Senate Bill 32, which was defeated in the Utah State Senate’s Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee on Jan. 27 was a “Trojan horse” for advocates of same-sex marriage. Seemingly innocuous on its surface, the bill represents the thin end of a wedge aimed at the traditional definition of marriage.
The bill is part of the “Common Ground Initiative” sponsored by Equality Utah. This program includes additional bills outlawing discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of sexual orientation, establishing a domestic partner registry, and partial repeal of Amendment 3, which banned same-sex marriage in Utah. In addition, initiative backers will be asking the governor to extend health care benefits for state employees to include “adult designees.”
This bill provided an additional class of “heirs” under Utah’s Wrongful Death statute referred to as a “wrongful death designee.” A wrongful death statute is an act that allows certain parties to bring a civil action for the wrongful death of a person. Usually the only parties eligible to bring such actions are closely related to the person who has died, by blood or marriage. Utah Code 78B-3-105 as it stands includes the decedent’s spouse, children and parents (both natural and adoptive) as well as certain other blood relatives and dependent minor step-children in this group of individuals with standing to sue. The bill would have added a “wrongful death designee,” a person designated in the decedent’s will and involved in “a mutually supportive and dependent relationship with the decedent” to the list of eligible parties.
At first glance this appears harmless. It is merely adding to the list of individuals who could benefit from Utah’s Wrongful Death statute. Doing so, however, makes fundamental changes in Utah law and society.
Bryan Fischer, executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance, said that “expanding the group of people who can sue for wrongful death would open up a Pandora’s box” that would be difficult to limit. More importantly, however, it “expands (the legal) definition of what constitutes a family8212;which is bad public policy.”
Blurring the lines of what constitutes a family serves to weaken the traditional family by diluting the definition of it. If any group of people who choose to live together in “a mutually supportive and dependent relationship” is a family, then those families related by blood and or marriage cease to be special. Traditional families are most conducive to the maintenance of strong societies and the development of healthy individuals, and as such they should be encouraged.
This does not mean that those who, for one reason or another, are not part of a family related by blood or marriage should be unable to make provisions for those they are close to. Stan Rasmussen of the Sutherland Institute testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee that “so-called “wrongful death benefits’ can be handled through private contract, and because it can be handled through private contract, a marriage-like legal remedy is not needed.”
The real reason that “a marriage-like legal remedy” is sought in S.B. 32 is to gain legal acceptance and recognition of same-sex unions. In essence, it is a surreptitious way or a “Trojan horse” tactic to get the people and the state of Utah to accept something we don’t agree with.
Rasmussen wound up his testimony by stating: “Far from being the least offensive bill in Equality Utah’s gay rights “initiative,’ S.B. 32 is actually the most offensive in our opinion8212;it represents an insidious legal construct in search of a clever cause looking for an existing remedy. In other words, S.B. 32 is not only not needed, it invites legal mischief in areas of marriage and family that most Utahns oppose.” As such it is good that the committee rejected the bill.
Steve Warrick