Monday, February 11, 2008

Sign of Shame

[The Anti-Gays] Whenever the Legislature is in session, some idiot--usually Sen. Chris Buttars, but not always--does something so breathtakingly petty and intolerant in the name of "protecting [some] families" I end up growling and throwing a shoe at the TV (which, fortunately, is too small for me to hit from across the room): "Argh! Have they no shame?"

Well, apparently they do--a bit. The Senate Health and Human Services Committee were sufficiently ashamed at what they were about to do that they had to wait until Sen. Scott McCoy was out of the room before voting to bring Buttars' latest nanny-government outrage to the Senate floor.

Other than Buttars, those who voted for the anti-gay measure were Brigham City Republican Peter C. Knudson, Ogden Republican
Allen M. Christensen--and West Valley Democrat Brent Goodfellow. (Gee, thanks, Brent. Way to kiss Republican ass. Do they let you hang out at their cafeteria table now?)

I was surprised to see that those senators' home phone numbers appear to be listed on the Senate Website. Check the above links if you don't believe it. Guess they must enjoy feedback from their satisfied constituents.

Maybe I'm just a Negative Nancy, but why does the Trib report that McCoy is "openly gay" in every story? Is it afraid we might forget? Because I've never read of Buttars, Knudson or Christensen being descibed as "openly straight." (Brandon Burt)


  1. They have to refer to him that way to remind us that this is an issue only gay people care about. If you're not gay, this doesn't affect you...and oh, by the way, your families are in danger from the "gay agenda"! Be afraid!

    It makes me so mad I don't know what to do. I wish I was a violent person so I could justify the urge I have to go find Buttars and throttle him. I'm a girl though, so he probably wouldn't enjoy it as much.

  2. I, an openly straight man, am disgusted by Buttarballs and the Trib's necessity to identify the sexuality of gay rights proponents.

    If the Trib is going to announce the sexual orientation of one key figure in the article, it should announce the sexual orientation of all. Perhaps then everyone would realize how ridiculous it is to even mention. Hell if the Trib makes it a point to mention sexual preference, they might as well mention age and religious affiliation of all key figures in their articles as well. Oh, wait, that wouldn't benefit their agenda though would it?

    Angrylesbian and Herr Burt are far from alone in their frustrations. I fully support them on this issue. After all, it is truly an issue of human rights not simply gay rights.

  3. Hey thanks, Hueman_writes. It's good to know we're not alone. Hopefully one day there will be enough people like you out there that Buttars and his ilk won't keep getting re-elected. I may be angry, but I can still be a dreamer, right?

  4. They use "openly gay" as a contrast to the "closeted gay" Sen. Buttars. I thought this was obvious?

  5. They refer to the Senator as "openly gay" because the majority of SL Tribune readers don't keep up on legislators' sexual orientation, and in this particular context it's relevant to the reader to know where special interests lie ... although I will concede that, to be fair, they should refer to others by their orientation as well. ;-)

  6. Every year I listen to the actions on the hill and every year it makes me want to move. But then, if I did, there would be one less vote to counter those who vote for Buttars, Christensen and their hateful counterparts.

  7. Buttars is an idiot.
    But while special privileges for the colon-humping and carpetmunching among us?

  8. Anonymous--

    Are you seriously asking why we want "special privileges?" Or are you being sarcastic?

    I'll answer as though you're serious. I want nothing more than the same civil rights everyone has. I want no "special" rights. But I'm tired of being denied rights others enjoy, like knowing I can be with my partner if she's in the hospital. Don't fall for the bullshit people. There is nothing "special" about any of this. It's not creating a "separate class" of people. There is no "gay agenda." It's all propaganda to scare you. As a gay woman, I am telling you that I simply want the peace of mind to know that I will not be denied the ability to see my partner in a life a death situation, to know that if one of us dies the other won't have to sell off everything we own to pay off inheritance taxes because we willed our share of our home to each other, to know that some 3rd cousin twice removed can't step in and claim to have precedence over my partner in inheriting what little will be left of my "estate." That's all. These are small things that married people take for granted, but even with expensive lawyer fees and documents (wills, power of attorney, etc.), we can't know for sure that it won't all be trashed in one fell swoop by an unforgiving family member. We have absolutely no protection under the law, and as an American citizen, I am outraged, and wish more people were outraged by it as well.

  9. And by the way, this registry that buttars is working so hard to prevent, would provide almost none of that peace of mind. We could visit each other in the hospital, as long as we're in the city limits and not taken by ambulance to the new IHC hospital in Murray. That's it. What a waste of everyone's time that Buttars feels a need to take this so far.

  10. Here's a good explanation of why this is about equality not special privileges:

  11. angrierlesbian: Your link to the Wolfson piece didn't work for some reason, so I figured I'd try it again. Evan Wolfson: Today Is Freedom to Marry Day--Just Don't Say "Gay Marriage!" (BB)


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.