Gay legislators having impact in marriage debates

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Forastero Taylorsville, Utah
    March 7, 2011 4:49 p.m.

    They just need to get power of attorney for a doctor to consult with one of them if partner is seriously ill...or is that too ordinary and easy?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 7, 2011 1:48 p.m.

    Hawaii and Illinois are now among seven states that allow civil unions or their equivalent state-level marriage rights in virtually everything but name. Article

    I LOVE the writer of this!

    'Virtually'. It's SO CLOSE!

    Like: 'Almost, pretty close, maybe, kinda, sortta.'

    i.e. NOT the same.

    You cannot VIRTUALLY have all the rights of marriage. You don't ALMOST have all the rights and legal protections.

    You either HAVE the same rights...

    or you don't.

    I'll even take a line from Miss Piggie: 'Doesn't matter what the states do.' - Miss Piggie | 2:10 p.m.

    It dosen't, as, while DOMA is being struck down in court...

    *'Gay marriage wins rulings in pair of federal challenges' - By Denise Lavoie - AP - Published by DSNews - 07/08/10
    'U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that...'

    It is still being recognized. So, any state gay marriage/civil union...

    is nullifeid once you leave the state of origin.

    Does your marriage stop when you leave a state?

    I didn't think so.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 7, 2011 1:43 p.m.

    'Basic planning documents include a Medical Directive to Physicians in case of serious illness or injury.' - lifesublime | 8:06 a.m.

    That would make sense...

    IF state county did NOT have the ability to over-ride such documentation. For evidence, I provide 'Harold and Clay' in Sonoma county, CA. They had: Will, Medical Directive's, Power of Attorney...

    and all were ignored by the county.

    This was April, 2008.

    Both were placed in retierment homes against thier will, and all belongings sold when one fell ill. No Directives were followed and Clay got to sit in a room, by himself, while his partner of 20 years died without him.

    More examples:

    *'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09
    Janice Langbehn was denied the ability to see her partner of 18yrs, Lisa Pond.

    Same story: ABC News,
    'She immediately called a friend to fax health care proxies and documentation of durable power of attorney but the hospital disregarded the documents.'

    The claim that homosexuals 'can' see loved ones in the hospital is, well, I have no other way to say this, False.

    Marriage is not 'needed'?

    I disagree.

  • lifesublime Houston, TX
    March 7, 2011 8:06 a.m.

    I have to take issue with this statement from the article."Current law would bar doctors from consulting her if Baker, her partner for more than seven years, became seriously ill."
    Basic planning documents include a Medical Directive to Physicians in case of serious illness or injury. I completed these planning documents last summer and can legally name whoever I want to act on my behalf in medical emergencies. Doctors must honor my legally binding documents or face lawsuit.It does not matter what your sexual persuasion is.
    If your partner is not consulted, you must accept responsibility for not preparing for future possibilities. Even my legal spouse can not be informed of my (non-emergency) medical issues unless I file paperwork specifying it is my wish.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    March 7, 2011 7:52 a.m.

    There are many wonderful gay people. However, activist homosexuals are very organized, very powerful and have been systematically attacking religion and families for many years.

    Homosexuals also increasingly promote the abandonment of children and spouses for homosexual relationships, arguing that those inclined to homosexuality are rightly adulterous because they were pressured by society to marry.
    According to "Creating Gay Children" NGLJA part of the gay agenda includes "demonizing those they cannot 'desensitize.'"

    They do this through media manipulation and control (tried reading the Trib lately?), organized comment activists, and pushing studies done by activists in schools etc.

    Charles E. Rice, Professor of Law, ND Law School, says of research by activists, some fed in our schools, by legislators, and through media:

    "Any judge, legislator or other public
    official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of

    Studies indicate that mainstreaming homosexuality through marriage is not good for anyone. It doesnt help gays be less promiscuous and it does destroy traditional families. As homosexuality is mainstreamed by these powerful legislators and activists homosexuality increases, thus crucial traditional families decrease, and are often destroyed (see narth).

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    March 6, 2011 10:47 p.m.

    "your irrational beliefs have successfully denied love and companionship to countless people throughout the ages." ??? You mean to say that those of us who don't want to change the definition of traditional marriage are keeping gay couples apart? That is so exxagerated! Gays will get together, hook up, live together and try to raise children whether those of us who are opposed to that lifestyle like it or not. Being able to get a marriage certificate and serve wedding cake at a party will not change or make life any better for gays. They are already living that lifestyle. They can already have all the love and companionship they want. Civil unions allow them to have all the legal rights they need. The only thing that allowing gay marriage would do is confuse society and confuse and damage children further. If you want to live a gay lifestyle with a same gender partner- go ahead! But DON'T call it marriage. Marriage is just for us irrational, religious types.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    March 6, 2011 9:14 p.m.

    Your religious beliefs are yours. Someone who isn't a member has no reason nor interest in protecting your religious sensibilities. Other's rights do not depend on your bigotry.

    'Don't like gays, turn around and walk away.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    March 6, 2011 7:07 p.m.

    @opinionz and @mtymouse:

    You argue that someone else's moral beliefs are going to be imposed on you, but the fact is, your irrational beliefs have successfully denied love and companionship to countless people throughout the ages. Your beliefs have dominated to the sad detriment of many.

    I understand your fear. As more and more of us accept gay marriage, it will be harder for you to promote the belief that homosexuality is a sin. But I, for one, will not be feeling sorry that your beliefs are being challenged.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2011 6:48 p.m.

    "Can we meet half way? We keep the sanctity of marriage and you get equal benefits. "

    We can meet halfway, civil unions for all couples gay or straight (since when is gov't a place to put something sacred like marriage), then individual churches can just call whatever they want marriage.

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    March 6, 2011 4:56 p.m.

    @ mtymouse: Yeah - human rights are so yesterday....

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    March 6, 2011 4:00 p.m.

    @ Opinionz: How are you being required to give up 100% of your moral beliefs? Personally, I think smoking is immoral - the fact that people are allowed to do it in no way, shape, or form requires me to give up that moral belief nor does it require me to partake of cigarettes. And when I shop at stores that sell cigarettes, that in no way indicates I support smoking. What other people do and believe has no effect on my moral beliefs at all. Why would other's beliefs or actions require you to surrender your beliefs?

    @ Miss Piggie: You need to reread DOMA - it does not prohibit same-sex marriage or civil unions. It prohibits the Federal Government from recognizing them and it allows other states to choose whether or not they recognize them, but it in no way prohibits states from having or recognizing them.

    @ slgs5aggie: "We need elected officials who are more Statesmen rather then walking billboards for a cause." That would be nice. Do you by any chance know any?

  • mtymouse Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2011 3:59 p.m.

    It seems a bit self serving that these state representatives have placed such a high priority on something that would benefit such a small minority. Don't their states have more pressing issues--unemployment, homelessness, state budgets, etc, etc. I do not hate homosexuals, they have the right to make the choice to live their life they way they want, but I do resent the way they try to force their ideas on everyone else. They have even changed the way we view some words, for example, I remember when gay meant happy, now it means homosexual. I even hesitate to use a rainbow on anything, because they now use it as their symbol. What next?!

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    March 6, 2011 3:50 p.m.

    Walking billboards? You mean like the ones that read "NRA", "Polluters 'R' Us, "Screamin' Eagle Forum" or even "This Space for Rent"? All these, of course, go cheaper than "statesmen".

  • slgs5aggie Cedar City, UT
    March 6, 2011 2:31 p.m.

    Find it kind of interesting. Seems that they are serving their own needs, and the the desire of the people. We need elected officials who are more Statesmen rather then walking billboards for a cause.

  • Miss Piggie Nuevo Leon, Mexico
    March 6, 2011 2:10 p.m.

    "In Hawaii and Illinois, gay state representatives were lead sponsors of civil union bills signed into law earlier this year."

    Doesn't matter what the states do. Any law authorizing same sex marriage is illegal since it goes against the federal DOMA... I refer you to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    March 6, 2011 1:57 p.m.

    I find it interesting that a group that the religious and the believing feel are breaking commandments (those who live together without marriage) fight marriage tooth and nail--demanding that others not judge them or their chosen way of living. They HATE the idea of marriage before they live together and some hate the idea of it forever.

    You can't convince them for anything of the desirability of marriage.

    Then there is the other group who the religious and believing feel are also breaking commandments (those who live in a homosexual relationship) and who also demand that others not judge them or their chosen way of living.

    And you can't convince them for anything to give up the idea of marriage.

    Isn't that curious??

  • Opinionz Alpine, UT
    March 6, 2011 1:29 p.m.

    That fact is true that none of us would ever be
    If there were any gays in our ancestry
    You don't get a word that they say
    When you're the opposite of gay

    -The Opposite of Gay (a country song)

    Why do homosexuals demand that the rest of us give up 100% of our moral beliefs to accept their demands? Can we meet half way? We keep the sanctity of marriage and you get equal benefits. When will you realize that we will never annoint your behaviors as normal or holy...isn't it our acceptance you want to relieve your conscience? Never! We will give you the right to put what you want where you want to, but don't force us accept it as isn't and won't ever be!