Politics often demonstrate the old adage: “The more things change the more they stay the same”. Lawmakers have been deliberating on some problems that have existed for years, decades and even over a century. As very old columnists we remember these things, even if we weren’t around enough in the days of polygamy. It wouldn’t have worked for us anyway, as considering a number 2 or 3 would certainly induce the threat of death at the hands of the number 1.
A resolution was submitted by the representative. Karen Kwan approve the proposed change in equal rights, or ERA, with the United States Constitution. This was a big controversy 50 years ago. Will it and should this pass?
Pignanelli: “The amendment on equal rights would transform holy marriage into holy deadlock.” –William Rehnquist, 1970
Ahhh, the 70s. Discos, flared jeans, oil embargoes, “M.A.S.H.” … and intense emotional discussions about the ERA. The contention caused huge demonstrations in the streets and in millions of American families. Dinosaurs like LaVarr and I remember the controversy in Utah well. Due to lasting memories for the older Utahns, coupled with the element that many children under 50 do not know what a “SER” is, the resolution may not be heard in this session.
Although similar resolutions have recently been passed in other states, Congress’s 1982 deadline for a state to be adopted has long since passed, suggesting that the current proposal in Utah may be questionable. Even the Supreme Court of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg suggested that the ERA process be restarted.
Recent polls indicate that over 60% of Utahns support an ERA provision in the United States Constitution. So if Congress were to act on the Utahns amendment, it will surely participate in the conversation … and disco fever returns.
Webb: While imposing “equal rights” on all sounds as child’s play, young people won’t remember the monumental battles of the 1970s and the questions raised about ERA. Like worries about forcing males and females to be treated exactly the same despite physical differences. Or the reversal of progress in women’s sports if sports teams cannot be differentiated by gender. Or separate toilet. Or eliminating women’s preferences in hiring. Or women subject to military draft and combat. Or ramifications for alimony, foster care and abortion.
Maybe common sense would prevail. But it would take a mountain of litigation to determine what the new constitutional provision actually means in everyday life.
Sen. Dan McCay is sponsoring legislation to repeal SB54 and offer political parties the opportunity to ban the process of collecting signatures for candidates. Why does this keep reappearing?
Pignanelli: The 2014 compromise legislation (the famous SB54) was based on an agreement that lawmakers would not subsequently repeal and supporters of the signature collection would not attempt another initiative. McCay was instrumental in his passage.
Since an initiative was attempted for 2018, McCay is understandably annoyed by the violation of the faith. But this may not be the year when lawmakers want a return to this fight.
Webb: Many legislators who voted for the unpopular tax reform law are very happy to be able to collect signatures to get the primary electoral vote and not have to face the wrath of the delegates in the caucus / convention system. Therefore, McCay’s account won’t go anywhere.
The redistribution process is soon upon us. Will lawmakers revise the redistribution commission law created through the initiative process in 2018?
Pignanelli: Left-handed national special interest groups have infused their bizarre agenda into the language of the initiative. Apparently, there are deliberations between legislators and commission supporters to change this mess.
Webb: Lawmakers have already been burned with the laws initiated by voters. But the Proposition 4 Redistribution Act has a number of flaws and needs some work. It is hoped that the negotiations will result in a mutual agreement for the necessary changes. Proponents of the Proposition 4 initiative are achieving a clear victory by creating a redistribution commission.
Sen. Deidre Henderson is sponsoring legislation to decriminalize polygamy, while maintaining stiff penalties for any criminal conduct associated with this lifestyle. Normally a taboo topic, the bill is flying through.
Pignanelli: Henderson deserves praise for undertaking what many have avoided. Its bill allows polygamy victims to ask for help without worrying about prosecutions.
Webb: In an age where almost everything is allowed, it is difficult to prohibit consensual relationships of unorthodox marriage. If a woman wants to marry a couple of guys, who can say it should be illegal? But any type of domestic abuse, including child abuse, should be strictly prosecuted.
reps. Stephen Handy is Keven Stratton have legislation to change the state flag. It is necessary?
Pignanelli: Our current flag is boring. Utahns deserves a flag commemorating our proud pioneer and religious heritage, while boasting about the natural beauty that surrounds us. Some require diversity, so I suggest including Diet Coke and wine emblems. The discussions promise to be fun.
Webb: Some people have said that, with the tax reform dead, this legislative session is really boring. This legislation proves it.
Republican LaVarr Webb is a political consultant and lobbyist. Email: [email protected] Democrat Frank Pignanelli is a Salt Lake lawyer, lobbyist and political adviser. Email: [email protected]