Comments about ‘Guv draws scrutiny over stance on civil unions’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 21 2009 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

Civil unions are the way to go, it's a no brainer. Let them have same sex unions, employee paid benefits, inheritances, and other "equal treatment in law", including make them responsible for each others' welfare, like married couples. But the last thing we need is to change marriage into something it's not.


Thank God for our wonderful Governor Huntsman who supports equality for all human beings! Liberty and Justice for all! One day, all people will be treated equally! We as the LGBT community and our supporters will not surrender until we have won this hate filled war! We are not going away, get used to it!

Baja Joe

Civil unions do not constitute marriages.
People living in the same household should be entitled to equal protection and rights under the law.
I should be able to provide insurance benefits and protections to my dependents regardless of whether they are my children, aged parents, common law wife, or committed partner.
Families are more than just heterosexual couples with biological children.

observing canuck

As as a straight,and LDS Canadian who lives in a
country which allows same sex marriages...all I can
say is that this man does not wantto be governor any more of the reddest state of the union ,let
alone be President.
I don't agree with same sex relationships,never will.Also I agree with tthe 1995 proclamation from the church of what constitutes a family according
to God.
But I will say this that I was raised by a righteous,LDS mother who taught me tolerance to all
of God's children and....also my great country of
Canada has not become the Sodom and Gomorrha of the


Look, you open the same privileges up to gay couples and you're endorsing the principle of gay marriage. Pretty simple. Just call it what it is. Huntsman gets zero points on this one.

Just a thought

I am for giving "equal treatment in law." However, to what extent? Are we to allow civil unions regardless of gender, number of partners, and/or age for instance?


This should be open for discussion.

Bro Joseph

Gov. will be remembered for his desire to seek the will of the people. He is fufilling his role as an elected leader. He is an example to fellow Gov's throughout the land,"to serve the interests of the people". The people must be accountable fo their actions and decisions ultimately. But least he is honest and not self serving and self righteous like so many other politicians.
Three cheers for Mr Huntsman.

everyone can have their cake

Why not have two forms and everyone should be happy. Let there be religious marriage (church, temple, mosque, synagogue, hall) and civil marriage (performed by minister, lay person, judge, person authorized by the state). There will be religious institutions that will allow marriage and there will be couples opposite sex that want a civil marriage.


Civil union is everything but the religious ceremony, isn't it? So what's the big deal if they stand up before their chosen clergy to say vows?

my opinion

Under the constitution equal rights are to be given to every individual, so civil unions should be given. Civil unions are not the question. The real question is the same as it has always been...homosexual men and women want to be accepted as "normal" so that is why they won't concede to only have equal rights given under civil unions. THAT is why there is such a great push for Gay marriage...to be accepted as a normal lifestyle.


Please remeber that everyone should be treated equally by the state and allowed a civil union. The chruch is still free to choose whom should receive the marriage rights and who whould not.


Or one step beyond that...just get the state out of the marriage business all together. Couples (straight or gay) go to the state for their Civil Union license and then, if they so choose, go to whatever religious institution they want for a marriage. Gay couples can get married by regligions that don't see a problem with it and straight couples can get married by the religion of their choice. Or if you don't believe in religion you just call it good with your Civil Union.

This prevents religions from having legal definitions forced on them by the state with which they don't agree. I honestly couldn't care less about the wedding license I got from the state beyond the rights it affords me. I care about my religious wedding much more.

So provide the same civil liberties to couples of any kind under nationwide Civil Unions. And let religions own the marriage business.

States should decide though on certain things like adoption. Honestly I'd have to see some good data to tell you my view on that. But survivorship, insurance, visitation, I'm comfortable with all of that. It makes sense.


Marriage is between a man and a woman and it doesn't discriminate based on sexual preference. A man is not a woman and a woman is not a man. Leave the definition of marriage as it is. No rights are being denied here.


My gay friend says that civil unions are not enough. He and his pals want their partnerships to be called marriages by the government because only then can they demand equal treatment and respect as well as legal support for their lifestyle.

Civil Unions only go so far!

For all those who feel that civil unions would take care of this remember: DOMA! (Defense of Marriage Act. 1996)

Federally, the US does not acknowledge same sex married couples for taxes. Few businesses, if any, recognize them for pensions. Estate planning is difficult (expensive) if not impossible.

I agree with others, give every US citizen the civil marriage, then after that - the churches can decide who they will accept.


I wish that the government would get out of the marriage business. Have civil unions for everyone, straight or gay, and let churches decide who they want to marry. Problem solved.


Great job Governor Huntsman by winning the praises of Frank Rich and the New York Times. Politically, you state that you are a Republican, but many of your liberal ideas are showing through. The result of these moves towards gay marriage, gay civil unions, or whatever you want to call them is on the slippery slope downward. The law of unintended (negative) consequences will very likely be the result, with the strongest negative effects being among young men, young women, and children.

Everyone is Equal

You should be able to marry the one person you love. Loving another human, male or female, is no threat to anyone. Never has been, never will be.


When we're born, we look to the state to certify it. When we want to buy a car, own a dog or a home or an aircraft, we look to the state to permit and certify. When we divorce, guess who's court we end up in? We need to recognise and regulate marriage for what it is, a civil union in society. A contract. You want the church veneer on it, fine, but fine if you don't, too. It's the slippery slope upward.

to comment

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