Utah Governor endorses same-sex civil unions

[Kamakazie Sith]

Poll: Huntsman's endorsement of civil unions proves somewhat damaging
February 16th, 2009 @ 10:03pm
By Jed Boal

Gov. Jon Huntsman stirred fresh debate when he came out in favor of same-sex civil unions last week. New exclusive poll numbers show Utahns are divided on this issue.

Supporters of gay rights held a vigil to thank the governor for his stand on civil unions. Conservatives spoke out too and said when it comes to gay rights the governor does not speak for them.


"Our community needs to heal. We've had some divisive debates," Huntsman said.

A new poll by Dan Jones and Associates for KSL-TV and the Deseret News shows one-third of Utahns now have a less-favorable opinion of the governor, but his overall approval rating remains at 80 percent. As for civil unions, 47 percent support them and 42 percent oppose them.

House bills proposed this session prohibit discrimination in housing and employment related to sexual orientation; another deals with a same-sex couple's right to medical decision making and inheritance.


Rep. Christine Johnson, D-Salt Lake City, is the sponsor of the anti-discrimination bill. "These bills will not lead to civil unions or gay marriage but are to improve the quality of life for Utahns," she said.

Melanie Schertz has a unique perspective. The single mother added her mother to her insurance in 2006 when Salt Lake City let employees designate someone other than a spouse for coverage. She thinks everyone should have the option.



Melanie Schertz "In this day and age, who's to say what a family is?" Schertz said. "My mom didn't have any insurance, and her medications were costing us, just the medications alone that were generic were over $400 a month."

Add to that visits to the doctor and medical bills after her mother took a bad fall. "Had that happened before we had gotten this, we would have lost everything," Schertz said.

We also asked Utahns who support civil unions why they do. The greatest percentage says it's a matter of fairness and equal rights, not an alternative to marriage for gay couples. Like Schertz, many support civil unions for the legal and financial benefits.

Link

A small step in the right direction. I didn't see this coming from Huntsman. I'm pleasantly surprised.

[Kanastrous]

Perhaps the thinking is that if they don't get behind civil unions, they will eventually have no choice but to accommodate same-sex marriage.

[General Zod]

We also asked Utahns who support civil unions why they do. The greatest percentage says it's a matter of fairness and equal rights, not an alternative to marriage for gay couples. Like Schertz, many support civil unions for the legal and financial benefits.

Uh, yeah, sorry, but it's not equal until they get full marriage instated, not just civil unions. Let me know when the governor comes out supporting full blown marriage instead.

[Kamakazie Sith]

We also asked Utahns who support civil unions why they do. The greatest percentage says it's a matter of fairness and equal rights, not an alternative to marriage for gay couples. Like Schertz, many support civil unions for the legal and financial benefits.

Uh, yeah, sorry, but it's not equal until they get full marriage instated, not just civil unions. Let me know when the governor comes out supporting full blown marriage instead.

Yeah, they still don't get that. However, being optimistic this is significant because a Utah governor is standing up against the church here.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Perhaps the thinking is that if they don't get behind civil unions, they will eventually have no choice but to accommodate same-sex marriage.

If that days comes it won't matter if they got behind civil unions or not.

[Kanastrous]

Perhaps the thinking is that if they don't get behind civil unions, they will eventually have no choice but to accommodate same-sex marriage.

If that days comes it won't matter if they got behind civil unions or not.

I'm not sure they recognize that.

[General Zod]

Yeah, they still don't get that. However, being optimistic this is significant because a Utah governor is standing up against the church here.

I'm not so sure about that. Civil unions are generally a "safe" approach to support because they're harder to argue against and they let people at least pretend that they aren't bigoted. I imagine people in support of civil unions would be far less willing to show that support if he came out and said he was in favor of equal marriage rights.

[Posner]

Gay rights activists have it tough. They didn't want to bring up the marriage issue for a while. They wanted to get people comfortable with the idea that sodomy is legal in all 50 states before they went for marriage rights on a national scale. The Republicans brought it up in 2004 so they could mobilize their base. I mean look at California, the domestic partnership law granted all of the rights and responsiblities of marriage to domestic partnerships (California Family Code 297.5). When the California Supreme Court ruled that marriage was a right, gay couples in California didn't get any more concrete benefits, just a moral victory. And again, the gay rights groups didn't really want to press the marriage/domestic partnership issue that much, they wanted to be more gradual about it. Proposition 8 was backlash, what the activists were afraid of and tried to avoid. All of this religious bullshit over what always was and remains a way to manage property. Fundies can't get it through their head that it's not the state's job to advocate religious behavior, but to clearly set out property rights.

[Darth Wong]

Of course fundies can't get that through their head. They think marriage is a sacred institution exclusively created by the Christian church, even though it is found in every ancient culture on Earth, including those which predate the entire Judeo-Christian religion like ancient Egypt and China.

[Kanastrous]

There's a super-pernicious concept floating around in the brains of some number of Christians, that all pre-existing religions and societies whose rules and beliefs prefigure Christianity, were in fact ordained by God to anticipate Christianity.

So it's not that Christians adopted practices from other, older faiths, but that the other, older faiths were simply fulfilling their function of paving the way for what were in some sense "always" Christian practices.

Mental illness is fun to watch. From a safe distance.

[Knife]

Utah, I'm ashamed to say, passed one of those Marriage=man/woman bits for it's Constitution. So the Governor coming out on this particular issue is fairly significant because even if he was for the marriage of gays, it's not a policy decision for him to make. A whole campaign would have to be made to make another Amendment to the Constitution of the State.

Anyway, he's selling it hard with stories of taking care of granny or auntie than a gay issue but it certainly has it's fair share in there too. Is it a massive progressive victory? No, but it sure shows some movement on that front.

It's also funny to see so much media about how his approval has dropped. Name me a politician who'd not want to be at a measly 80% due to a controversial issue?

[Kitsune]

Also, politics has always been the fine art of compromise.
Homosexuals may want full marriage but I really think this is a step in the right direction

[Kanastrous]

I don't. This is as though 'separate but equal' were still being pushed as an alternative to integration.

Distracting blind-alley not-even-half measures aren't solutions. Full enfranchisement is the only actual solution.

[Knife]

I don't. This is as though 'separate but equal' were still being pushed as an alternative to integration.

Distracting blind-alley not-even-half measures aren't solutions. Full enfranchisement is the only actual solution.

Except for in Utah, that alley is closed. Constitutional amendment they passed, can't undo it without another and that is not in the Governor's hands.

[Wicked Pilot]

For everyone's amusement, a full page advertisement in the local newspaper from some organization named AmericaForever.com

[Axis Kast]

Fundies can't get it through their head that it's not the state's job to advocate religious behavior, but to clearly set out property rights.

Which is precisely the crucial issue on which the political battle needs to be fought.

Arguments about the relative virtue of homosexual marriage often leave untouched the two central premises on which the theological denunciation rests: that the Holy Bible is unvarnished communication from the Almighty; and that the teachings therein are, because of their supposed provenance, absolutely the correct – indeed, the only legitimate – roadmap for political life. From these assumptions stems: opposition to homosexuality as “abomination;” a general belief that they must endorse politicians who preach and legislate Biblical morality; and, with respect to some Christian groups, the argument that non-Christians are essentially tolerated “guests” who have, for various reasons, not yet responded properly to Christian teaching.

If, as I do, you find the idea of civil unions to be inherently inequitable (a sort of Jim Crow extended to cover sexual and gender identity), the best method of approaching naysayers of explicitly religious orientation is to dispute the authorship, translation, organization, and interpretation of the Biblical source material (using arguments that emphasize the human agency involved at every step, as well as the ambiguous nature of the text, and the obvious changes in human social organization that many Christians take for granted), and then to remind them that they are in the unhappy position of having entered into a compact with a government that is explicitly enjoined by its own founding principles to stand clear of religious advocacy. In other words, to explain that we can’t know what God really believes with respect to homosexuality, and then to point out that the state is required to grant and enforce equal standing before the law. Many will need to be reminded that they will not (and cannot) be obliged to perform ceremonies for gays and lesbians at their own places of worship, which is a common misconception.

[Serafina]

For everyone's amusement, a full page advertisement in the local newspaper from some organization named AmericaForever.com

Thats not amusing, thats shocking. And a pretty good example of the slippery slope fallacy.

[sketerpot]

For everyone's amusement, a full page advertisement in the local newspaper from some organization named AmericaForever.com

Looks like their graphic designer's main thoughts were "men kissing is gross" and "quality is directly proportional to the number of fonts you can use on a single page."

And making sure it was an interracial kiss involving a large black man? Classy.

[Kanastrous]

How much would you care to wager, that the guys in the picture work for the outfit that produced the ad?

C'mon, guys, lean a little bit closer...a little bit closer...look, this has to look *real*, will you please just give me a man-kiss for the cause, here...?

Axis, the problem with engaging the religious whackies on the grounds you suggest is that in the main they appear mostly immune to the kind of reason you offer. LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU is a simple counter-measure, and one that an awful lot of believers seem to have mastered.

[Darth Wong]

Obviously, the kind of imbecile who seriously thinks marriage was invented by the Judeo-Christian religion is not going to be convinced by logical arguments. He must have already convinced himself that Ancient China and Egypt unfairly copied an institution 5000 years ago from a religion that didn't even exist yet. That requires a level of illogic which should be virtually impenetrable.

[Wicked Pilot]

He must have already convinced himself that Ancient China and Egypt unfairly copied an institution 5000 years ago from a religion that didn't even exist yet.

Well they did have copies of Origin of the Species back then, or else bad things couldn't have happened. Seriously, no one ever explained to you how God works in mysterious ways?

[Kitsune]

Also, in my research for the debate this thread generated elsewhere, I found at that China, Egypt, and Japan all had formal long term homosexual contracts which were basically marriages.

Of course they don't count.