Couples registry gets preliminary nod from Salt Lake County Council

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2013 7:39 p.m.


    Well said.


    I never gave you my opinions of the constitution; instead, I pointed out that disagreement exists. And if you know it does, why beat the dead horse? We could argue those points of the constitution and even plenty of other parts you neglected to cover. It wouldn't do either of us any good. Go vote if you like, but posting constant contention on here doesn't do you or those you oppose any good. It surely doesn't convince anyone. All it does is gets people to dig their feet in a little more on the ground they stand on. I'm sure it does for you too. The more two people do that, the less willing they'll ever be to reach a reasonable compromise that appeals to both viewpoints.

    Dictate your opinions of the constitution all day if you like. Some of your opponents will do the same. In the meantime, the rest of us on both sides who actually WANT to get along will happily do so. Those still fighting when compromises are formed don't want freedom, but power to rule over others.

    Dictators should have to move somewhere else.

  • 9MM Murray, UT
    May 22, 2013 3:00 p.m.

    My thoughts on this issue are.

    First, it is incredibly important that our local governments take a vested interest in helping to create stable, formal, family relationships so that social mores and commitments can be transmitted to future generations that ensure the future stability and success of our communities.

    Second, any other relationship that distracts the community from ensuring its generational, social and economic stability, if not marginalized, will be supplanted and marginalized by its competing philosophies. Two sets of mores can not inhabit the same space. For our government has one law from which we are all judged. To have two or more laws, creates inequality, confusion and increased opportunity to be exploited.

    You cannot make choices that lead to social instability, and expect social stability to remain.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    Stalwart Sentinel,

    Maybe your views of what it means to be a faithful Latter-day Saint differ from my own. I believe in putting my trust in the word of God, not in the words of men. The opinions of the Supreme Court and the opinions of the framers of the constitution are not without cunning and intellect. But however sound they are, I trust that men are fallible.

    I believe and sustain Thomas S. Monson as a prophet of God. I believe that when 15 prophets, seers, and proclaim a divine plan for the family to the entire world, that it is of worth and deserves special recognition and attention.

    I believe I can hold up a light to the world, without forcing that light on others; which belief I know can be accommodated via state recognition of specific traditions.

    I welcome yours and RanchHand's views. I don't welcome contending simply to contend, as RanchHand was doing. I didn't even give my opinion but defended someone else's entitlement to their own.

    I also believe that the opinions of a court do not invalidate my opinions, religious or otherwise.

    What do you believe?

  • county mom Monroe, UT
    May 22, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    It doesn't matter what you call your union.
    I don't care, it is up to you and your religious congregation or affiliation.
    I am saying, like I said before, make everyone meet the exact same rules.
    Marriage has many different names from different cultures and languages.
    Most cultures have poligamy, bigamy, and communal unions.
    The Ancient Egyptians practiced incest, as did prewar Europe. 1st degree relatives marrying each other.
    Then there are those from Puapa New Guinea, that practiced homosexual marriage. They also ate their dead relatives.
    I really don't know if this is where you were headed with all your stories? Justification?

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    May 22, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    Let us be clear. This is not a sign that Utah is willing to show some tolerance and acceptance. It's a sign that Salt Lake County is. The rest of Utah is still a ways off. But progress is progress. Baby steps.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 22, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    @I know it. I Live it. I Love it;

    From The Consitution of the United States of America:

    Article 4 - Section 1 -

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

    Amendment 14 -

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

    I guess the Constitution just doesn't apply to GLBT Americans, does it. Again I ask you: Did you have to move to another state to marry your SO? Regardless of your personal beliefs, we are ALL Americans. If you don't have to move from your home to receive Constitutional rights, why should others?

  • The Reader Layton, UT
    May 22, 2013 12:41 p.m.

    Call it what you must, but what is wrong in the eyes of God is still wrong.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2013 11:37 a.m.

    "Why don't they just get married?"

    ... because you all banned it in Utah. Goodness, if this were any other state I'd ask if you all were drunk at the polls when you voted that ban into place since multiple of you don't seem to remember it.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    May 22, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    To: I know it...

    Marriage is a fundamental right protected under the COTUS (Loving v Virginia) so RanchHand does not "believe" that to be a right, it is in fact a recognized right. The fictitious "right" in this conversation is the perceived right one has to inpose their personal, spiritual convictions on the subject into secular government. An individual's religious beliefs on the matter are trumped by sound, recognized legal rights and that is the current battle underway in our court systems. It is only a matter of time before you realize you never "had the right" to restrict marriage from others based on your personal perspetive.

    Furthermore, based on your moniker, I assume you are LDS, like me. As such, I find it unfathomable that you would use the phrase "traditional marriage" when you know that little more than 100 years ago that same argument was used to disenfranchise our ancestors. I can think of nothing more hypocritical than to be treated unfairly as a minority and, now that we've become part of the "majority," turn and prey upon others who are part of the new minority - especially when it comes to something so dear as marriage.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2013 10:19 a.m.


    You ask why someone should have to move states in order to satisfy what they believe to be their right. You know the answer to that. Of course, everyone posting here likely has a different opinion of where state/federal powers should extend or be limited to, but the point is that you understand the concept and that the various political parties and people have different opinions on this issue. Even the Supreme Court hasn't quite made up its mind.

    My point is that you know the answer to that question, yet you still ask it. To me, that means you are still fighting good people over their opinions. If you want to promote your own, that's fine. But after reading enough of your comments, I suggest a change of direction. If some of us in Utah want our state to recognize traditional marriage only, and leave this to be a state issue, that is our right. We have every right to want government to function a certain way. You have every right to disagree. But endless arguing over something you already know the answer to, how do you feel justified in that?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 22, 2013 9:43 a.m.


    Why should someone have to move in order to be married? Did you have to move to get married? If not, why should anybody else?

    @county mom;

    Marriage is already a civil union. Your religious marriage is not valid without a government issued license. If a gay couple belongs to a church that allows them to marry, do they still get to use the word? Do you see how silly your argument is against simply allowing us to marry, just like everyone else, when put in that light? Some churches do allow same sex marriages. If you don't agree, that is your privilege, just not your right to deny it. You are welcome to belong to a church that doesn't allow it, you just don't get to determine what we call our relationship (marriage).

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    May 22, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    This is a feigned attempt to look compassionate.

    It is Jim Crow for LGBT, nothing more.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    If I were gay, and marrying my partner was THAT important to me, I'd move to a state that allows me to marry.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    Cats: "Why don't they just get married?"

    Because Utah law won't allow them to.

    Therein lies the problem. This "registry" is a half-baked, however well-intentioned, effort to insert a little reason and basic human decency into Utah's unreasonable position on marriage equality.

    Fortunately, this issue will resolve itself with time - probably less time than you think. Marriage equality has unstoppable momentum in our nation.

    As Martin Luther King, Jr. observed, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

  • county mom Monroe, UT
    May 22, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    Ranchhand, you and I have had this discussion before. Same old same old.
    I still believe that marriage is defined by God in the Bible.
    I still agree with many nations in Europe on this one.
    Every non-related adult couple should be given a union binding and recognised by the government as equal, when they apply for that union in the court house.
    Then what ever religious or secular cerimony they have after that is totally up to them and their religious leaders. At that point as far as the government is concerned they are a couple.
    But, no one important listens to me and those who believe in unions for everyone.

  • braymoore Rio de Janeiro, 00
    May 22, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    After reading this article and me living in Brazil I have some thoughts. Here in Brazil they have something very similar to this. Just that here in Brazil they have to prove that they have been "together" or a couple for at least 5 years for the government to accept their relationship. According to the article it's an almost imediate thing. Now I would like to know how one would get out of the "contract". At least what I've seen and heard here in Brazil it's nothing like a divorce and if they don't get out of the contract and then have other relationship it causes a whole lot of leagl issues. But of course America is nothing like Brazil, yet. But with many of the issues at hand I'm afraid America is starting to look a whole lot more like Brazil. But if they have thought out all of the little side notes to this registry I think it could be a big help for many people in the country. But my opinion still stands as they should just get married legally instead of the registry.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    May 22, 2013 8:11 a.m.

    Why don't they just get married?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 22, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    @county mom;

    If you "personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman" then that is what YOU should have. Nobody else should be obligated to live by YOUR beliefs. Period.

    As for the government staying out of marriage, are you willing to give up your government provided benefits for being married? If not, that is hypocrisy.

    Additionally, my religious beliefs allow same sex marriages. Are my religious beliefs covered by the 1st Amendment?


    Sorry, but tolerance and respect don't deny equal rights to other citizens and require them to accept a lesser relationship status. I glad you're satisified with the registry (I'm not); why don't you use it for your own relationship then instead of getting married?

    "I believe those who don't accept that don't really want democracy but power." - The irony, it burns.


    You're the one trying to change the definition. Marriage has NEVER been only one-man/one-woman. Ever. Many ancient cultures allowed same sex marriages.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    From comments above:

    "The government should totally stay out of marriage. "

    Agreed. Which is why religious arguments against marriage equality have no place in public policy.

    Strider303: "Is it fraud to be on two lists at a time? To have a different 'committed' partner at the same time?"

    By pointing out the inadequacies of the registry you're making the case for marriage equality.

    "I am not in favor but accept the registry as evidence that people are afraid of commitment, but want someone in their life so "marriage light" is created."

    You make no sense here. These couples _want_ to celebrate their commitment and have it acknowledged with full legal standing, but your laws against marriage equality prevent them from doing just that. You're the one forcing "marriage light" on these folks, not them.

    KnowItLiveItLoveIt: "I'm LDS and I am satisfied with this registry. I believe it accommodates the needs and rights of the minority."

    Sorry, but the concept of "separate but equal" has been roundly repudiated in court multiple times. American citizens are American citizens. We have no second-class citizens in this nation.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 22, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    "Bradshaw said the requirements are not overly strenuous, but noted that the registry requires a higher threshold of documentation than couples applying for a marriage license."

    --- Does anyone else find it strange that to live together as a couple you need more documentation than if you just get married?

    "To me this is a very, very important ordinance and change," he said. "It really does give nontraditional couples an opportunity to have their relationships codified."

    --- Hooray for second class citizenship (better than nothing I suppose).

  • Florien Wineriter Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 22, 2013 7:05 a.m.

    Accepting social/cultural change is a long process. This is a definite and welcome step in the right direction. It is the human thing to do.

  • Euroskeptic Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2013 6:19 a.m.

    HS Fan - Congratulations on being heterosexual for 24 years. That's a great achievement.

    On the whole, I support the idea of a registry. It could prevent a lot of heartache when a committed partner is denied access to their loved one because they are not legally married. However, as with any kind of legislation, the devil is in the details.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2013 10:04 p.m.

    Marriage has multiple definitions. Your church defines it differently than other churches after all (I assume you believe it to be for eternity rather than until death). The legal gov't definition is another definition. It's that definition that is being altered, not the one used by your church. Really your complaint should be that gov't uses the term marriage for ANY relationship.

  • rick122948 boise, id
    May 21, 2013 9:54 p.m.

    The registry hasn't specifically identified the legal rights enforceable by registering, how dissolution is to be handled, or what their standing in federal tax code would be.

    If this is an attempt at some sort of legal union, then a much more serious discussion of non-traditional relationships place in our state and nation is necessary.

    I feel that marriage in my (LDS) faith is defined as between one man and one woman, but do not feel that my marriage is in any way altered by providing a mechanism in law to provide the same legal rights for non-traditional committed relationships.

    It is when we try to apply religious principles to a legal problem the semantics seem to the stumbling block. We need serious mutually open dialogue between all the parties involved and find an acceptable compromise that seeks the greater good rather than drawing lines in the sand.

  • Strider303 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2013 8:51 p.m.

    One thing the article or maybe the legislation didn't cover: how does one get off the registry? You know, when the fun is gone from playing house and one "committed" partner wants out. Is this registry legally binding? If companies or local entities that provide benefits to "committed" partners, how are those benefits transferred when the benefit earner breaks the "commitment" and wants a new partner?

    Is it fraud to be on two lists at a time? To have a different "committed" partner at the same time?

    Is a "promise" ring required?

    How come you can get married at 16, but can't get on the registry until 18?

    This reminds me of a sign on a sailboat I saw when in Hawaii "Marriages performed by the captain are on;y valid for duration of voyage".

    I am not in favor but accept the registry as evidence that people are afraid of commitment, but want someone in their life so "marriage light" is created. The gods of PC must by laughing.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    May 21, 2013 8:50 p.m.


    Those who say marriage between a man and a woman is "marriage" and those legally together in civil unions will have the same rights in regards to housing, employment, medical decisions, etc how is there any discrimination except for the term "marriage?" Who is trying to change the definition of a term and being unreasonable? This isn't about "rights" after all, is it? It's about a perceived inequality based upon a religious definition and that is all it is about. Have your registry, legal rights and everything that goes with it. Let religion define "marriage" as they wish. No one is being hurt; everyone has the same exact legal rights.

    That's the way it should be and whatever corporations or other States decide is their business. After all, that is a state's rights issue. Just because everyone doesn't agree with the terminology doesn't mean they are "behind." Rights should be the issue, not definitions.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2013 8:11 p.m.

    This is a sign of respect from our state to those in the minority. This testifies that Utah is willing to show tolerance and respect for people with different beliefs while maintaining the traditional social standards we wish to uphold.

    I'm LDS and I am satisfied with this registry. I believe it accommodates the needs and rights of the minority. I know we all don't see completely eye to eye on this, but this is a compromise that offers to satisfy each party.

    I'm sure there will be people on both sides that refuse to accept it, demanding more of their own version of "correct", but I believe this is good. It is meant to help foster mutual growth on an issue where we stand head to head. I believe those who don't accept that don't really want democracy but power.

    I hope Utah's future can grow in this form of mutual tolerance and respect.

  • county mom Monroe, UT
    May 21, 2013 6:43 p.m.

    HS fan, I have been married for many years also. I like this idea.
    I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
    The government should totally stay out of marriage.
    Each mature nonrelated couple should be given a union from the government at the time they enter the court house and apply.
    Marriage should be according to the religious beliefs of that couple.
    No more no less.

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2013 5:05 p.m.

    What a joke. I get it that this is the best that we could expect from any goverment in Utah but it is so far behind what corporate America and the rest of the country are already doing. As a happily married, hetrosexual person for 24 years I do not feel threatned by equal rights for all people and have not yet heard one reasonable, fair, non-religous argument.