Comments about ‘Huntsman's focus is not on civil unions’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, April 24 2009 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
arc

There wasn't a civil union bill even put out there. For Huntsman to be harping on this is just trying to pick up national attention.

HB160 was the closest thing submitted, and it should have passed. Yes the Eagle Forum, etc. were idiots on this one.

I wouldn't have voted for civil unions. I wouldn't have voted for the other bills submitted as "common Ground"

If for nothing else, Utah Constitution would need to be changed first for civil union, and I don't see why.

HB 160 didn't say anything about gay, same-sex, sexual orientation, etc. It would have worked for quite a number of different people, related or not.

If Huntsman wants to do something good, support HB 160, or something like it.

Mark

Imagine that.. equal rights for all people, whether they adopt Mormon beliefs on marriage or not.

KJB

And the gay-people-can-marry-they-can-marry-people-of-the-opposite-sex arguments will begin in five, four, three, two, one...

Sinking Ship

Huntsman can no longer represent the majority of Utahns. His elected purpose is to represent the majority, not advance his own personal ideas. Voters will remember your betrayal and moral judgement awaits. Do us a favor; please resign and allow someone else to right the sinking ship.

Huntsman & Anderson

Maybe Huntsman can join in a union with Rocky Anderson as a token of his true support for this measure. What a bunch of pure political posturing. The only reason Utah has a balanced budget is because of the conservatives. Last time I checked the liberal whacko states like California do not have balanced budgets.

Please clarify

Dear Governor, please clarify your stance by answering the following questions:

1. Are your envisioned civil unions (CUs) eligible for adoption? foster care?

2. Do your envisioned CUs allow for tax benefits?

3. Do couples in a proposed CU receive the spouse's share of the estate upon the other person dying intestate? What about a forced spousal share?

4. In school health classes, would CUs be portrayed as an acceptable life style (on par with marriage)?

5. Would school health classes still be able to teach "abstinence before marriage and fidelity thereafter," or would it be modified to "fidelity within marriage *or* CUs"?

6. Would your envisioned CUs mean that we would have to repeal or modify the Utah constitutional amendment limiting marriage and its accouterments to conjugal couples?

7. Do you support repealing any part of DOMA?

8. I know a seven-year-old girl who has struggled with same-sex attraction and has received counseling and therapy from her school counselor for this. If your version of CUs were enabled, would a similar girl still be able to receive therapy or would the counselor have to tell her that her feelings are normal?

Thanks for clarifying.

John II:09

How John McCain-esque of Huntsman. Like McCain Huntsman is just another fence sitting despot with no clear compass.

You expected this!

Put all the gays back in the closet. Lets try this all over again.

Anonymous

Let them marry!

Huntsman the deceiver

Huntsman really bamboozled the Republican delegates and primary voters that propelled him into office. He was supposed to be an improvement over Olene Walker, but we were all deceived by this ambitious rich kid.

The way it is

There are some people due to the way they are wired that are not happy unless they have a lover of the same sex. These people deserve to be happy just as much as anyone else.

I hope they can have happy lives together, with legal support.

However children who are mostly hetro sexual should be adopted by hetrosexual couples only.

Children don't owe it to homosexuals to help make their life complete. They have a right to their own lives and their own happiness, which is best derived from a loving mother and father.

Huntsman why build the divide

Why has our govenor now decided to further divide the sides.

He is insuring that gays end up with less rights than they have now. If he doesn't understand that we really have an unintelligent govenor.

I would have thought he was wiser than this.

our time together

I have decided to sue my former college roommate.

Nice looking fellow.

4 years together in the same dorm apt. should be considered a civil union.

Half of his earned millions will be mine.

Anti marriage, not anti union

I'm a strong Republican but I didn't vote for Huntsman (I didn't want some rich kid buying his way into the governorship). I just moved to Iowa from Utah and am horrified at what the Iowa Supreme Court just did. I do not support gay marriage.

However, I totally support equal rights for all Americans; but I don't buy into the argument that marriage is a right. Marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman. However, by creating a situation where our government and other entities reward marriages, but don't recognize same-sex unions, we have created a division of rights. I will never support gay marriage, but I do think that everything from tax breaks to visitation rights should be given to same sex couples. I think civil unions are the perfect answer for this problem. It maintains the all-important distinction between what a marriage is (man-and-woman) and what a civil union is.

All of you fighting against this would do good to understand that in order to win the war, you have to lose a few battles. I'll fight to preserve marriage, not "married-filing-jointly privileges

Some people on this thread amaze

Some of the comments on this thread border on the comical. You call yourselves conservatives yet you oppose some rights for Gay people. Conservativism is opposed to big government IN ALL ITS FORMS! I don't support Gay marriage, but opposing some civil rights for Gay people is not a viable conservative cause.

I applaud the governor. As a smart conservative; not an idealogical idiot like so many in this state, he is espousing true conservative principles:

1. Balance the budget and support economic development.
2. Limit government's influence in social issues, while ensuring civil rights for all citizens.

Huntsman isn't pandering people, he just doesn't agree with your schizophrenic ideas of conservative government. Your typical Utah conservative? No limits on any type of gun, yet restrict any rights for gay people. Reduce government spedning, yet spend millions to write and litigate abortion bills. Turn a blind eye to polygamy that often equates to child sexual abuse, but rail against gay civil unions.

Huntsman is a true conservative and you people are Bush cronies.

Anonymous

I think governor Huntsman is a great statesman and is concerned about all of the people. Everyone deserves rights and civil unions are rights that committed couples of the same sex have a right to. In years gone by, women did not have the right to vote or to own property. In an enlightened age people are secure enough and informed enough to grant rights to all people. I hope governor Huntsman becomes a candidate for president in 2012. I think he is a true Christian and represents all the people. I can't support Romney because of my perception that he is an elitist--Huntsman is a different story. He may be wealthy, but he is a humanitarian and humble in nature. He listens when people speak.

To bad

How can anyone in Utah support this guy? He is a shame to his own family name. Riding in on his fathers good name and not representing the Utah people. I would say that he is the worst governor Utah has seen.

Anonymous

Gov. Huntsman has his own agenda and it does not go along with the majority of voters that put him in office. He appears to only be listening to those around the Capitol. Anyone in the others areas of the state are not even heard.

As in California they started with civil unions and look where it led them, fortunately the majority of voters ruled and passed Prop 8. If Utah were to do the same thing (allow civil unions) the next thing on the gay agenda would be to change the state constitution to allow gay marriage, then it would be to force churches to marry them, that would be discrimination if they didn't.

Chandler Levrich/Nevada

The parodies of The Gathering Storm show what a laughable enterprise the commercial is.

YouTube it.

Jim/DC

Iowa Anti Marriage:

I am curious to know where you found the definition of marriage as a "union" between a man and a woman? Marriage is a "union" between a man and a woman by tradition, not definition. This tradition has primarily been religiously based which civil societies have legislated.

All people who marry get a marriage licence to satisfy civil requirements. Therefore, all marriages are essentially civil unions legally. Specific words and documents have to be said and signed to be legitimate legally -civily. The rest of the vows and ceremonial events are irrelevant to the civil union.

So thank you for not being anti union. Eventually, all unions will be civil and religions and individuals can have all the marriage they want. Nothing will change...except equal civil rights for all.

to comment

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