Oh, my heck.
SB89 has cleared committee in the Utah legislature. SB89 "provides for the creation of mutual dependence benefits contracts, which allow two adults, not eligible for marriage, to share certain rights and responsibilities regarding property ownership or health-related matters." In other words, it's a baby step toward civil unions in Utah.
I'm still not sure how I feel about this. Gay groups are hailing it as a step in the right direction. I still can't help but see this as something akin to a back handed compliment. "Mutual dependance benefits contracts?" You've got to be kidding. How long did it take them to come up with that so they wouldn't have to call it civil unions? Since G.B. Hinkley recently expressed concerns on national television about civil unions being a slippery slope to gay marriage, it's hardly surprising the contortions people are going through to avoid the term.
Supposedly this not a response to Amendment 3 forbidding the legal recognition of gay relationships which passed in November and went into effect January 1.
(1) marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman; and
(2) no other domestic union may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equal legal effect
The irony is SB89 is being hailed as "a fine piece of legislation" by Republican leadership and appears ready to sail through the Utah legislature. I am apparently in a minority of people who think this stands in direct contrast to Amendment 3. "SB89 is not a gay-marriage-by-another-name bill," says Jane Mardquardt, chairwoman of the board for Equality Utah. Whatever.
Apparently SB89 is not a contradiction of Amendment 3 because no sexual relationship is implied. Marriage implies a sexual relationship? I'll bet I could find more than a handful of men and/or women who would beg to differ. Shouldn't item one then read "marriage consists only of the sexual union between a man and a woman?" I'm so glad that I have finally been disabused of my illusions about marriage. Here I thought it was because two people wanted to build a life and a family together and all the time they just wanted to get laid.
I guess one can also duck the amendment thanks to that "substantially" they stuck in there. "SB89, with its five guaranteed rights, in no way approaches the more than 1,200 rights and responsibilities that automatically accompany traditional marriage," continues Mardquardt. Indeed all discussion surrounding the bill emphasize the fact that is not about gay relationships, it's about any two adults desiring shared benefits—such as a grandmother and a granddaughter. So does this trump normal inheritance rules then? If the grandmother has a rat bastard son she wants to cut out of the picture, couldn't she just change her will? Isn't that what opponents of gay marriage have been telling homosexuals to do? Set up legal contracts. Use powers of attorney. Create wills. Grandma has always had attorneys at her disposal. So what exactly does this bill do? It allows her to do it for $20 at the State Health Department instead of paying a lawyer $500-$3000 to modify her will.
But wait. When was the last time you heard Grandma complaining about the cost of modifying her will other than in generic "@#!!(*)@#($) lawyers!" terms? When was the last time Grandma complained about any inequity in the process? She hasn't because there isn't any. Any person can modify their will to their heart's desire. Costs may vary from state to state and from attorney to attorney, but the costs associated are the same no matter who is altering their will. So why does Grandma suddenly need this cheaper option? Grandmas have been around a long time haven't they? They have been cutting their ne'er-do-well offspring out of the inheritance for a long time haven't they? Granddaughters have been caring for their elderly Gran for a long time haven't they? If the intervening parent is missing then the granddaughter is automatically empowered to act for Grandma. If there exists some truculent relative with greater legal claim to grandma, then powers of attorney have surely been used to assert the granddaughter's right to act on Gran's behalf. Why hasn't this "need" come up before? It's not because homosexuals have been raising a ruckus about the inequity of the marriage process is it? It's not because homosexuals are outraged that it costs them thousands of dollars to secure the legal protections for their relationships that straight couples can obtain with a $5-$20 marriage license. No. Of course not.
Yes. Fine. It's a step in the right direction. All right. You take what you can get in a state as conservative as Utah. I do not believe that people are not aware of the contradictions here. What seems to be happening is both sides have agreed not to discuss it. It's all about spin. It's all about not poking the sleeping dog. "Here. You can have these few benefits just as long as we don't have to talk about that icky gay thing." This is better than living in the closet how? Bastards.