Deseret News | Hunstman calls self 'moderating voice' on many issues

Reader comments
Hunstman calls self 'moderating voice' on many issues

128 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

Beesar | 11:15 a.m. Feb. 10, 2009

It is refreshing to see a politican stand up for what is right, regardless of his religious views. Gov. Huntsman was the only Republican I voted for this last election, because he doesn't do what is popular, he does what is right.

Utah | 11:19 a.m. Feb. 10, 2009

"its not a new position"?? Really? I don't remember ever hearing this in any of his two campaigns. Did he keep his position secret until he won election? Also, could some crack-reporter please report how many gay people have ever been denied access to a "friend" at a hospital. I have never been denied access to visiting a friend at a hospital so why would they? I think this is a red-herring. Also, life insurance beneficiaries can be designated to whomever you want? This is also a red herring thrown out by the gay community. I don't believe these are real problems.

D | 11:24 a.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Reader comments
Utah governor supports civil unions

IN REF: "WRITTEN PRENUPTIAL CONTRACTS FOR POLYGAMISTS" TO PRECEDE CIVIL UNIONS

WHILE I WAS SHOPPING, I PERSONALLY MET AND SPOKE WITH COUNTY MAYOR PETER CORROON

IF TRUE, MARK WITH AN (X)::

( ) BEFORE REGISTRIES, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ENTERTAINED WITH

A FIRST STEP, A "TEST CASE," THE "PERFECT TEST CASE:"

(A) AGAINST AND (B) FOR WRITTEN PRENUPTIAL CONTRACTS FOR POLYGAMISTS.

SIGNED: RECKIPS (DOT) COM

Comments continue below

deltabelle | 11:26 a.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Before all the pro-gay and anti-gay people get on here, let me say that my 53-year-old sister, who has a kidney transplant, is being offered a retirement package that they say will be the last to include insurance for the next five years. At that time, she will be without and I will have to live with her because she is unmarried. So, if I am lucky enough to have insurance at that time, this will be a great benefit to help a great woman in her elder years.

Whoa! | 11:37 a.m. Feb. 10, 2009

The Guv's spokesman says:

"It's essentially the contractual rights of two people living together. It's not something that has to be necessarily limited to an intimate relationship."

Or even to two people! In other words, what would limit this law's application to two people? There is no concept in contract law that would do so.

What would prevent polygamists from arguing infringement of their 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law?

What are the other unintended consequences?

This is a dangerously slippery slope we're on.

Let's slow this one down and think it through!

What is happening... | 11:39 a.m. Feb. 10, 2009

to our society? When did up become down and left become right?

Mr. Huntsman needs to change his political affiliation from Republican to Socialist. It's time for him to stand up and be honest to the citizenry of the State of Utah.

Re: Utah @ 11:19 | 11:42 a.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Actually, you can't designate anyone you want as your insurance beneficiary. The beneficiary has to have an "insurable interest" in the insured. To simplify a rather complicated concept, family members automatically have an insurable interest; others do not (not automatically, at least).

Thanks | 11:46 a.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Congratulations Governor for a common sense position in a difficult political environment.

Lowell Steele | 11:48 a.m. Feb. 10, 2009

As "Utah" has noted, this is, in fact, much ado about nothing. I challenge anyone reading this to contact all your local hospitals and ask them their policy about visitation rights. Not a single hospital limits hospital visits by anyone, unless requested by the patient (the exception is Primary Children's, which takes child safety/security very seriously, as you'd hope they would). One hospital laughed when I asked the question...they noted they even allow visits by pets, so why would they bar people.

Each hospital also has available both in registration and online the state-approved healthcare power of attorney form to assure that another person (anyone) can make healthcare decisions for you if you are incapacitated. Once that form is executed you never need to bother with it again unless you change your mind.

As noted, you can designate anyone you wish as a beneficiary to an insurance policy. You may also name anyone you want in your will.

This information is not new to Governor Huntsman, nor to the GLBT community. The governor is grandstanding. The GLBT community is trying to soften us up step-by-step to nullify Amendment 3.

To: denied access @ hospital! | 11:49 a.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Being denied access to visit a "friend" @ the hospital is unusual. But, being involved in major decisions, especially when "the friend" is unable or even unconscious is a totally different thing.

My partner was @ LDS hospital last year. He was incoherent and unable to understand what was going on. His family had disowned him years prior.

It was not until I provided a copy of our medical power of attorney that the hospital would even let me know what was going on. He had been moved to ICU by the time I could return with the paperwork they accepted. I could not even locate him for a few hours, let alone see him.

That is what Equality and civil unions provide.

lost in DC | 11:57 a.m. Feb. 10, 2009

D 11:24, could you please restate your comments? I have no idea what you're talking about.

quite the selection we had last fall for Governor, a RINO (Huntsman), an old hippy (Springmeyer), and a nut-job.

out of the closet | 12:00 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

I respect Huntsman for taking the same position as Mitt Romney and John Kerry (it is just that in 2004 Kerry was thought evil for this position), what 5 years does to a people. Romney was the first GOP person in the country to have courage to say in his state in New England that civil unions should be legal. Having said all this, I am still grateful 90 percent of our country and 90 percent of the politicians are against gay marriage.

Not surprising | 12:04 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Given this it's not surprising that most governors in the US consider Huntsman to be a closeted democrat. He's a joke!

To Beesar | 12:07 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

It may be "right" to you but it's not to 70% of Utahns. That is how much Amendment 3 won by when it was voted on.

The governor isn't doing what is right, he is doing this to widen his appeal to national voters. Looks to me like he is throwing the people who elected him under the bus in order to set himself up for national politics. This guy is a total sham!

CB | 12:08 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Denied Access: Wouldn't you need papers to prove that you had a Civil Union?

Principles? | 12:19 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

How disappointing. This is just another example of Gov. Huntsman caving into the common and often repeated distortions of rights.

Govenor Huntsman continues to look like a conservative, talk like a conservative, and act like a moderate to left-leaning liberal. Just another wolf in sheep's clothing who cannot stand by their principles amid the constant moral decay of our society.

to CB: | 12:26 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

This happened before SLC legalized the so called "Civil Union" rules.

My partner and I have been together for 15+ years. While living in Utah we spent thousands with an attorney obtaining what legal papers we could that would be recognized in Utah.

We now live 9 months in California (since married, waiting for outcome of prop 8) and 3 months in Utah. We stay in Utah (Capitol Hill) due to that is where the old family residence is. My other siblings have left Utah and seldom return.

My company extends medical and pension benefits due to the California laws and married. The California residency / marriage provides for that.

Anonymous | 12:38 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

When it comes to "civil unions" for Gay couples, if "separate but equal" means exactly that, I don't see the problem. When you raise the specter of "separate but equal," people often harken back to the days of racial segregation when the facilities that blacks were forced to use were substandard, and it became apparent that "separate but equal" was a farce.

If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly. If all the roughly 1,100 federal benefits and responsibilities that are bestowed on married couples would be equally bestowed on Gay couples that have entered into "civil unions," I really don't have a problem. Any couple in question would still refer to one another as "husbands" or "wives" or "married."

But let's keep in mind, as Andrew Sullivan pointed out, "that the forces against marriage equality are also adamantly against civil unions for Gay people. And they have no intention of allowing Gay couples any civil recognition, because we are an emblem of sin to them."

In it to make money | 12:47 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Insurance companies are in business to make money -- not really interested in your welfare. Therefore, a civil union bill would probably not be in their best business interest. It would mean that my elderly mother with no health insurance could be added as a dependent on my policy if she lived with me. My insurance rates would probably go up because as an elderly person she typically would cost more to insurance. I can see the insurance companies getting behind the opposite side of this bill.

A great person | 1:00 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Its wonderful to see Gov. Huntsman do the right thing and respect others, and tolerate beliefs that are different than his own. If only the state legislature was not full of racists, bigots and homophobes.

utah | 1:09 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

I agree with Huntsman's view. There is no harm in helping gay people to attain many of the asumed rights given to married couples. It is just too bad that we now have to listen to the gloating of intolerant pro-gay-marriage crowd. Anything we can do to weaken their claim that marriage is appropriate for gay couples is a step in the right direction.

Yes! | 1:28 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Nice to see some common sense and humanity rule the day. Good for you, Gov. Huntsman! I applaud your courage!

And all the venom and attacks will be arriving in 3, 2, 1....

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 2:13 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Well, back in the good ole daze, in Utah, then there folk there, could have more then one wife, today (other then the FLDS) they in Utah gripe about the people in the middle east having more then one wife, no matter how young she is, and still call themself a Red State?. Now, this same Red State of Utah, caves into, and, along with their elected leader, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. supports civil unions, aka "same sex marriage", and the people in Utah allow it, support it, love it, can't live without it, well, all I have to say to this is this, I guess Utah is stir crazy along with cabin feaver from being locked up in-doors all winter long, and perhaps, because they are all bored to death with nothing else to do, dream about Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. supports civil unions and it really turns them on, so they just say "so be it" aka "amen", and let it rest in piece. Not peace. Perhaps them you need a vacation in Florida, to get away from this evil Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. that supports civil unions, and move your temple to here.

Lowell Steele | 2:26 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

It might be useful to remember the language of Amendment 3, which, as was pointed out above, was approved by a substantial majority of the voters in Utah:
1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

Any time you try to give another relationship the same benefits now reserved for marriage, you are going to run afoul of the language of Amendment 3, which is now part of our Utah Constitution.

'Nuff said.

Andrew Sullivan | 2:40 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

. . . is right!

Danny C. | 2:45 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

I think I could support civil unions so long as dependent relationships like Deltabelle's were included. I don't want to know what goes on in anyone's bedroom, whatever their orientation, but I think civil unions should be offered to all good "friends" who want to (or may need to) live together.

Just don't try equating it to marriage, unless you're making a joke.

Movie Productions | 3:02 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

according to Mr Roskelley civil union or the rights to be given by the movement aren't on the governor's top priority list which is "health insurance reform, alcohol reform and an effort to lure more movie productions to Utah." If Gov Huntsman wants to lure the movie industry here he would do well to bump up these reforms into his top agenda because the movie industry is largely in support of giving rights to same sex couples. And I wouldn't be surprised to see many hollywood machines boycott Utah the mormon's support on Prop 8. As well they should....

Nuff said | 3:41 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Lowell Steele said:
"Any time you try to give another relationship the same benefits now reserved for marriage, you are going to run afoul of the language of Amendment 3, which is now part of our Utah Constitution.

'Nuff said."

Any time a state enacts laws (including amendments to their constitutions that restrict access to legal rights to a certain class of people, it is going to run afoul of the language of the US Constitution, which guarantees equal protection. Apparently it isn't "Nuff said." Seems to me that there is plenty of room for a constitutional challenge to Utah's Amendment 3.

Mike M. | 3:47 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Thank you thank you thank you Mr. Governer. It is so refreshing to see a Utah Republican who stands up for freedom and not bigotry out of fear and hate! I am so proud to be a Utahn under this wonderful governor!

JHP | 4:03 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

This comment from the Trib article rings very true:

Jeff Reynolds, spokesman for the conservative Salt Lake City-based Sutherland Institute think tank, which opposes the Common Ground Initiative, said he's "not surprised" by Huntsman's softened stand.

"He had to be dragged to the altar of Amendment 3," Reynolds said in an e-mail, "and everyone has known since then that Governor Huntsman would rather be nice than right."

Kudos to Gov Huntsman | 4:18 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Civil unions should be recognized. It is the fair and right thing to do.

Troy | 4:28 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Way to go Governor Huntsman! I'm glad I voted for you! And I'm glad that a common sense politician is in charge in Utah. Gay citizens deserve access to all the rights and protections of straight citizens. Let freedom ring!

Defense of Marriage | 4:54 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Nuff said:

"Any time a state enacts laws (including amendments to their constitutions that restrict access to legal rights to a certain class of people, it is going to run afoul of the language of the US Constitution, which guarantees equal protection. Apparently it isn't "Nuff said." Seems to me that there is plenty of room for a constitutional challenge to Utah's Amendment 3."

You are forgetting the defense of marriage act passed by congress

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

To A great person | 4:55 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

What you really mean is that people who disagree with you are "racists, bigots and homophobes." Thanks for being our moral compass. It must be wonderful to be so lofty and have the privilege of judging others.

Re: Beesar | 5:42 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

He is not a republican. Therefore you still haven't voted for a republican.

Gov? | 5:58 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Yah did the right thing. Now stand tall and firm and don't move. You got it right.

And a republican too... wow..... next thing you know we will have a black American as President. When that day happens you just know we are near the end or close to karma.....

His fever is rising | 6:40 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

I detect a rise in his "Potomac fever." A moderate foundation for a run at the presidency is being put in place -- you can bank it. Oh, wait a minute, by then there won't be any banks ;-)

Appalling | 6:42 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

I find it appalling that Huntsman supports equal rights for this minority group. What country does he think this is? America?

You Have 1 New Message | 6:52 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

The Founding Fathers called. All men are created equal. If you have any questions, please refer to a document called The Constitution. Thank you.

David | 7:06 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Everyone needs to relax. The governor was confused the words civil union weren't on his test for the GED. What I would really like to know is what is Orrin Hatch's stand on this issue. Oh wait he has the same opinion as the governor he came out with it in 2004 when utah was voting on the ammendment. Yet everyone still loves him and everyone will forget about this and still love the governor. The LDS church also has said a very similar thing.

Steve | 7:18 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

What?? The governor would not appoint a woman to the Board of Pardons to replace the only woman on the board, and yet he supports this issue?

Rick | 8:03 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

It appears to me that it will be a lot harder to repeal amendment 3 than it was to pass it. Hence, no civil unions for you!

JNZ | 8:45 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

I oppose Governor Huntsman's stand on this issue for some of the reasons mentioned earlier, ie. hospital visition rights are already given depending on the wishes of the patient and if one wishes to have someone as a monetary/property beneficiary I believe that this can be done as well. We all have these same rights. A "Civil Union" would be the same thing as marriage only under another name. Let's keep our "individual" rights but let's put an end to the blur which has occured between what marriage "or civil union" is and what it is not. Marriage is between a man and a women, not two men and not two women. The distinction must be made very clear for the sake of our children, our families and our nation.

Joseph Atwater | 9:03 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Good on ya John!!!
Listening to peoples hearts not politicians heavyhandedness.
We support you 100%
You are aware of peoples plights and pains and adressing them with compassion!!

Anonymous | 10:35 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

*** "So, if I am lucky enough to have insurance at that time, this will be a great benefit to help a great woman in her elder years." ***

There is ZERO, NIL, NADA legal requirement that company insurance cover spouses or significant others. Businesses do so at their leisure. Once businesses that provide it for spouses are required to provide it for significant others you can effectively say goodbye to spousal coverage. It could increase their costs dramatically.

JNZ | 11:51 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Anonymous-

Very good point!

Thank You | 12:29 a.m. Feb. 11, 2009

Gov. Huntsman,
Thank you for taking a stand for what is right. It is time that people give others the same basic rights that mainstream people enjoy every day of their lives.

Joke! | 1:48 a.m. Feb. 11, 2009

Whatever!.....Huntsman is a Joke! You give an inch, they'll try to take a mile! "Get your act together Johnny, Your fooling no one"! I knew there was something about this dude that I didn't like.

Founding Fathers were voters too | 3:37 a.m. Feb. 11, 2009

You Have 1 New Message,

"The Founding Fathers called. All men are created equal. If you have any questions, please refer to a document called The Constitution. Thank you."

Those words can not be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution instead Thomas Jefferson wrote them in the Declaration of Independence when he said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

By the way Thomas Jefferson wouldn't necessarily be considered a Founding Father since he wasn't at the Constitutional Convention and was at first opposed to it. Using the words of a man who believed that it was okay for each generation to write a new organic law and constitution because it wasn't bound by the will of past generations doesn't help your argument.

Being created equal means that each voter has the same rights and gays who are a minority don't have the right to rule the majority. That's tyranny. If you have any questions please feel free to spout off more nonsense.

sally ann | 5:35 a.m. Feb. 11, 2009

I didn't vote for Huntsman because I knew he was a democrat, calling himself a republican, in order to win the vote in Utah. I wondered why so many in this state couldn't see through him. He truly is a joke.

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.