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

Return to article »

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

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Thank you!!

I remember seeing a poster years ago that said: "Stand up for what is right, even if you are standing alone." The Governor is standing for something RIGHT. Unfortunately, many will not stand with him, because they fear the uneducated and prejudiced. Thankfully, things are changing. I see this especially with the youth. They recognize that we are not all the same, but that we are all human beings. Thank you Governor Huntsman and those who dare to stand with him!

RE: The Difference

In Mass. the courts did force some people to go against their deeply held religious beliefs.

Gordon B. Hinckley said to

Stand for Something, but he didn't mean to stand for evil.

Huntsman=Sunshine Patriot

Huntsman is blowing to and fro in the winds of popular opinion. He appears to be as stupid as they come. He's really just trying to increase his power, prestige, and wealth at the expense of others.


To Gordon

Define Evil - Are equal rights under the protction of law - evil. Some times those that try to define evil fit the bill them selves


Note that the Civil Unions legislation SPECIFICALLY stated that "marriage" was only for "a man and a woman," although "civil unions" would provide ALL of the "rights and benefits of marriage" that the state was empowered to grant.

But NO!! That was not good enough for the GLBT activists, as they screamed "Separate is not equal!!" (They had actually filed suit against the state in Kerrigan vs. Connecticut even PRIOR to the April 2005 civil unions legislation; and did not drop the suit after that landmark legislation.) The court ruled AGAINST the plaintiffs, but the gay and lesbian plaintiffs appealed to the state Supreme Court, which ruled in their favor---narrowly 4 against 3 as in Massachusetts.

So, that's how Connecticut came to have SAME-SEX 'marriage,' imposed by 4 UNELECTED, ROBED MASTERS, 3 short years after the effective date of "civil unions!" Don't be so sure it could not happen in Utah. Just as governors, senators and others don't always seem to stay true to the party and principles which got them elected---JUDGES are *even less* accountable and predictable!


One more note to deltabelle and others who see benefits for others besides homosexual couples in "Civil Unions"---please also take a lesson from the actual EXPERIENCE in Connecticut.

Back in 2005 when the civil unions legislation was being debated in the Capitol's general assembly, amendments were specifically proposed which would have allowed those in care-giving, dependent relative situations (non-sexual relationships) to qualify and get health, beneficiary benefits etc. from having a "civil union." It was also proposed that some heterosexual couples might want to get civilly united rather than "married."

But the GLBT advocates (and their sympathetic representatives in the GA) would have NONE OF THAT!! They insisted that the legislation benefit ONLY same-sex couples.

And, as we see from what the four UNELECTED JUDGES ruled, all seeming *protections* IN LAW, to keep the definition of MARRIAGE as "the union of one man and one woman, signified NOTHING in their eyes.


I guess the moderator did not like something about my first post, in which I was referring to Civil Unions legislation of Connecticut--and urging people to learn from it and other states' EXPERIENCE.

Anyone who researches the *history* and momentum of "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" in other states KNOWS that a state which enacts "Civil Unions" is simply extending an invitation for same-sex 'marriage' (GENDERLESS MARRIAGE)---by way of an indirect process.

Take the history of "same-sex marriage" in Connecticut, for example. Eight or nine years ago, the GLBT lobbyists convinced our legislature to enact gay adoption and foster care laws, *promising* that it was not a prelude to demands for same-sex 'marriage.' So the trusting representatives passed laws forcing DCF to grant gays and lesbians EQUAL standing (with married couples) to adopt or foster parent.

But a few short years later they were back demanding same-sex 'marriage.' Nutmeggers were NOT accepting of that, but the legislature of Connecticut enacted "civil unions" in April 2005. (Read my earlier posts to see how we got from there to today's SAME-SEX (or "genderless") 'marriage'

to comment

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