Buttars is at it again…

While battling illegal immigration is the trendy fight for the Utah Republican party, it is almost reassuring to see that some continuing to tilt with one of the tried and true straw men of conservatism: homosexuals.

Chris Buttars, tireless champion of Utah’s sodomy ban and sponsor of Utah constitutional amendment 3 (in which government interferes with freedom of conscience by enforcing a particular definition of marriage), has introduced legislation with the specific intent of preventing SLC mayor Becker’s proposed Domestic Partnership Registry.

Why, Senator Buttars? Why must you persist in abusing your power to enforce your moral code on others, even at the expense local government (something Republicans are supposed to defend)? The reality is that many people in our communities who live in committed relationships and rely on one another for economic support. While the nature of those relationships may not be sanctioned by the religion to which Senator Buttars and I belong, there is no reason that government should not recognize the reality of those relationships.

Thankfully, Becker and the SLC council are determined to take this stand. Hopefully the Utah legislature has enough people of conscience to protect the self-determination of local governments and freedom of conscience.

PS: The Voice of Utah makes a shrewd point about the dishonesty of Buttars and the other sponsors of Amendment 3 as it relates to the Domestic Partnership Registry.

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

5 Responses to “Buttars is at it again…”

  1. Aaron Orgill Says:

    Every time I see a headline with the name Buttars in it, I have to brace myself. I truly don’t know how this guy keeps getting elected. He is an embarrassment to conservatives, or even those of us who embrace some conservative views. I’m waiting for another Brown v. Board of Education moment.

  2. WP Says:

    I am happy we have another mayor following through with this, much to the annoyance of our moral legislators on the hill I am certain. What is wrong with the concept of live, love and allow others to do the same? Did we not just honor a man who cared and sought to be inclusive? Why the disconnect here for Buttars and the other bigots and their faith?

  3. Kathy Says:

    Okay, now I feel bad about my previous comment. Mostly because I don’t want to reduce the level of discourse to such low levels on this otherwise elevated blog. But I am frustrated by Buttars supporting this kind of legislation as well as his bill which discontinues in-state tuition for children of undocumented workers. Why not give all children the tools to achieve? Why is this guy so mean?
    Derek Staffanson, I would appreciate you deleting my previous comment if you can.

    [commentor’s prior post has been deleted as requested – Derek]

  4. SLCondensed Says:

    What are your thoughts on the glaring disconnect between your stance and the LDS church on amendment three?

  5. Derek Staffanson Says:

    Well, SLCondensed, I did not take my position lightly. It is a result of a great deal of study and contemplation over several years. My opposition to Amendment Three is based on essentially the same perspectives I had on the federal Marriage Amendment, as listed here (excluding those specifically related to amending the federal Constitution).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: