Blind Prophecy

So guess what I’m doing right now… I finally got the internet access working in my room, so now I can blog (or, you know, play on the internet) at all hours of day or night.

Since Michael is developing an online submission/editing system for the paper, and since I’ve synced my contacts and calendar between the work computer and home computer through my yahoo account, I may never have to come into the office again! Actually, the biggest stumbling block to that plan is that I don’t get cell phone reception in the basement, so people would have to IM me in order to talk live and I hate having IM conversations.

So I’ve spent the last few hours setting up the computer the way I like it (bookmarks, iTunes, etc.). I’ve also spent far too much time uploading and tagging photos in my Flickr account, which I find I like better than photobucket or LJ’s scrapbook. The biggest complaints I’ve heard about Flickr are 1) it automatically resizes your photos, so it’s no good for storing hi-res copies, 2) there are stil bugs with posting photos to blogs. I admit the second one is true, but the first one is a blessing to me. I’ve been trained to always take my photos on the highest level resolution possible (for print journalism) and resizing them before uploading them is a pain in the ass.

I think I might invest in a webcam next – you know, because it would be sooo useful for a guy who hates IM conversations and rarely engages in any kind of chat programs.

By the way, this article by Sen. Scott McCoy is awesome! I’m pasting the whoel thing behind a cut (in probable violation of copyright laws, so nobody read it here, go to the website ::wink::) because the Trib archives their stuff into a paid area after two weeks and I want to hold onto this.

Partner benefits: What’s Amendment 3 got to do with it?
Scott McCoy
Salt Lake Tribune

“It cannot be plausibly argued that extending one or two benefits to unmarried couples treats those couples as legally equivalent to married couples. This same analysis would apply to a local city’s decision to offer some minor benefit like health insurance coverage to someone designated by a public employee even if the employee is not married to that person.”
- “Legal analysis” posted on pro-Amendment 3 group Utahns for A Better Tomorrow Web site

The argument that Amendment 3 would “take away from deserving but needy Utahns various government benefits and would prevent the Legislature from creating in the future various other benefits for deserving Utahns” is “demolished . . . by the plain language of Amendment 3.”
- “Legal Opinion” on SB89 by Amendment 3 supporters and writers Monte Stewart, Richard Wilkins and Lynn Wardle

“[A]mendment 3 would have no effect on a legislative decision to extend identified benefits to unmarried persons.”
- Yes! for Marriage opinion authored by Brigham Young University Professor Richard Wilkins reprinted in Meridian magazine

During the run-up to last November’s election, Utah voters were repeatedly told by Amendment 3′s supporters that the amendment was only meant to “define marriage as between a man and a woman” and to prevent “marriage substitutes,” such as the kind of civil unions approved in Vermont.

The writers of the amendment consistently assured the fair-minded citizens of Utah that the amendment would not prevent gay and lesbian people from being granted basic rights and benefits, such as health insurance or the right to visit a partner in the hospital.

Now, everyone from Salt Lake County Council members to Utah State University attorneys to Amendment 3′s sponsors are using Amendment 3 as a justification for killing proposals to give basic benefits to unmarried, but committed partners – same-sex or not. Either the voters were flat-out lied to, or political cowardice is leading to misinterpretation and abuse of Amendment 3. Neither is a very pretty picture.

At Utah State University, Craig Simper, the university’s general counsel, killed a USU Faculty Senate proposal to offer domestic partner benefits to the partners of the university’s gay and lesbian employees. End of discussion.

Last month, Salt Lake County Councilwoman Jenny Wilson proposed a policy change for Salt Lake County that would have extended health and life insurance and funeral leave benefits to the committed, yet unmarried, partners of county employees.

While Wilson and her Democratic colleagues articulated the sound public policy, basic business and fairness reasons for adopting the policy, her Republican counterparts cited the majority of the state’s residents’ vote in favor of Amendment 3 as an indication that Salt Lake County residents would oppose extending domestic partner benefits. Again, end of discussion.

Now, Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and Salt Lake City Councilwoman Jill Remington Love have brought the issue to Salt Lake City. Unfortunately, Amendment 3 has been raised yet again to threaten the proposal. Rep. Lavar Christensen, Amendment 3′s sponsor, now argues that Amendment 3 was meant to prevent Salt Lake City from extending domestic partner benefits and that if Amendment 3 is not clear enough he intends to introduce legislation to stop the city.

In each of these situations, the vote on Amendment 3 is being misinterpreted and misused. Sadly, the vote on Amendment 3 is being misinterpreted as a referendum on all things gay. However, this is not what Utah voters intended when they approved Amendment 3.

How do we know? One indicator was a poll conducted by Dan Jones in January 2005 asking Utahns what they thought about Republican Sen. Greg Bell and Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. proposing legislation that would have provided unmarried partners, such as committed gay and lesbian couples, some basic rights, including hospital visitation, emergency medical decision making, and the right to make funeral arrangements for one’s partner. More than 61 percent supported the legislation, while only 32 percent were opposed.

The decision-makers and citizens faced with this issue should be careful not to misinterpret or hide behind Amendment 3. Instead, they should weigh the pros and cons of such a proposal in the context of sound public policy. If they do, they will quickly find that such policies have merit and are supported by notions of basic fairness.

Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake, is an attorney and gay-rights advocate who was selected by Democrats during the 2005 legislative session to replace Sen. Paula Julander.

Filed under: livejournal by Jere Keys