Waddoups Statement, Take Two | 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 PressBackers.com, 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

Waddoups Statement, Take Two

by

comment

Senate President Waddoups late-night statement directed more to gay-rights activists.

Wednesday night, Senate President Mike Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, issued a statement attempting to clarify that he was not censoring anyone by supporting a moratorium on gay-rights/anti-gay-rights bills this session.

In a midnight blog, I interpreted the statement as being directed at his "troops," the conservative lawmakers in the Republican caucus and right-wing activists. But as I made clear in the blog, I also was really only guessing at the intent, and since it was midnight, there wasn't really anyone I could have called. (In fairness, Senate Republican spokesman Ric Cantrell was still on Twitter at the time, so I could/should have checked with him).

This morning, I was pointed to a blog by a helpful reader which is apparently what prompted the statement. Eric Ethington, a gay-rights activist, slams Waddoups for "threatening" the gay community with retribution if they do anything offensive. Waddoups statement was an attempt to clarify that he was not making threats. Instead, he supported the moratorium because it would prompt "civil conversations" during the much calmer interim session, which would "humanize people and lead to better results."

Add a comment