Follow breaking news @lgbtqnation

Utah state legislator introduces bill that would void contracts between gay couples

Thursday, January 27, 2011

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah State Representative LaVar Christensen, the man who introduced and passed Utah’s 2004 Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, has resurrected an old enemy of the LGBT community.

LaVar Christensen

Christensen (R-District 48) has reintroduced a bill he tried to pass in 2006 which prohibits same-sex couples from making contractual agreements, such as wills and financial arrangements.

The bill, known in 2006 as HB 304, but now as HB 182, slides in under the generic title “Voiding Transactions Against Public Policy,” and declares “an arrangement, agreement, or transaction that is illegal or against public policy to be void and unenforceable.”

In a 2007 report, the Utah Law Review, commenting on HB 304, wrote:

Representative Christensen is the same legislator who introduced the Utah marriage amendment, the basis for this discussion. Christensen explained the purpose of the bill was to reduce to statute a common law practice which has been around for a century.

He said the main purpose of the bill was to outlaw contracts based on drugs and gambling. However, Christensen’s consistent agenda to curb the expansion of rights to unmarried heterosexual and same-sex couples had many worried about Christensen’s intention.

Terry Kogan, Professor of Lawat the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, spoke against the bill during the session. He stated, “[Christensen] may be trying to undermine the ability of same-sex couples to protect their financial and other interests.”

HB 182′s language is virtually word-for word from the narrowly-defeated 2006 measure, and if passed, would strip even more rights away from the same-sex couples who depend on contractual arrangements, as Utah denies them any of the inherent protections afforded to heterosexual couples.

Same-sex couples in Utah have so few protections in Utah, and must rely on creating legal contracts to protect loved ones in the event of each other’s death.

Christensen’s bill would leave surviving same-sex partners at the mercy of their deceased partner’s family.

South Carolina

Archives: , ,

Filed under: Utah

23 more reader comments:

  1. What is going on? Utah, Iowa? Instead of moving forward they are going backwards. HEY!! IT’S 2011!!!!!!!!!! UGH!!

    Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 5:55pm
  2. Can we ban him from being butt ass ugly then?

    Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 5:55pm
  3. That is just flat out evil. The things I’ve earned in life have nothin to do with the next man. And if I want to will them to my wife that is my decision!! Bastard! Let’s just keep stripping people’s self worth away.

    Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 5:55pm
  4. But not the ones with multiple wives? How they pick and chose is amazing, but, then again, people who wear magical underwear usually are the biggest freaks and bigots.

    Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 5:56pm
  5. Worthless piece of shit!

    Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 5:57pm
  6. Just when I though Utah couldn’t be any more backwards then it currently is…

    I actually am beginning to agree with Obama now. I want to reach across the aisle… and bitch slap that dude!

    Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 5:58pm
  7. That’s just a legal mess waiting to happen.

    Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 5:59pm
  8. What. The. Fuck.
    I know cursing doesn’t signify intelligence, but that is the stupidest fucking shit I have EVER heard.

    This is taking away basic human rights.

    Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 5:59pm
  9. Omg. I don’t see this going too well.

    Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 6:00pm
  10. Dear utah and iowa, fail. Epic and total fail. The end. LOVE!

    Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 6:08pm

    Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 7:00pm
  12. Dear Utah,

    Well see you in court.


    Very, very sincerely,

    LGBT Citizens of Utah

    Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 7:34pm
  13. this is contradictory to the contitutional right -.- EVRY MAN IS BORN EQUAL TO THE OTHER what hapened to good ppl in the world? exept maybe obama he rocks now :P

    Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 8:03pm
  14. I’ll say it again, “When do I get to vote on your marriage?”

    Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 9:47pm
  15. Oh god, another idiot. -__-

    Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 9:58pm
  16. Unconstitutional. Period. Even our Conservative Supreme Court wouldn’t allow this to stand.

    Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 10:06pm
  17. Apparently you only have to outnumber anyone to violate the human rights of their family members. Does not sound like a basis for maintaining the rule of law which always hangs by a thread to begin with.

    Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 11:11pm
  18. Actually, the more strident our opponents get now, the better it is for the future. I know it’s counterintuitive, but one of these days one of these nuts jobs is going to say something so outrageous that the entire “N0-gays” lobby (they’re not anti-gay, they’re “no gays”) will be gone with the wind. Me, I can’t wait for the Family Research Council to become so emboldened that with the help of our ‘friend’ here they’ll introduce legislation in some state or nationally to outlaw us, arrest us, incarcerate us, force us into curing centers and/or deport us. It will be funny to see the shocked faces on so many American’s faces when they realize just how loony the no-gays lobby really is.

    Posted on Friday, January 28, 2011 at 6:31am
  19. Virginia beat Utah to this. We ALREADY have a law that denies gays the right to enter into contratcts resembling those allowed to heteros. I haven’t heard of any lawsuits resulting from this.

    Posted on Friday, January 28, 2011 at 1:58pm
  20. The Marshall-Newman Amendment also referred to as the Virginia Marriage Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia that defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman and bans recognition of any legal status “approximat[ing] the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage”. [1] The amendment was ratified by 57% of the voters on November 7, 2006

    Apparently, This is unconstitional but not illegal if passed by voters, which it was. I haven’t heard of any legal challenges to this as of yet.

    Posted on Friday, January 28, 2011 at 2:05pm
  21. I wonder how much he charges for tug jobs in interstate mens rooms.

    Posted on Friday, January 28, 2011 at 4:46pm
  22. Natural rights!!!

    Posted on Monday, January 31, 2011 at 8:29pm
  23. Call Rep. LaVar Christensen 801-550-1040 and tell him what you think of his new Bill

    Posted on Saturday, February 5, 2011 at 4:00pm