Comments about ‘Hunstman calls self 'moderating voice' on many issues’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 11 2009 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Beesar

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

"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

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

deltabelle

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!

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...

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

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

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

Lowell Steele

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Principles?

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:

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

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

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

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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments