10/21/2005
Link to article
Many Utahns favor gay-couple benefits

By Rebecca Walsh
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune

Some Salt Lake County politicians apparently are out of touch with their constituents when it comes to the question of providing medical benefits for the partners of gay public employees.
A recent poll found that nearly half of all Utahns and a majority of Salt Lake County residents support the idea.
Equality Utah, a gay-rights organization, commissioned Dan Jones & Associates to determine public sentiment after Salt Lake County Council members split along party lines this summer over a proposal to extend medical benefits to same-sex partners of county employees.
The poll found 47 percent of Utahns and 57 percent of Salt Lake County residents would support providing "basic health insurance benefits to long-term, committed partners of gay and lesbian employees."
The numbers directly refute arguments made by some Republican County Council members and state lawmakers who have used the majority vote for Utah's marriage amendment to try to squash proposals to provide government employees' same-sex partners with medical benefits.
Extending such basic benefits "is what's right and what's fair - and it's what the voters are in favor of," said Mike Thompson, Equality Utah director.
In July, County Councilwoman Jenny Wilson proposed offering health, dental and life insurance, as well as funeral leave, for unmarried domestic partners, gay or not. County analysts figured fewer than 100 employees would take advantage of such a plan, costing between $37,000 and $74,000. In the end, the nine-member council split on partisan lines.
At the time, Council Chairman Michael Jensen reminded his colleagues of the 2004 vote for Utah's marriage amendment. About 66 percent of Utahns approved Amendment 3, changing the state Constitution to block gay marriages.
"Maybe in 10 or 20 years, the county will be ready for this move," Jensen said at the time. "My sense is the valley spoke in November."
The Republican Council members followed up with a letter last month praising traditional marriage to Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson when he signed an executive order extending medical benefits to the gay partners of city workers.
Jensen could not be reached for comment Thursday.
But Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, one of the sponsors of the marriage amendment, discounts the credibility of the poll. He says the final majority vote for Amendment 3 is what matters.
"I question the validity of every poll, because it depends on how they ask the questions," Buttars said. "The vote is really what you look at."
Besides, Buttars figures the Salt Lake County results are skewed.
"Rocky has attracted the entire gay community to come and live in Salt Lake County," he said.
Dan Jones pollsters contacted 614 Utahns Aug. 11-16 for the survey. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent. Thompson released the poll two months later to allow debate over Anderson's order to die down, "so the value of these numbers could be seen and it wouldn't be lost in other discussions."
Wilson hopes her colleagues will pay attention to the results.
"To me, it's rather simple. It was a matter of whether or not it was the right and fair thing to do for our employees," Wilson said. "It does not surprise me that the public would be supportive of that. This is some tangible evidence that [the council] should take it seriously."
Women were more likely than men to support extending benefits - 50 percent compared with 43 percent. And just 32 percent of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who were polled - 66 percent of the poll's respondents - backed the idea, while 59 percent rejected it.
The poll found many Utah voters did not expect the marriage amendment to block the extension of medical benefits to gay workers. Of those polled, 77 percent thought Amendment 3 would "simply define marriage." Another 39 percent believed the constitutional change would "prevent civil unions." And 33 percent said they believed the amendment would prevent gay and lesbian couples from "having any basic benefits or rights, such as health insurance or hospital visitation."
The poll also revealed a disconnect between Utah's most populous county and surrounding communities. In Utah County, 37 percent of those polled support medical benefits for same-sex partners; 57 percent were opposed. And 35 percent of Davis County respondents backed the idea, with 52 percent against it.

Urban planning, open space, monster-homes- these are some of the issues discussed during the debate. Janneke was able to address them in a clear message, without losing herself in long sentences.
Do we want someone that actually knows that preserving the neighborhoods is a vital aspect of the city council, or do we want someone that talks and talks and talks and talks.........

I can't remember the last time there's been a candidate in a Utah election that I didn't have to hold my nose to vote for. Wait, yes I do--it was Karen Shepherd. Everyone else has been a moderate to serious compromise, but I voted in order to avoid even more heinous candidates. Can Janneke run for Mayor next?

There are signs all up and down my Capitol Hill street for Janneke. I hope that, along with the solid endorsements I've seen on this site, are a good indication that she will prevail on Nov 8.

Janneke, you've got both votes at my house. All the neighbors I talk to are voting for you.

Best of luck.

Last week's debate at the Hinckley Institute was covered in today's Chronicle. It was a fair coverage of the debate but kind of vague. It said that both Janneke and Eric are for preserving open spaces and for downtown revitalization but it failed to cover any of the details.

The article did mention that Janneke thinks that people should be aware that a predominantly Democratic district is being represented by a conservative Republican. It also says that Eric thinks that water is a non-partisan issue. To me this is either naive or disingenuous. Water, water rights, water regulation, taxes associated with water issues are all frequent partisan issues. But I can see why he would be afraid of his constituency actually knowing where his loyalties lie.