Comments on: A New Name for Domestic Partnerships in Salt Lake City

By: cowboy

cowboy — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:05:26 +0000

It can be explained quite easily. Anything gay is forbidden in Utah. Gay marriage is often interchangeable with the terms: domestic-partner/benefits/registry. “Domestic” is a reserved word in the lexicon at Utah Capitol for something entirely different.

Thus, in a closed-door backroom negotiation meeting in the newly renovated Capitol just a couple of blocks from the Mormon HQ building they struck a deal. “They” being: the moderate conservatives and the ultra-fanatical orthodox religious Eagle-Forum people.

So, you see, even a moderate in Utah is considered a [whisper this next word:] liberal! (Or Librul in the local vernacular.)

Not that you will see any of those moderate conservatives in the Pride Parade this coming June. Only those agents of satan, (aka Democrats) will be seen riding in the Pride parade groveling for votes.

Still, I guess, we should be grateful to the moderates. (sigh)

By: Tara

Tara — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:35:33 +0000

“Partnership that dare not speak its name” is good. But why not just go all the way:

“Evil sodomite with another evil sodomite registry so Satan will know who to take”!

By: Willie Hewes

Willie Hewes — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:30:28 +0000

This is great. It’s going to be like a race backwards through language. Marriage is too scary a word, so we invented Domestic Partnerships. But that’s grown as a concept too close to marriage, so we have to take a step further down again.

Where does it end? Rediculous.

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 05:24:37 +0000

Elise, that’s correct. It was a typo, which has been corrected.

By: Elise

Elise — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 05:22:17 +0000

“But they’ve finally found a solution: the registry can be set up and couples can seek to protect their families in this limited way… they just can be called “Domestic Partnerships”.”

I think that should be “they just can*not* be called Domestic Partnerships.” Hence Michael’s (and my) initial confusion.

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 04:55:25 +0000

“The partnership that dares not speak its name”

By: howller

howller — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 04:09:08 +0000

Nice to see the mayor fighting to secure a few benefits to non-traditional families. But the resulting brouhaha is a total embarrassment to the state of Utah!

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 03:27:02 +0000

Michael,

They were passed by the city counsel as Domestic Partnerships. But the state has now insisted on a name change.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:33:48 +0000

I amend my previous comment—were they not called domestic partnerships in the first place?

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:32:32 +0000

I’m confused. Were they not domestic partnerships in the first place?