No more gay stuff | Buzz Blog
We need your help.

Newspapers and media companies nationwide are closing or suffering mass layoffs since the coronavirus impacted all of us starting in March. City Weekly's entire existence is directly tied to people getting together in groups--in clubs, restaurants, and at concerts and events--which are the industries most affected by new coronavirus regulations.

Our industry is not healthy. Yet, City Weekly has continued publishing thanks to the generosity of readers like you. Utah needs independent journalism more than ever, and we're asking for your continued support of our editorial voice. We are fighting for you and all the people and businesses hardest hit by this pandemic.

You can help by making a one-time or recurring donation on, which directs you to our Galena Fund 501(c)(3) non-profit, a resource dedicated to help fund local journalism. It is never too late. It is never too little. Thank you. DONATE

No more gay stuff


1 comment

What is House Speaker Dave Clark implying about Salt Lake City?


Clark, a Republican from Santa Clara, told KCPW's Jeff Robinson that an anti-discrimination policy in Salt Lake City might break a compromise between the city and the Legislature

“If Salt Lake City wants to re-write that agreement, then I think that the Legislature will, once again – as we’ve already had an agreement, it’s not the state that’s changing it – there would probably be an interest to see what we could do to work something out appropriately,” [Clark] said. (emphasis added)

The alleged compromise or "agreement" was supposedly reached during the 2008 session when Sen. Chris Buttars tried to outlaw Salt Lake City's domestic partnership registry. Other legislators, like I'm-on-a-cruise-so-I'm-not-yet lieutenant governor Greg Bell, another Republican, won the day and merely demanded that the registry be renamed a "mutual commitment" registry. The registry lets employees designate someone to share their employee benefits, like health insurance. Businesses use the registry only voluntarily. One can designate mom, auntie, special needs sister, or anyone else with whom the employee is mutually dependent, including one's same-sex partner. Lots of people benefit, but the gay community was pushing it, do not be mistaken.

I was amazed when the Legislature let that thing live. I'm generally pessimistic about the Utah Legislature's commitment to, *ahem, the "gay agenda." So it's almost believable, perhaps, that Salt Lake City made some deep promise to keep the registry alive.

But I read a lot of the news last year about the negotiations surrounding the mutual commitment registry and did a quick reread of a few of the major articles again today. I don't see any mention of a grand compromise in which any legislator said, "Ok, you can have your registry, but no more gay stuff, ok?" If there was some secret/unpublished agreement in which the city made concessions, let's hear it.