the certificate.
The result would be sky-rocketing insurance cost.
Will it happen? We don't know. Could it happen? Absolutely.
2nd Question. How easy will it be to change the committers?
How long before, on the same road, people figure out that if you need quick bennies for something big, you find a willing sponsor, get the bennies, then cut up the certificate.
The result would be sky-rocketing insurance cost.
Will it happen? We don't know. Could it happen? Absolutely.
Brandon Burt | 2:36 p.m. March 26, 2008
I've noticed that, for the most part, people objecting to the registry
don't understand what it actually does.
Don't worry: The registry will never require you to "pay for someone else's health insurance." The registry doesn't provide insurance for anybody, and it certainly doesn't pay for it.
Some companies may choose to provide health insurance for domestic partners. If they do so, this registry will help them prevent fake domestic-partnership scams.
Note: If a business wants to allow its gay employees to purchase company health insurance for their partners, there is nothing you can do to stop it. The company can do as it wishes. Offering domestic-partner benefits often helps companies attract a better class of employee.
Also, the registry in no way implements the hundreds of legal rights married couples receive. So, rest assured, the gays will still be marginalized, second-class citizens, and you can sleep easily at night.
Don't worry: The registry will never require you to "pay for someone else's health insurance." The registry doesn't provide insurance for anybody, and it certainly doesn't pay for it.
Some companies may choose to provide health insurance for domestic partners. If they do so, this registry will help them prevent fake domestic-partnership scams.
Note: If a business wants to allow its gay employees to purchase company health insurance for their partners, there is nothing you can do to stop it. The company can do as it wishes. Offering domestic-partner benefits often helps companies attract a better class of employee.
Also, the registry in no way implements the hundreds of legal rights married couples receive. So, rest assured, the gays will still be marginalized, second-class citizens, and you can sleep easily at night.
I'm WJ! | 2:42 p.m. March 26, 2008
anonymous WJ,
So, Buttars can just make something up out of thin air and you give him the benefit of the doubt? It is quite clear from the context of Buttars' remark that he was using the term "baby" in reference to the baby in the parable of King Solomon. That baby was a living, human baby. Contextually, Buttars compared the bill in question to a living, human baby which he then described as "black" and then called it a "dark, ugly thing."
It's nice of you to play the fool in supporting him though, really it is . . .
BTW, just for the record, where is the reference to Buttars himself explaining it that way? I'd like to see how many other fools fell for that garbage.
So, Buttars can just make something up out of thin air and you give him the benefit of the doubt? It is quite clear from the context of Buttars' remark that he was using the term "baby" in reference to the baby in the parable of King Solomon. That baby was a living, human baby. Contextually, Buttars compared the bill in question to a living, human baby which he then described as "black" and then called it a "dark, ugly thing."
It's nice of you to play the fool in supporting him though, really it is . . .
BTW, just for the record, where is the reference to Buttars himself explaining it that way? I'd like to see how many other fools fell for that garbage.
Former Conservative | 2:51 p.m. March 26, 2008
If this is another step in the direction of getting "everyone" insured
then I'm all for it. In a wealthy and civilized society, like America,
there just seems to be no excuse for not covering everyone.
And please don't tell me how incredibly expensive that will be. If we can afford the war in Iraq, and to rebuild "their" nation. We can afford to take care of our own citizens.
Just end the stupid war!
And please don't tell me how incredibly expensive that will be. If we can afford the war in Iraq, and to rebuild "their" nation. We can afford to take care of our own citizens.
Just end the stupid war!
Anonymous | 3:10 p.m. March 26, 2008
Conservatism exists to preserve the power held by established institutions.
It's not about balanced budgets or families or pulling yourself up by your
bootstraps. All that is claptrap designed to make it confuse otherwise
goodhearted people.
In this case, what conservatives are focusing on is on the correct family, the correct relationship, the correct kind of marriage, etc.
And these same people are constantly whining about political correctness.
Whacky, aren't they?
In this case, what conservatives are focusing on is on the correct family, the correct relationship, the correct kind of marriage, etc.
And these same people are constantly whining about political correctness.
Whacky, aren't they?
omigosh | 4:03 p.m. March 26, 2008
Salt Lake City & Gomorrah.
god bless us all... we're gonna need it.
(Rocky must be jubilant)
god bless us all... we're gonna need it.
(Rocky must be jubilant)
to: PW | 4:22 p.m. March 26, 2008
because my children will pay your and your partners Social Security, Medicare
and change your diapers in the nursing home. Families like mine continue the
species. What will you leave behind?
the same old song | 4:34 p.m. March 26, 2008
Wouldn't life be grand if people would only learn to mind their own
business?
I see the conservatives are once again freaking out and playing morality police again.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
-John Kenneth Galbraith
I see the conservatives are once again freaking out and playing morality police again.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
-John Kenneth Galbraith
Grandma | 4:32 p.m. March 26, 2008
TO: Anonymous @2:01
Those children do get all those benifits. When I was raising my family. My children were some of the very few that had to pay for lunch at school. They got everything that I had to pay for. Including scholarships for school in college. My one daughter was in the top 2% of nation. Nothing was available except student loan. Don't tell me about the poor .... who get nothing. We lived from pay day to pay day. We've lived within our means. We have good credit, older paid for cars, few fancy vacations and no bills. Every penny my husband makes he works hard for. Every one should be responsible for themselves. And give what they can. But, I hear it all the time. Hey I can make more on welfare or disablilty than to go to work. Concervative doesn't mean total support of all who could care less about their own responsibilities. I also pay full tithing that goes to good things too. We want to help and get them on their own. They need to do that.
Those children do get all those benifits. When I was raising my family. My children were some of the very few that had to pay for lunch at school. They got everything that I had to pay for. Including scholarships for school in college. My one daughter was in the top 2% of nation. Nothing was available except student loan. Don't tell me about the poor .... who get nothing. We lived from pay day to pay day. We've lived within our means. We have good credit, older paid for cars, few fancy vacations and no bills. Every penny my husband makes he works hard for. Every one should be responsible for themselves. And give what they can. But, I hear it all the time. Hey I can make more on welfare or disablilty than to go to work. Concervative doesn't mean total support of all who could care less about their own responsibilities. I also pay full tithing that goes to good things too. We want to help and get them on their own. They need to do that.
TO: to: PW | 4:38 p.m. March 26, 2008
So only fertile couples are worth anything to you? Social Security and other
programs have nothing to do with a domestic partner. Those people paid for your
children's education, a little payback doesn't hurt does it?
Theoretically social security will in turn be available for YOUR kids too.
Anonymous | 4:57 p.m. March 26, 2008
"If you're a liberal, anything you say is protected. If you're a
conservative, anything you say is hateful.�
- Laura Schlessinger
The posts on this subject most certainly attest to Ms. Schlessinger's words.
- Laura Schlessinger
The posts on this subject most certainly attest to Ms. Schlessinger's words.
My two cents | 5:51 p.m. March 26, 2008
I heard on the radio the other day, that goes beautifully with the last post
"Liberals want to put their hand on your pocket book (government programs), Conservatives want to put their hand in your bedroom (what goes on in there)...all politicians have their hand somewhere. Politics is just Hollywood for ugly people."
"Liberals want to put their hand on your pocket book (government programs), Conservatives want to put their hand in your bedroom (what goes on in there)...all politicians have their hand somewhere. Politics is just Hollywood for ugly people."
Anonymous | 6:12 p.m. March 26, 2008
If you don't like the laws, don't elect the people who make them.
Anonymous | 6:27 p.m. March 26, 2008
As soon as conservatives realize that we were all born liberal by nature, they
can drop the ridiculous charade they think they are so cleverly pulling off and
join the human race.
Hard to figure why conservatives appear so stuck all the time? I mean, ALL of us have experienced some sort of psychological trauma(s) in our lives, but we get over them and move forward.
Why do you suppose conservatives cannot move forward?
Hard to figure why conservatives appear so stuck all the time? I mean, ALL of us have experienced some sort of psychological trauma(s) in our lives, but we get over them and move forward.
Why do you suppose conservatives cannot move forward?
Disgusted Utahn | 7:09 p.m. March 26, 2008
Words are words but it means nothing. The concept remains the same... it's
the appearance of evil that people aren't aware of. It's still wrong,
no matter how hard you try to cover it up... it's so obvious that it is
morally wrong.
Boiseguy | 7:42 p.m. March 26, 2008
Conservatives who run the show.. want you and i to be conservative,they are
certainly not conservative themselves.. they feed the masses crumbs of bread
like anti gay marriage laws, and anti abortion laws. The reality is they
don't care, because our stupidity is lining their pocketbooks.
I don't claim to say liberals who run their show aren't playing the same game, but being a free thinker and a liberal are two different things. To the breeders who want to stand on a soap box and profess how important their kids are for paying for our social security. I'm paying someone else's as we speak as well, and the reality is it won't be there by the time I retire anyway.If this society is going to function it will have to implement more social programs. Capitalism is full of winners and losers.. if you let the game play too long.. most of us turn into losers and a select few who win own it all and call the shots..and then of course game is over. glad all you breeding baby boomers are sure of yourselves and your convictions, hope your ideals work out for your kids since you're so right.
I don't claim to say liberals who run their show aren't playing the same game, but being a free thinker and a liberal are two different things. To the breeders who want to stand on a soap box and profess how important their kids are for paying for our social security. I'm paying someone else's as we speak as well, and the reality is it won't be there by the time I retire anyway.If this society is going to function it will have to implement more social programs. Capitalism is full of winners and losers.. if you let the game play too long.. most of us turn into losers and a select few who win own it all and call the shots..and then of course game is over. glad all you breeding baby boomers are sure of yourselves and your convictions, hope your ideals work out for your kids since you're so right.
Linguist | 8:09 p.m. March 26, 2008
This is about doing what is right: couples in committed, stable relationships
are good for society. It's also in society's interest for the law to
be clear. When a couple gets married, the legal rights and responsibilities are
clear--all spelled out in the law.
To pretend that same-sex couples don't need that same clarity in the law is really puzzling to me. Isn't it BETTER for society to have clear-cut laws delineating rights and responsibilities when couples lead intertwined lives, with shared homes, mortgages, bank accounts and life decisions?
Beyond animus, why on earth would anyone want to prevent them from protecting their relationship?
I honestly don't understand the intent to hurt innocent people and throw roadblocks in front of them as they try to lead their lives.
To pretend that same-sex couples don't need that same clarity in the law is really puzzling to me. Isn't it BETTER for society to have clear-cut laws delineating rights and responsibilities when couples lead intertwined lives, with shared homes, mortgages, bank accounts and life decisions?
Beyond animus, why on earth would anyone want to prevent them from protecting their relationship?
I honestly don't understand the intent to hurt innocent people and throw roadblocks in front of them as they try to lead their lives.
I'm movin to Salt Lake | 8:28 p.m. March 26, 2008
I work for the state of Washington and several years ago they cut some benefits
for married couples to offer benefits to same sex couples. What really irked me
was I could insure a lesbian lover but I couldn't insure my developmentally
disabled brother and unemployed sister. At least Salt Lake has that going for
them. I think I need to talk to my union rep.
Ronald A. Young | 9:54 p.m. March 26, 2008
Remember when almost everyone felt okay when Roommates where the same gender.
Yet people who where one male and one female, shacking up or not was considered
not proper, unless it was your mother, father, sister or brother. Oh for the
good old days. Two people of the same Gender cannot be married. It is vastly
different from when blacks and whites of different genders could not merry. Or
slaves could not merry. People did what they had to do anyway. Domestic Partners
or what ever else you want to call it are two unrelated people of the same
gender living together as a couple. (man and wife). Who is who is sometimes
known and sometimes not known except to the two people. Vastly they are educated
people, hold jobs and few are homeless. Some have Children, Foster Children, or
Adopted Children. The question is should they have the rights and bennies of a
Married Couple as far as Health, Property, Custody and Inheritance issues.
Retirement, SSI and other things. Since our society will not stop them from
doing what they are doing, then they need to be protected. If others can't
accept that oh well..
To Linguist | 10:16 p.m. March 26, 2008
Your last sentence is laughable.
What you're actually describing is this. All people know the rules. A few people decide they want to play outside the rules. Then they kick and scream and whine about the rules not being fair - that we should change the rules because a few decide they don't want to play by the rules. These selfish people decide that anyone who disagrees with changing the rules is phobic and hateful.
How many of you actually like playing with someone who always wants to change the rules after the game is started?
So I ask you, who is perpetrating the hurt?
What you're actually describing is this. All people know the rules. A few people decide they want to play outside the rules. Then they kick and scream and whine about the rules not being fair - that we should change the rules because a few decide they don't want to play by the rules. These selfish people decide that anyone who disagrees with changing the rules is phobic and hateful.
How many of you actually like playing with someone who always wants to change the rules after the game is started?
So I ask you, who is perpetrating the hurt?
Nathanial Ashby | 10:32 p.m. March 26, 2008
True conservatives wouldn't want the legislature to micromanage the city.
The city's database is the city's, not representatives from across the
state. Conservatism is about protecting the people from the government. The
Republican party is NOT conservative. The Constitution party is
conservative...the Libertarian party is also.
Linguist | 5:52 a.m. March 27, 2008
"...So I ask you, who is perpetrating the hurt?"
This is less about assigning blame than it is about remedying a wrong.
Gay couples need to protect their relationships for the same reasons and in the same ways that opposite-sex couples do.
Societal rules need to be fair. It isn't "whining" when one points out why those rules ought to be changed.
I am also startled by the vehemence with which innocent gay people are targeted as those "to blame", either for pointing out unfairness in the rules, or for actively trying to fix a bad situation.
Were you the one prevented from visiting your spouse in hospital or of putting your spouse's name on legal titles without penalties, I suspect you wouldn't view it as fair, and you wouldn't see speaking out against that unfairness as "whining". I don't believe it's any more selfish for a gay person to seek such protections than it was for you.
Some rules need to be changed in order to ensure that all are being included in "the game", as you call it.
This is less about assigning blame than it is about remedying a wrong.
Gay couples need to protect their relationships for the same reasons and in the same ways that opposite-sex couples do.
Societal rules need to be fair. It isn't "whining" when one points out why those rules ought to be changed.
I am also startled by the vehemence with which innocent gay people are targeted as those "to blame", either for pointing out unfairness in the rules, or for actively trying to fix a bad situation.
Were you the one prevented from visiting your spouse in hospital or of putting your spouse's name on legal titles without penalties, I suspect you wouldn't view it as fair, and you wouldn't see speaking out against that unfairness as "whining". I don't believe it's any more selfish for a gay person to seek such protections than it was for you.
Some rules need to be changed in order to ensure that all are being included in "the game", as you call it.
To Linguist | 10:01 a.m. March 27, 2008
My point was (is) that everyone makes choices. Everyone is accountable for
those choices and the resulting consequences (good or bad). When someone makes
a choice knowing full well what the consequences will be, and then complains
about it - is that "fair"?
If you decide to go to college and choose a major that you know isn't marketable; that's your choice and you should accept the consequences, not whine about them. If you decide that you're going to get married, you shouldn't whine that you can't go bar hopping with your single buddies anymore. If you decide that doing drugs is for you, you shouldn't whine because you can't get a job since you can't pass a drug test.
I know it's easier not to accept responsibility for our own actions, but really, who's choices put you in the situation you've found yourself.
If you decide to go to college and choose a major that you know isn't marketable; that's your choice and you should accept the consequences, not whine about them. If you decide that you're going to get married, you shouldn't whine that you can't go bar hopping with your single buddies anymore. If you decide that doing drugs is for you, you shouldn't whine because you can't get a job since you can't pass a drug test.
I know it's easier not to accept responsibility for our own actions, but really, who's choices put you in the situation you've found yourself.
Oren | 10:38 a.m. March 27, 2008
Name change means nothing. It is what it is.
The subject here is a "registry:" not personal bigotries you want published.
"argumentum ad hominem" is a poor debating choice. Translation, change the subject.
The subject here is a "registry:" not personal bigotries you want published.
"argumentum ad hominem" is a poor debating choice. Translation, change the subject.
boiseguy | 2:42 p.m. March 27, 2008
many are assuming that people choose to be gay... if they did then of course the
argument of choice falls into place and makes total sense.
sadly though you are wrong and misinformed or ignorant.. gay people do not choose it... so therefore the "game" must allow them to function within it.
sadly though you are wrong and misinformed or ignorant.. gay people do not choose it... so therefore the "game" must allow them to function within it.
Anonymous | 3:32 p.m. March 27, 2008
Good to see Utah is progressing in some ways.
To to Linguist | 3:30 p.m. March 27, 2008
If homosexuality is a choice, why is it that so many of those who are gay have
expressed that they knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they were gay at an
extremely young age? Surely those who knew as young as 1st grade are not simply
choosing to be different. Something else MUST be at play. While being
homosexual may not be decided by genetics, there is a lot of evidence coming out
that suggests that homosexuality may be due to a hormonal change in the womb.
Either way you slice it, it's not a choice.
Linguist | 4:26 p.m. March 27, 2008
My response:
Indeed, everyone makes choices.
As a gay person, my choices included pretending I wasn't gay or accepting the fact that I was; marrying a woman (your sister? your daughter?), living alone, or sharing my life with someone I was committed to, adore and who adores me.
What I didn't choose was to be gay. In fact, I spent many decades in a sometimes desperate effort to not be who I was. That wasn't a choice, apparently. So, given the reality of my life, I then had to decide the best path for a good, moral and meaningful life.
Analogies are never perfect, but let me try one. I have known a number of Deaf people--some wonderful people. Not one chose to be Deaf. What they did have to decide was the best way to interact with society--and you'll find a variety in the extent to which individual Deaf people use sign language to communicate, spoken English, even pencil and paper. Some had cochlear implants.
They didn't choose to be deaf, and we as a society don't punish those who are--at least not on purpose. Instead, we make education available, closed-captioning on TV and so on. To be fair.
Indeed, everyone makes choices.
As a gay person, my choices included pretending I wasn't gay or accepting the fact that I was; marrying a woman (your sister? your daughter?), living alone, or sharing my life with someone I was committed to, adore and who adores me.
What I didn't choose was to be gay. In fact, I spent many decades in a sometimes desperate effort to not be who I was. That wasn't a choice, apparently. So, given the reality of my life, I then had to decide the best path for a good, moral and meaningful life.
Analogies are never perfect, but let me try one. I have known a number of Deaf people--some wonderful people. Not one chose to be Deaf. What they did have to decide was the best way to interact with society--and you'll find a variety in the extent to which individual Deaf people use sign language to communicate, spoken English, even pencil and paper. Some had cochlear implants.
They didn't choose to be deaf, and we as a society don't punish those who are--at least not on purpose. Instead, we make education available, closed-captioning on TV and so on. To be fair.
Linguist | 4:32 p.m. March 27, 2008
(continued)
Regardless of what causes an individual to be Deaf, we as a just and fair society should strive to be inclusive, to be fair.
Regardless of why I am gay --whether it's genetic, conditions in utero, or because I was dropped on my head one time too many, doesn't matter. We as a fair and just society must do what we can to be fair and inclusive of people who, like me, grow up realizing we were "different".
As a gay person, I have choices. And one of the more reasonable and responsible choices is to be in a committed relationship with someone whom I love and depend on and who loves me and depends on me. Our lives are intertwined-- finances, mortgage, bills, and decisions.
And the law ought to reflect that reality.
It's not "whining" to say that the "rules" currently exclude me--they do. And it ought to be understandable to all when people like me expect my society--in an effort to be fair and just--would do what it could to ensure that I too am included in its institutions.
Regardless of what causes an individual to be Deaf, we as a just and fair society should strive to be inclusive, to be fair.
Regardless of why I am gay --whether it's genetic, conditions in utero, or because I was dropped on my head one time too many, doesn't matter. We as a fair and just society must do what we can to be fair and inclusive of people who, like me, grow up realizing we were "different".
As a gay person, I have choices. And one of the more reasonable and responsible choices is to be in a committed relationship with someone whom I love and depend on and who loves me and depends on me. Our lives are intertwined-- finances, mortgage, bills, and decisions.
And the law ought to reflect that reality.
It's not "whining" to say that the "rules" currently exclude me--they do. And it ought to be understandable to all when people like me expect my society--in an effort to be fair and just--would do what it could to ensure that I too am included in its institutions.
Coming True Everyday | 12:11 p.m. March 28, 2008
It's been prophesied that the Salt Lake area would someday become one of
the most wicked cities in the world. Those with vision can see it occuring
little by little. If you're not LDS should that offend you? No, not if
you act with reverence and respect towards God and your fellow man. And, no,
pushing homosexuality in any manner, shape or form is not on God's list of
"things OK to do".....
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
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.
- 8 killed in Kabul suicide bombing 1:38 a.m.
- Explosions rock downtown Baghdad 1:32 a.m.
- Family found dead in Calif. home 1:32 a.m.
- House GOP won't take no-tax pledge 12:18 a.m.
- Storms dumped lots of snow in Utah 12:18 a.m.
- Deputies dragged by fleeing car 12:17 a.m.
- Some charities are close to folding 12:16 a.m.
- Insurance exchange not faring well 12:16 a.m.
- Gila Valley Temple dedication set 12:16 a.m.
- Davis schedules 2 free H1N1 clinics 12:15 a.m.
- Wet spot found in Powell's home
- Sources: Josh Powell hires attorney
- Y. opponent nearly smelled roses
- D-Will treats military families to party
- MWC looks better in basketball
- Pace happy not to be noticed
- Maynor amazed by L.A. fans
- High school football: All-region teams
- Jazz Extra: Starting 5
- Jazz will have full lineup tonight
- Gay-friendly curriculum phased out
145 - LDS to emphasize helping needy125
- Unga might enter NFL draft106
- BYU to wear royal blue uniforms103
- Disappearance called 'suspicious'96
- TV mom gives birth to 19th child96
- Choir, guests unwrap musical magic84
- Barkley says Boozer is big problem81
- Sources: Josh Powell hires attorney80
- Stay the course with our president79
David Rankin, one of Utah's youngest and ablest astrophotographers has...
There was a time when free shipping was rare. This holiday season, you...
First of all, to "20/20," how can you read newspapers and not understand...
Latest comments
"Price has been problematic for proponents of the exchange who have been...
By the way: Legacy Highway was the suggested alternative to hwy 89.
..but, unfortunately, it sells papers because people want in on the gossip.
Peanuts are NOT NUTS. They are legumes, like beans are. I am allergic to tree...
Mosiah 4: 16-18: So tell me at what point did Mosiah say give of you...
Now take advantage of their size and strength and run the ball more --...
Kim Shinkoskey...I'm afraid your the one who lost his mind.
It seems to me that if Tiger is going to be about fixing his problem the...
Well said...
Spoken like someone truly out of touch with reality. You now want us to...
Advertisements
I think you're giving Butters and Bramble much more credit than they deserve.