Deseret News | Chaffetz leads opposition to benefits for gay workers

Reader comments
Chaffetz leads opposition to benefits for gay workers

Anonymous | 5:18 p.m. July 8, 2009

freedom is freedom, and equality is equality. Chaffetz is on the wrong side of equality & freedom.

Disgusted | 5:18 p.m. July 8, 2009

I firmly oppose legislation to define Marriage in any way. I firmly believe that "Marriage" is between one man and one woman. HOWEVER (and it's a big however) all of the rights (such as insurance benefits, end of life decisions, access to patients in hospital rooms, etc) can and SHOULD be extended to couples regardless of how those couple are made up without calling their relationship marriage. There are plenty of hetero couples who aren't married who suffer the same fate as homosexual or lesiban couples. It's simply not right.

While I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, I don't think it's right to discriminate against other kinds of couples! There is a way to make both sides happy.

Days Of Cannon | 5:22 p.m. July 8, 2009

Chris Cannon wasn't even this Big of a Moron in office, He said and did a lot of stupid things. My guess is Chaffetz passes Cannon in 6 Months for stupidity. If the GOP wants to change and attract more voters they need to move on from these Right Wing freaks in Office, He makes Everyone in Utah look like hillbillies with what he says and does as a Congressman. God Forbid he runs against Bennett, Bennett needs to go but not at the expense of getting this Moron. If you the gop wants to have a Chance at President in 2012 then they need to not put Palin in and move more to the center of things.

Comments continue below

Thinkin' Man | 5:24 p.m. July 8, 2009

One potential problem of benefits for same-sex partners is abuse of the system. Any old roommate could apply for benefits.

Define Domestic Partner-- | 5:31 p.m. July 8, 2009

I am not gay, but I have a mentally challenged brother that lives with me. He cannot hold a job and is over age 21 so it falls to me as his only living relative to care for him and provide for him.
Is it enjoyable?? No, it is not, but I can not afford in home nurse care which he needs nor can I afford all the meds he needs. I suppose I could abandon him and let him live in a homeless situation.(That is not going to happen)
He doesn't qualify for medicare so while I have health insurance he does not..
So my question Mr Chaffetz, what are you thinking??? This bill would allow my brother to be included on my health insurance and receive proper medical care. What if he were your brother Mr Chaffetz?? Why don't you do what is right for your constituents and quit running for office until it's time to announce and run. Let's stop the run for election from the time your elected and think of those that elected you--- Do your job Mr Chaffetz and think outside the box...

bill goes against other couples | 5:31 p.m. July 8, 2009

bill goes against other couples

As Chaffetz points out, the bill to make things equal - doesn't. Other family structures are discriminated against and this doesn't help. It is a bad bill, kill it.

Harvey Milk | 5:35 p.m. July 8, 2009

Jason, me thinks, needs a little "cot talk".

Dixie Dan | 8:34 p.m. July 8, 2009

How naive is Chaffez? Many, many private employers offer this benefit to their employees. In fact, he should check with IHC and find out how many employers in Utah offer this coverage to their clients.

I agree | 9:11 p.m. July 8, 2009

with jason

Cats | 9:17 p.m. July 8, 2009

Jason, you have got a lot of guts. That is a really hard thing to do in Washington in a House hearing. WAY TO GO!

Popular in Utah | 9:19 p.m. July 8, 2009

Chaffetz is engaging in political grandstanding. He is doing this to appeal to the lowest common denominator of his Utah County base.

Federal benefits for same sex couples is merely basic fairness. How inhumane does one have to be to act and think like Chaffetz? This isn't Gay Marriage, it's just extending benefits. I thought a majority of Utahans favored equal benefits, as long as it's not called "marriage".

Extending benefits to all is the Christ-like thing to do, regardless of how you feel about the sin. How can you "love the sinner, but hate the sin" if you deny basic benefits? Seems to me you have to hate the sinner and the sin to be so heartless.

Not fair to singles | 9:29 p.m. July 8, 2009

Giving benefits to all couples will just cost those who are single more money...but they get no benefit. Could we solve the whole problem by providing a certain amount of money to individuals, then let them buy what coverage they want? That way we stop discriminating against single people (which no one ever talks about when complaining about how things "aren't equal").

Jared | 9:44 p.m. July 8, 2009

If your arguments about gay couples not being "legit" marriages hold true, then all couples without kids should have their benefits stripped away as well. Just because your views of what is moral and not moral doesn't give you a right to dictate to people how they will be treated in an equal and fair society. I'm LDS and feel that giving people agency and LOVE are far more important than imposing beliefs on others. Isn't it satan's plan to force God's will on everybody? Whats the difference by shunning out gays and taking away their rights? You're forcing your beliefs on them so they live how you want them to live. Gays don't destroy society, discrimination does. People like Chaffetz is the reason I don't vote republican anymore. If you claim to be Christian, its hypocritical to deny people their rights to live as they choose. Thats "God's Plan", liberty to choose how to live your life.

History | 10:53 p.m. July 8, 2009

How did we get to present norm of an employer offering benefits beyond the actual employee?

There was a time when one member of the family was the earner. Another member of the family, with potentially the most interesting but also perhaps the most challenging job, managed the base. Together they raised a new generation.

Now with that model and it is a good one--likely the best one--only one member of the family has a direct relationship with the employer but all members of the family need insurance. Employers, competing with each other for talent, eventually came to the family benefit.

However, once you take the next generation out of the equation, there is no longer a need for the family benefit. A childless couple of any sort has two earners and two points of contact with employer benefits.

Narrow minds | 11:50 p.m. July 8, 2009

History will document Chaffetz's poor excuse for human rights. Marriage was not part of this discussion; the need for health benefits is the discussion.

Where does this narrow-minded thinking come from?

John C. | 3:51 a.m. July 9, 2009

Now let me make it clear that I’m against gay marriage, but I have no problem with same sex partners being able to get on same insurance coverage. Also for other situations like say one of my sisters or brother or parent comes to live with my family and can’t work I should be able to get her on my insurance. This issue has nothing to do with marriage.

Define marriage | 8:14 a.m. July 9, 2009

"Marriage" can be different things to different people. Some people get married in a church, following the beliefs of that religion. Others opt for civil marriages, with no religion involved. The term "marriage" is not just for ones that meet the requirements of certain, oppressive religions; it means any committed relationship, backed by secular law. Government has no right to restrict marriages to same-sex couples, just because some regressive religions think that their marriages are the only "real" marriages. They are wrong.

Anonymous | 8:19 a.m. July 9, 2009

The sanctity of marriage is already tarnished. This isn't even a question of marriage it is about benefits. My Boyfriend and I are considered "domestic partners" that is how he is on my insurance. Does that devalue marriage too? I told him I don't want to be married until everyone has the same rights as we do.

Ridiculous | 9:40 a.m. July 9, 2009

Either offer benefits equally, or eliminate them altogether.

Tom in Lazybrook | 11:05 a.m. July 9, 2009

Surprise, surprise. A Mormon Congressman wants Gays and Lesbians to be paid less in total compensation than straights for the same work.

The red herring called marriage | 1:58 p.m. July 9, 2009

I have been in legislative committees on hate crimes where people argued against criminal penalties because they would "threaten marriage." On bills about employment discrimination I've heard calls to "protect marriage." I'm afraid if I ever attend a hearing on HIV funding I'll hear cries about "the definition of marriage." I have two things to say to Jason and other Marriage cryers:
1- I'm not talking about marriage.
2- If you want to talk to me about protecting marriage, talk to me about reducing domestic violence, providing family planning services to low-income families, offering daycare to families, or financial planning for newlyweds. Then I'll listen. But if your marriage depends on keeping gay and lesbian people unprotected under the law, then I don't want your marriage and I don't think it's worth protecting.

RE: RE: Jared | 5:27 p.m. July 9, 2009

Your comments are incoherent.

Who said benefits are a right? The are a benefit.

They are not "extra", they are part of a "benefits package" offered an employee to work for an employer. In fairness, all employees doing the same work should be treated & compensated equally.

We are talking about fairness, equality and compassion. I understand that Chaffetz supporters find treating Gays & Lesbians fairly, equally and compassionately offensive. But that says more about their values and morals. Know that those values and morals are not anything to be proud of.

These old school ideas are dying fast and those who hold onto them are going to be left behind by the next generation that is seeking a higher level of spirituality and equality.

RE: RE: RE: RE: Jared | 9:26 a.m. July 10, 2009

It's time to get past the notion that if you don't let your tax dollars go towards insuring a gay man, you don't pay for his health care. The bills of the unemployed and ill do not magically disappear. By refusing to extend insurance to families of gay employees, you are encouraging hospitals to raise your health care costs to cover the unpaid bills of those families.

Health insurance now, or catastrophic subsidies later. You choose.

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.