Comments about ‘Gay rights bill gets committee approval’

I'm not sure how this law would harm traditional marriage. It seems reasonable that one should be able to designate who can stand for them should something tragic happen. As long as the children are cared for first, I think this is a step in the right direction.

Regardless of how the author of this legislation characterizes it, it is just for homosexual relationships, and no one else.

The article states, ". . . to qualify the person would have to prove that they had been living together, had been designated as the beneficiary of retirement benefits, a health insurance policy or will and that both people shared assets and liabilities."

This will not protect, for example, a mother or grandmother living with her daughter or granddaughter. Typically in such cases the daughter and mother/grandmother do not share assets and liabilities. And rarely is a grandmother her granddaughter's retirement beneficiary.

Clearly, this legislation's author, Senator McCoy, is being disingenuous.

I listened to this hearing on-line, and I complement the author of the article for doing a better job than most reporters do when writing about committee hearings.

Also, though I do recognize Sen. McCoy's argument, I have two problems with supporting this bill.

First, while it may be appropriate to give standing to two people who are "mutually dependent," I don't think the idea of granting more standing so people can sue for wrongful death is a good idea, whether those people are homosexuals or grandmother/granddaughter. People sue each other too much already. If I support my grandmother and I get killed by a bus, then why should my grandmother be able to sue the offender for millions? It's my responsibility to add her to my life insurance policy if I am worried about that.

Secondly, there's just something eerie about this bill. Even though it may not do anything to change the definition of marriage in Utah, just knowing that it's part of McCoy's gay rights agenda turns me off. He would have done better to convince someone else to sponsor it.

So if that person has children from another relationship and or been married before can they sue and if the parent can they sue, who has the first right. These are all questions that need to be answered because someone will pay dearly.

This is another attempt by the gay community to feel "validation". They think that if they keep hammering away at the edges of the issues, then eventually, they'll have made so many inroads, that it won't be much of a leap to give them "marriage rights".

I hope it gets voted down at the legislature!

So stop whining!

Sure technology has advanced and changed from the 50's. That doesn't mean morals have to. This is part of the gay agenda. What did another liberal say about putting lipstick on a pig? This is about one thing and one thing only.

I think finding common ground and compromising is what makes this country different and frankly far stronger than any other. Frankly I think that a majority of Utahns would find this very reasonable. I'm so tired of both sides on this issue insisting on an "all or nothing" approach to things. I hope the legislature will follow the recommendation of the committee.

Having endured the ridiculous, negligent, flawed health care which has now permanently disabled my gay brother, this is the best news. As it stands, a gay person with no children, living parents and of course no spouse, can become an open target for shoddy health care because where is the accountability? I believe most physicians and nurses and health care facilities are looking out for the patients best interest..But sadly, this is not always the case. I believe this will encourage the health system to dole out good care equally. I also do not find it necessary to ask a patient if they are marrried or have dependants on any medical admission form.I also believe every patient has the right to have any person who facilitates healing and comforts them, at their side as an advocate while they are in an institution of health. The right to sue for gross malpractice which causes a lifetime of suffering or death ought to have accountability...even if the victim is gay. If that means extending this right to a domestic partner, if only to insure a more optimal outcome for the patient...this would be a great day for all Americans.

What's next? Cats and dogs living together?

looks unconstitutional to me.

Just as common law marriage laws muddy the definition of relationships this does too. If they are concerned about someone making it if they were to die then they need to buy some insurance and name anyone they want as the beneficiary. The insurance company can go after those causing wrongful death. This is just a vieled attempt at pushing through gay rights.

Your Church leadership has supported these gay rights, so what's your "moral" argument now? Sounds like a lot of conspiracy theorists and ignorant people who don't want to know what the law is, they hear gay and have decided it is an attempt to enslave them into an evil lifestyle.

How is this a victory for anything other than the gay rights movement?

What about a gay father's kids? Since insurance is seldom sufficient to pay all claims, they will be aced out of funds they need for subsistence, college, therapy, etc. by Dad's gay lover! That sure sounds compassionate!

Greg Bell says it "does nothing to undermine traditional marriage." Nothing but place a gay lover in a position superior to a person's own flesh and blood.

Passing this bill would be nothing but the first in a long series of victories gays will be pressing for. Each victory will chip away at the family and at decency.

How can anyone suggest that's a victory for compassion?

it seems that the bill would have to be written so that any to people that have lived together and have proven finacial dependency would be able to sue in the case of wrongful death, not just gay men and woman. As long as the bill is written this way I see no problem with it.

This sounds 99% good to me. I would love to say "GREAT" go for it.... except for... in the wording it said that if there was any financial income from a suit it would go to the "minor" children first. I think that it should go to the children first weather they are minor or adult! they are still that person's children and they should have that reconition all the time. They don't need to have it all - but they still should get some of it. You can't erase that blood tie just because you choose a new partner what ever sex it is. As I said.. I am 99% alright with this,but not 100%

Here we go again! Shame on you utah committee! What next. How much more tax payers money are you going to waste on this Gay agenda. Its time to do your jobs and go home. I hope you can sleep at night.

I'm always entertained by this inane theory that the white America in the 1950's were and still are the pinnacle of moral perfection of the human race. Think a little.

The committee represents all taxpayers, not just the ones that pay the most in. Shame on you for thinking only your agenda should be heard.

Have they supported this? I would like to think they have given all of their statements before Prop-8 passed, but they've been virtually silent on the gay rights issue since any of these proposals came up in the legislature that would actually protect homosexuals.