cofchristcousin Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Guv, at odds with most Utahns, backs civil unions for gays - Salt Lake TribuneJust wondering if you folks feel the article characterizes the Utah situation accurately. Do you believe most Utahn's would reject civil unions, with hospital visitation and inheritance rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 I don't think you could find a person in America with a heartbeat who would reject the notion that gays should be able to visit each other in the hospital and leave stuff to each other in their wills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) The Trib is misstating the facts. Equality Utah is not seeking "civil unions", so defined. What they're seeking is a) "Joint Support Declarations" that would grant inheritance and hospital visitation rights to gay couples, (HB 160) and b) Legislation that prohibits discrimination by sexual orientation in employment and housing (HB 267). Equality Utah claims the support of 83% of Utahns per a vaguely-worded poll conducted in January. Personally, I support a) but currently oppose b) for technical reasons (I fear it unduly limits a current exemption for religions that are selling land). The poor Trib editors and reporters are in quite a conundrum. They'd like to see gays get some rights in Utah, but at the same time they take pleasure in portraying Utahns (and especially the Republican legislature) as provincial hayseeds. So they'll spin out a few more stories about how Utah Mormons hate gays before ultimately having to admit that their favorite whipping boys actually did something for a change. Edited February 12, 2009 by Just_A_Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RachelleDrew Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 I can't say i'm surprised. Nor am I opposed to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWyvern Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) I'm not from Utah... I realize that we should protect marriage as an institution, but I don't see any doctrinal reasons why homosexual couples shouldn't also receive civil bonuses that come from purely civil marriage. Anti-discrimination laws should be applied universally. Saying that we can decide one group has less civil rights than another by a majority vote sets a dangerous precedent. Also: lol, SLCtrib comments. Edited February 12, 2009 by LittleWyvern Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cofchristcousin Posted February 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 I'm glad to see these responses. The article had me concerned. My primary exposure to LDS is here, my denomination's forum and the prop 8 coverage. With a few exceptions, most people I have encountered in these places don't have an issue with the things named in the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jclarke Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 First of all I'm not from Utah but California. My first thought was "common sense government?????" You cannot be fired for being gay or transexual, makes sense. And the other being that if you live together and file a "declaration of joint support" you can make medical decisions and get inhritance. Who can really disagree with that? They are not asking to get married only be able to make decisions in a medical emergency and receive benifits. I think that sounds very fair. Jeannette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 I don't have an issue with them. I'll all for equality in the rights of those that have partners of the same sex. Why should they be denied access to the hospital for their partner? Plus other issues that are brought up. I've never disagreed with those rights. And btw..I live in Utah but from California. I hate being lumped as a Utah Mormon. I feel I'm so far from that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hordak Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Not from Utah but as one who is "against" gay marriage I see nothing wrong with these visitation, inheritance rights. I would wonder if there is any stipulations on the protection of employment for transgenders as far as during a transformation itself. We do have jobs (granted not the best) where gender plays a roll and don't think an employer of such a place should be punished if their employee pulls a bait and switch and is fired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Guv, at odds with most Utahns, backs civil unions for gays - Salt Lake TribuneJust wondering if you folks feel the article characterizes the Utah situation accurately. Do you believe most Utahn's would reject civil unions, with hospital visitation and inheritance rights? I was really dismayed that so many right-wing politicians gathered yesterday for a news sound-bite against Governor Huntsman's proposal. That put the lie to the justification that the reason for Proposition 8 was to preserve the sanctity of marriage rather being aimed at solely curtailing the rights of Homosexuals.Civil unions allow homosexuals rights without interfering with the sanctity of marriage. This hating the sinner attitude is too much like their progenitors desire to keep civil rights away from black people.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 So, just out of curiosity, since it's already legal for gays to visit each other in the hospital and leave stuff to each other in their wills, why does anything need to happen at all? LM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cofchristcousin Posted February 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 So, just out of curiosity, since it's already legal for gays to visit each other in the hospital and leave stuff to each other in their wills, why does anything need to happen at all?LMThose rights are built in to civil marriage, but require legal services and additional expenses for gay partners to have those same protections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Guv, at odds with most Utahns, backs civil unions for gays - Salt Lake TribuneJust wondering if you folks feel the article characterizes the Utah situation accurately. Do you believe most Utahn's would reject civil unions, with hospital visitation and inheritance rights?No different for me in not voting for the last LDS person who run for office [President]. We have our own formed opinions, as we have our agency to choose for ourselves what is right or what is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Book_of_Mormon_Warrior Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Guv, at odds with most Utahns, backs civil unions for gays - Salt Lake TribuneJust wondering if you folks feel the article characterizes the Utah situation accurately. Do you believe most Utahn's would reject civil unions, with hospital visitation and inheritance rights? Most are not against granting rights to hospital visits and inheritance. To oppose these things to a committed partnership goes beyond being faithful to righteous principles and is mean-spirited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Agreed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Those rights are built in to civil marriage, but require legal services and additional expenses for gay partners to have those same protections.Oh phooey. Strait people need wills and powers of attorney and visitation forms every much as gay people.I could care less if a particular group of people have an extra hoop or two to jump through to get what everybody else has. Goodness knows that as a homeschooler I have enough extra hoops to get my kids into college. LM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWyvern Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 So, just out of curiosity, since it's already legal for gays to visit each other in the hospital and leave stuff to each other in their wills, why does anything need to happen at all?Because in many states, somebody has to be civil partners in order to have these rights. And since many states don't recognize civil unions... it turns out that gay people are prohibited these rights in most cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Oh phooey. Strait people need wills and powers of attorney and visitation forms every much as gay people.Not if they're married, they don't. Intestacy laws actually provide pretty decent protection--provided that the couple is actually married. Wills are always good, but they become absolutely necessary only as the couple builds wealth or as they have children. Powers of attorney are nice for a married couple in order to prevent the kind of squabbles that came up in Terry Schiavo's case--but, again, state law actually covers married couples reasonably well in that regard even in the absence of a POA (remember, the courts in Florida upheld her husband's right to make her health care decisions).I could care less if a particular group of people have an extra hoop or two to jump through to get what everybody else has. Goodness knows that as a homeschooler I have enough extra hoops to get my kids into college.Gay couples can routinely be charged over a thousand dollars for the legal services that put them on par with married couples. I have no idea what you go through to get your kids into college, but would be open to legislative efforts to reduce those burdens as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 I was really dismayed that so many right-wing politicians gathered yesterday for a news sound-bite against Governor Huntsman's proposal. That put the lie to the justification that the reason for Proposition 8 was to preserve the sanctity of marriage rather being aimed at solely curtailing the rights of Homosexuals.In a way, I can see their point.Common Ground originally included a provision that would have redacted part of Utah's Amendment 3. HB 267 still contains one or two provisions that could be extremely troublesome for the Church in the future (as I mentioned earlier). As for the desired executive order guaranteeing health insurance for dependents of gay couples--Utah is actually a pretty libertarian state economically, and a lot of us would rather see insurance coverage develop as demanded by market forces rather than by government fiat.Let no one be deceived. Common Ground is not a "compromise". The Utah gay rights activists are not abandoning their long-term goal of gay marriage within the state; they're merely focusing their present efforts on picking the low-hanging fruit. That doesn't justify a knee-jerk opposition to every bill in the initiative. But we need to remember who we're dealing with, and be somewhat cautious.This hating the sinner attitude is too much like their progenitors desire to keep civil rights away from black people.Guilt by association, Moksha? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Oh phooey. Strait people need wills and powers of attorney and visitation forms every much as gay people.I could care less if a particular group of people have an extra hoop or two to jump through to get what everybody else has. Goodness knows that as a homeschooler I have enough extra hoops to get my kids into college. LMI think you're really off-base with this one, Loudmouth, and it probably deserves a stern rebuking with a heavy dose of reality. In order for a same-sex couple to get all of the same benefits that come with a marriage requires hours upon hours of legal fees and help. It can cost hundreds and even thousands of dollars. As opposed to the 15 minutes my wife and I spent in Belmont Town Hall getting a marriage license that automatically gave us visitation rights, tax benefits, named us as beneficiaries and heirs on our insurance, retirement plans, and social security, etc.The total bill for my wife and I to get all those benefits through a marriage license: $30. A civil union does nothing more than create a set of benefits same sex couples receive, an efficient and concise method for getting them, and significantly reducing the cost to them. If we are to agree that people should be able to receive these benefits regardless of sexual orientation, then it only seems fair to let them do it at the same price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-train Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 If only two men were equal to a man and his wife..... -a-train Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Concur....why bother with something that holds no eternal value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 If you haven't receive the latest word, the bill died today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Indeed. A few details here. Pity, too. The issue I had with HB 267 had been resolved with a substitute bill, and it still died.This does not reflect well on Utah as a state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 ksl.com - Comments about gays cost lawmaker his chairmanship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.