Update: Sen. Valentine voted to not even consider the bill this session. (Sen. Urquhart was the only one who voted to look at the bill. This is the 6th year this bill has been proposed and ignored). These senators are not representing the people (70% polled are for it). Makes me wonder who they are representing. Here's an article from today, 2-7-14: HERE.
Last week, GSA students wrote to our local legislator, Senator Valentine, asking him to read and consider Utah SB 100. You can read the letters HERE.
Senator Valentine respectfully responded to the students. I am disappointed, however, that he doesn't separate housing and employment discrimination from the gay-marriage debate (his is stance on it, btw, shows that he believes that the majority should be allowed to determine minority rights*). He also doesn't seem to have taken the time to educate himself about what transgender is. I want to believe that if he understood, his letter would be much different. But I am grateful that he responded to them.
If you could make sure that { } and { } receive this letter, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Dear { } and { },
Thank you for your input about SB100, Antidiscrimination Amendments.
As your legislator, I share your concern about this issue and understand your strong feelings about it.
Judge Shelby’s decision is a reaction by the Judicial Branch of government to policy decisions already made by Utah’s Legislature and the people of Utah. The Utah Legislature strongly supports traditional marriage for the state of Utah: it submitted Amendment 3, a proposed constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a legal union between and man and a woman, to the voters; and it has enacted laws implementing that definition. The voters, by enacting Amendment 3 as Article I, Section 29 of Utah’s Constitution, also emphatically adopted that definition of marriage for all of the citizens of the state of Utah.
I am concerned about the unintended consequences of SB100. No one condones hate driven discrimination, but there are provisions in this Bill that are problematic, such as defining and protecting “gender identity” (without regard to birth) and “sexual orientation” (actual or perceived orientation as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual). These and other provisions contained in SB100 cause me grave concern about the legitimacy of this legislation. With the backdrop of the challenge to our constitution, it is premature to take up consideration of such far reaching legislation.
It is also important to separate this issue from the people involved. As your legislator, I respect our gay and lesbian citizens and their families and understand their commitment to their beliefs. I would urge you, and all the members of our community, to actively show respect for everyone involved with this issue, regardless of their position or their comments.
Thank you for interest in this, and other, issues of importance to the state of Utah and its citizens. It is an honor and privilege to serve as your legislator.
Respectfully,
Senator John Valentine
Last thought: "It is also important to separate this issue from the people involved." -- Hm. IMO, there has been too much separation between this issue and the people involved. This issue is about people and affects them greatly. But, I suppose he could be trying to say to not let his differing opinion about this one issue make you think he's not a good leader in other areas.
 |
| image credit: sonsoflibertytees dot com |
*2-5-14: A response to Utah's brief to the 10th Circuit: "While it is generally conceded that the teachings of the LDS Church have traditionally contributed to the stability of Utah's families … it is wrong for the State to serve as the enforcer of Mormon teachings - even if a majority of the citizens in this state are Mormon. It is further wrong - and unconstitutional - to use such teachings in order to deny civil rights to a minority of citizens of this state."
