Reader comments
Committee sinks death-benefits bill

Mary Lifferth | 7:53 p.m. Jan. 27, 2009

I must say that I am disappointed with the result of the vote in the senate committee. I think GLBT should have as many rights as possible and everyone should ignore their religious and prejudice beliefs and let these people alone.

Why be surprised? | 8:02 p.m. Jan. 27, 2009

With Buttars as chair of the committee and Gayle Ruzicka riding shotgun none of the bills proposed by Equality Utah will get out of committee.

Why bother? | 8:15 p.m. Jan. 27, 2009

Gov, your new committee asks why Utahans are not voting, why bother?

Comments continue below

funnyguy | 9:24 p.m. Jan. 27, 2009

It's like saying that if a man and woman were living together and NOT married are at the same disavantage...A partner is a partner, wether in business or life..

uncannygunman | 1:49 a.m. Jan. 28, 2009

Shameful, but not unexpected.

There's a very simple fix, you know--just allow gays and lesbians to marry like straight people can. Takes care of all these problems.

Susan Roylance | 5:38 a.m. Jan. 28, 2009

While Equality Utah, and Senator McCoy, said this bill was not about marriage -- in his summation McCoy said this bill is "about families." In Utah a family is legally recognized as beginning with a marriage.

Sad | 9:04 a.m. Jan. 28, 2009

I really hoped that the state legislature would have followed the teachings of the church that they use as their moral compass and given rights to gays and lesbians. The LDS church clearly stated in the Prop 8 debate that they support civil and partner rights for same sex couples, but don't support changing the definition of marriage. What can't gays and lesbians in Utah have those rights? Who is being hurt by two people in love being able to protect, support, and care for one another? I'm so confused, someone please give me a LOGICAL answer to these questions.

Family Values | 10:30 a.m. Jan. 28, 2009

The traditional family is the ideal, but to protect the traditional family is it really necessary to endanger all others?

The Common Grounds initiative is not about gay marriage. It is about all households with financially dependent cohabitants having access to the same basic securities. Denying these equal protections leaves these families vulnerable in moments of crisis.

Are we really protecting anything by denying these bills? How much damage are we willing to inflict to stick to an ideal?

Face | 10:38 a.m. Jan. 28, 2009

One comment said to let these people alone. I will leave them alone when they quit getting in my face over their perceived down trodden state.

Perceived? | 11:54 a.m. Jan. 28, 2009

Face, if you were prohibited by law from marrying the person you love, would you not consider that a real discrimination? Utah's Amendment 3 and California's Proposition 8 are certainly more than "perceived" laws, they are real pieces of legislation that remove legal rights and protections from a segment of our population. Yet you seem to think that anyone who tries to correct such injustices is "getting in your face."

Then again, you probably would have said the same about blacks during the civil rights protests of the 60s. After all, their separate (but equal) facilities should have been good enough for them, right? They should have quit getting in everyone's face about "their perceived down trodden (sic) state."

Good Job! | 12:00 p.m. Jan. 28, 2009

The best cure for a problem is prevention. Let's not even go down that road.

Rights | 1:41 p.m. Jan. 28, 2009

I love how this always turns to someone being denied rights. But they never answer the basic question of where those rights came from.

Just Me | 1:58 p.m. Jan. 28, 2009

This is just so very sad that the lords words of love one another are beyond the comprehension of our leaders.

Anonymous | 3:57 p.m. Jan. 28, 2009

Susan Roylance | 5:38 a.m. Jan. 28, 2009
"While Equality Utah, and Senator McCoy, said this bill was not about marriage -- in his summation McCoy said this bill is "about families." In Utah a family is legally recognized as beginning with a marriage."

I don't htink so, Susan. There are all types of families in Utah. Couples that have never married but have children ARE a family. Grandmothers that are raising their grandchildren ARE a family. Single, unwed mothers doing their best to raise their children ARE a family. Even divorced mothers and fathers sharing children, each ARE a family. Legally, these guardians claim the children as dependents.

Where are you coming from to deny these families that title? Is there a legal standing in Utah that I do not know about that saves the word "family" for only those who are married? Please help me understand.

Help | 4:00 p.m. Jan. 28, 2009

You know they are just upholding the morality of this state and suporting tradition.

What a bunch of fools. Can't they look outside of their box? Please, Utah. Let's vote in some real people next time!

To Rights | 4:34 p.m. Jan. 28, 2009

Rights | 1:41 p.m. Jan. 28, 2009
"I love how this always turns to someone being denied rights. But they never answer the basic question of where those rights came from."

Equity Utah is trying to gain those "rights" by addressing the legislature for them. This is how it is done in the United States. By this committee summaruily dismissing this, the legislature is denying them rights.

This bill was regarding those who are dependent upon or with another person for their livlihood. Should that person be killed due to negligance, this bill would have given the survivor the right to sue those who were negligent for damages.

How this threatens traditional marriage is beyond me.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.