Quantcast
Utah

Huntsman's focus is not on civil unions

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hospital Smokescreens
    May 20, 2009 7:31 a.m.

    There is no hospital in this country that will limit visitation rights to gays. That issue is such a canard--a smokescreen...

  • JW Morrison
    April 27, 2009 2:16 p.m.

    I think that unions will be acceptable to most mormons. Eventually legalized marriage will be nationwide, not because I want it but because the world will demand it. The Church will not bless marriage of same sex people ever.

    When the day comes that this country accepts gay marriage it will speed its demise. As far as I am concerned, the faster it happens the faster the Savior returns and burns the earth.

    Now, is that mean or what?

  • Jim/DC
    April 27, 2009 1:55 p.m.

    Iowa anti-marriage,

    I'm so sorry you won't read this because it's Monday and this is last week's news.

    I think "uninformed" is better defined by those that will be so simplistic of mind as to say "see, the definition of marriage is written right here in this ole book." Perhaps one hundred and fifty years ago in Utah a dictionary might define marriage as (first definition mind you) a union between a man and as many women [of the same race] as the man so desires.

    My my how "traditions" have changed, but the simple-minded haven't.

  • Concerned; devastated
    April 26, 2009 5:31 p.m.

    There is another side to this! My fiance of three years is in a Long Term Care Facility and I am not allowed to visit her. Our relationship is the most loving, kind and understanding, each of us had ever had. A sister, 900 miles away, who always had conflict with my fiance, has stopped all visitations from loved ones.
    Here is where a provision, perhaps, such as a 'Civil Union' making visitation a reality and beneficial for the patient.
    Is there a legal remedy at present?
    It has nothing to do with being gay, of a certain religious conviction; just about the grief and loss of a loved one!
    Thank you and God Bless!

  • Anonymous
    April 25, 2009 7:07 a.m.

    I am sick of the political correctness. Let call a spade a spade. Homosexuality in all its forms and objectives is an abomination and wickedness in the view of common sensed individuals, God and this world. And it will be a major catalyst in the down fall of our country! An is a direct attack on the family.

  • @Doug Brockbank
    April 24, 2009 11:15 p.m.

    You are right that there is no logical argument against gay marriage. The hostility toward gay people and their relationships is nothing more than old-school prejudice.

    It took decades to desegregate American society, yet we now we have a black president. Likewise, it will take some time before the old ideas against gays are changed, but it will happen, it's already happening among young people.

  • Doug Brockbank
    April 24, 2009 10:29 p.m.

    On KSL last night, Huntsman said civil unions were a civil right and expected the courts to sort it out. What?! The people spoke clearly defining marriage between a man and a woman. That's pretty clear. A civil union takes a huge step in favor of gay marriage because it essentially is the state sanctioning a relationship between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Once that happens legally, what is the argument to protect marriage. There is none.

  • Jon B. Holbrook
    April 24, 2009 3:47 p.m.

    I am very disappointed in Gov. John Huntsman. He is still upset about the Utah State Legislature turning down the Common Grounds Initiative. He says that he supports the marriage admendment to the Utah State Constitution. He then tries to circumvent it by supporting civil unions. Gov. Huntsman says that regarding whether or not civil unions are allowed by the State Constitution, will have to be determined in all probability by the courts. The Guv has turned into a typical modern-day progressive, he doesn't trust the people as manifested in the state legislature, so he is turning to judicial activists to overturn the will of the common people and impose the will of the elites.
    The only conclusion that I have come to is that Governor John Huntsman lied to the people of Utah during his campaigns in 2000 and 2004 when he said that he was a Ronald Reagan Conservative. But this is normal for a politician who is ambitious. Gov. Huntsman is using his position as Governor of Utah as a stepping-stone to higher office.

  • to "tired..."
    April 24, 2009 3:33 p.m.

    " he's a tool they're using to bash real conservatives."

    A real conservative wants less regulation in EVERYONE'S life. Smaller government and less intrusion. A real conservative would have nothing to do with regulating others and their choice of partners. You have absconded with the word "conservative." It does not mean what you are using it for.

    A Barry Goldwater Conservative.

  • To Wilkey
    April 24, 2009 3:26 p.m.


    "Marriage exists to privilege, financially and legally, a certain kind of relationship. That kind of relationship is the kind apt to produce children. Granted, lots of marriages don't result in children, but no gay marriage (in places where it's legal) has ever produced biological offspring of both parties, ever. Few gay relationships even include children at all.

    That's what marriage is for."


    Sorry. There is absolutely no law that states that marriage is for procreation. You may believe this, but the laws say something different and we are talking about civil marriages.

    If you read what the Iowa Supreme Court had to say about this, you would realize that you argument does not hold any legal standing.

    To paraphrase, if you want to discriminate against gays because they cannot reproduce together, you MUST discriminate against ALL people that have that same dificiency. ie, infertile couples, older couples pass childbearing years, etc.

    That is the law (equal protection clause).

    Read the decision. You'll learn a lot.

  • TO The Rock
    April 24, 2009 3:09 p.m.

    "I refuse to now begin a new experiment with homosexuality. The damage is as yet unknown."


    Gays have been coupling and raising families WITHOUT the benefits of the word marriage. This has been happening for ever. We DO know the results of these families. They are responsible parents (no oops, I'm pregnant!) who really wanted their children. These children do NOT have any more hang ups than those raised by heteros. They are more non-judgmental and have a more live-and-let-live attitude. The children have the same rate of homosexuality as those raised by straights (about 3-5%).

    What is scary is that you are afraid of allowing these gay families to have the rights and privileges that you enjoy. What is scary is that you think that deny the children of gay couples a home that has the stability of marriage is right.

  • Tired of Huntsman
    April 24, 2009 2:52 p.m.

    Huntsman's had his day as Utah governor, he never need worry about re-election, and he's just enjoying his last 4 years as a way to show how much more "compassionate" and "tolerant" he is than the Utah saps who elected him. He has no chance to get elected to any national office and he knows it. The media is playing him up because he's a RINO; he's a tool they're using to bash real conservatives.

    The Huntsman family is not conservative in any real sense, and Jon Sr. has given Democrats hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions. Try running for the GOP nomination with that little factoid weighing you down. Oh, and then there's the Mormon thing. Jon Jr. has all the disadvantages of Mitt ROmney and none of his advantages. Mitt, though having a famous father, has done quite well in his own right, too. Jon Jr's resume includes presidential appointments, like ambassador, purchased with daddy's money.

  • Wilkey
    April 24, 2009 2:46 p.m.

    Marriage exists to privilege, financially and legally, a certain kind of relationship. That kind of relationship is the kind apt to produce children. Granted, lots of marriages don't result in children, but no gay marriage (in places where it's legal) has ever produced biological offspring of both parties, ever. Few gay relationships even include children at all.

    That's what marriage is for. If babies were brought by storks then marriage would probably not exist and we'd try to control the migratory and nesting patterns of storks.

    As for the hilarious claim that gays want marriage for "hospital visitation rights" - ha! I've made hundreds of visits to friends and family members over the years and have never once been asked my relationship to the patient, let alone been asked to produce ID. I once spent a whole night sleeping in a chair next to my girlfried who was recovering from surgery. They never asked me who I was, ever. They never told me, "You have to go because you're not her legally significant other."

  • To our nation
    April 24, 2009 2:37 p.m.

    Our Nation | 1:59 p.m. April 24, 2009
    "Is nothing more than a sewer these days
    We have no Constitutional Rights"

    Please tell me what constitutional right you have lost. I can't think of one except the right to privacy - Bush killed that.

  • RE: Jim/DC
    April 24, 2009 2:25 p.m.

    To: Jim/DC.

    Before you asked where I got the definition of marriage, you probably should have looked it up yourself to avoid looking so...uninformed. Just google "dictionary" and take your pick of any number of free online dictionaries by Mirriam Webster and others. Type in "marriage" and you will see the 1st definition is always "between man and woman."

    Look, here's what it comes down to. All of you, like me, who want to defend marriage will have to give ground on all the government rights that come with marriage. Is it that you don't want gay couples to have the same tax breaks as you? Gimme a break! The reason that courts from East to West are legalizing gay marriage is because there's no viable alternative that gives them the same rights as a married couple. Like an earlier post stated, the word "marriage" is already taken, by both definition and tradition. There's a great news article where Elton John states the same thing, and says the problem in the US is that GLBT's are trying to steal the word marriage, but should just be happy with civil unions.

  • The Rock
    April 24, 2009 2:19 p.m.

    Back in the 60's 70's and 80's feminists argued that a woman could do anything a man could do. They even suggested that a man was as useful to a woman as a bicycle was to a fish.

    The traditional nuclear family was unnecessary. Traditional morality was obsolete.

    Today we have evidence that this is not so.
    Over 80% of people in prison came from fatherless homes.

    If you do three things there is an 80% probability that you will never live in poverty:
    1. Graduate from high school.
    2. Wait until you are 20 to get married.
    3. Wait until you are married to get pregnant.

    Add a fourth, stay out of jail, and it increases to 95%

    Children from two parent homes do far better than others.

    This feminist experiment failed and has destroyed lives big time. This was born of women's rights.

    I refuse to now begin a new experiment with homosexuality. The damage is as yet unknown.

  • Our Nation
    April 24, 2009 1:59 p.m.

    Is nothing more than a sewer these days
    We have no Constitutional Rights

  • Warren Kay
    April 24, 2009 1:56 p.m.

    Dear Brother Huntsman,

    Why didn't you come out with your support for civil unions prior to running for governor twice? I find it a disingenuous that you do so AFTER two elections, setting up for your national ambitions.

    Looking in mirror, sincerely. Warren Kay.

  • to Linus
    April 24, 2009 12:27 p.m.

    For most of our history, women could not vote.

    For most of our history, blacks wer inferior and treated as such.

    For most of our history, blacks and whites could not marry each other.


    All these ideas can be found in the bible.

    Aren't you glad that we progress? That we are able to see where things are not equal and just?

    I am.

  • To Twizzles
    April 24, 2009 12:13 p.m.

    "When your special rights affect our rights"

    What rights of yours are being affected? Can you still believe that homosexuality is immoral? Yes. Can you still practice your religion? Yes.

    Not being offended is NOT a right. I am offended that you think I am going to make society fall - me, a taxpaying, hard working grandma! But it is your right to believe what you want.

  • Linus
    April 24, 2009 12:03 p.m.

    How about a history lesson, eh?

    1. Our nation was founded by religious people, and the laws of the nation were aligned with their beliefs.
    2. For most of our history, the laws of the land criminalized immoral and amoral behavior, including most known sexual perversions.
    3. For some time now, activist judges and courts have been pushing religion out of public venues where religious observances had been welcomed during most of our country's first 200 years.
    4. Accompanying this anti-public-expression-of-religion movement was the decriminalization of much immoral and amoral behavior, including many known sexual perversions.
    5. Decriminalization brought homosexuals out of their closets, and the gay-rights movement was born.
    6. Gay pride was born.
    7. Gays began a campaign to achieve respectability and acceptance in society.
    8. Gays now want to possess every right, advantage and institution enjoyed by NORMAL, RESPECTABLE, (RE)PRODUCTIVE, MORALLY STRAIGHT people, including every advantage society has given to encourage desirable and constructive behavior.

    What can a moral society do to turn back this plague, this pandemic of immorality, and the accompanying war on religion?

  • RE: Conservative Nuts vs LDS
    April 24, 2009 11:59 a.m.

    Actually the Lord by definition has defined marriage as between man and woman. Whether you believe that the First Presidency and the Quroum of the Twelve are prophets, seers and revelators is the basis as they state unequivibly in the PROCLAMATION OF THE FAMILY that marriage is between man and woman.

    The Bible and modern day revelation continue to state as such.

    I don't support changing the definition of marriage as this is what the Lord has defined marriage as between man and woman. The LDS Church teaches this. We do though support tha certain rights be given as stated as long as it doesn't redefine marriage. That is the bottom line. Though support for civil unions ma be given, I will wait for them to so state.

    The temple will not be open to anypart of the gay lifestyle as I'm pretty sure the Lord will not permit that to happen. That is my firm belief in the First Presidency and the Quroum of the Twelve.

  • re: Conservative Nuts VS LDS
    April 24, 2009 11:15 a.m.

    "I am LDS and never cease to be amazed at how OUT OF STEP many right wing conservatives are with their own Church. The LDS Church does not support gay marriage and won't in this century. But they DO support equal rights including legal equality. "


    No, I think it is more of a case of the LDS (mormon) church out of touch with what the Lord wants.

    Does the Lord sanction either two men or two women knealing across from each other and having themselves sealed together for all time and eternity? If not, then there MUST be an issue concerning the gay-life style that the LORD refuses to sanction. Or is it the case the the Lord does sanction it, but the GA's refuse to implement it in the temples?

    Who are the bigots?

  • Conservative Nuts VS LDS
    April 24, 2009 10:48 a.m.

    I am LDS and never cease to be amazed at how OUT OF STEP many right wing conservatives are with their own Church. The LDS Church does not support gay marriage and won't in this century. But they DO support equal rights including legal equality. They certainly do not support the absolute bigotry that is so common on this board and in sunday school comments by so many conservative, Rush-worshipping, nuts. I see our Governor as MUCH more in step with his Church than so many on this board whom I assume the majority are LDS.

  • Equality
    April 24, 2009 10:44 a.m.

    Tell me again why a religious institution has to redefine itself because the gays feel entitled to its rewards? Civil unions carry the same legal weight and are more than sufficient for those needing the legal aspects of their relationships satisfied.

    In reading many of these comments, equality seems to be the buzzword used by those who seek to redefine the institution of marriage. Equality is certainly getting skewered in this context.

    Let us be clear. Equality means that any man and woman who wants to marry can do so. Any other combinations are going to have to find something else to call it, since marriage is already taken.
    Marriage was defined and created by God. It's not up for human redefinition.

  • Twizzles
    April 24, 2009 10:27 a.m.

    This is in response to, "THE WAY IT IS". You use the excuse, "Because some people are "WIRED" that way. In using that for an excuse to have new and "Special Sets of Rules and Regulations for their problems, then do you think the rest of us should have a "Set of Rules and Regulations" for all of our specific challenges in our own lives???? There are people who have many varied and unusual circomstances in the world we live in. Why do those who chose to live the gay or lesbian lifestyle, think they are above the rest of us who enter this wonderful world and chose to live as gracefully and respectfully of others around us. It is the "LIFESTYLE MOVEMENTS" such as these that divide our nation...."NOT BRING US TOGETHER"! Live the lifestyle you choose, but do not force your ideals and problems in our face....if you recall, this is a Free Nation, with Liberty and Justice for all. That means we all live under the same "RIGHTS, NOT SPECIAL RIGHTS". When your special rights affect our rights, that is when you become the dividers. God gave free agency, Satan's plan was to force.

  • It's a Charade
    April 24, 2009 9:38 a.m.

    Don't fall for the "we just want equal rights" charade. Hospital visitation rights already exist for non-married relationships. The same is true with inheritances. The real issue is that the gay rights movement wants to codify "sexual orientation" into Utah law so that they can have legal standing to later overturn the marriage amendment. On other thing to consider is that even with Proposition 8 passing, California has civil unions. But that isn't enough. The gay rights movement want to force society to legitimize and accept their relationship.

    Frankly, I wish government was completely out of the business of defining marriage, but since it is in the business of bestowing marital rights, it should do it right.

  • Anonymous
    April 24, 2009 9:10 a.m.

    On the concerns of Civil Unions and adoption, there have long been couples that are married by civil statute rather than religious marriage. In either case, a couple should always evaluate whether having children/adopting children makes sense for them, and to be bound by the law to raise them in a safe environment.

  • Realist
    April 24, 2009 9:10 a.m.

    The ultra-right comments on this board are almost as ridiculous as the ultra-left comments attached to socially and politically charged articles in the SL Tribune.

    I have no idea what its like to be gay. However, if I were gay, Im pretty sure I would want equal protection under the lawrather that be governed by the principles of any religion. I am completely devoted to my religionbut it is very clear to me that our system of government was designed to protect the rights and interests of all, not just a religious majority. The founders of our country were rather explicit on this point.

    BTWIf you dont recognize the fact that John Huntsman is far and away the most capable Governor this state has elected in decades, then youre simply not paying attention.

  • Anonymous
    April 24, 2009 8:47 a.m.

    It is amazing how many Utahn's are so close minded about unions. Mormons of years gone by defined marriage as a union between a man and several women. Now Utahn's can't seem to be able to see outside the proverbial box. Why keep the rights and privileges of a civil union between same sex partners from them. This doesn't lessen the heterosexual couples' legal rights. Let all people have respectability under the law. I agree that Huntsman is the face of the Republican party of the future. Utahns better get on board or they will be left behind. No longer are anglo saxon males able to dictate how things are run. Everyone has a voice.No offense to religious leaders in Utah, but the leadership is strictly anglo saxon white males at the top and they DON'T speak for all the people in the country, even if they think they should be able to have the final work.

  • Anonymous
    April 24, 2009 8:39 a.m.

    "then it would be to force churches to marry them, that would be discrimination if they didn't."

    Oh boy. When are we going to stop this fear mongering? Where are all the gays forcing churches to marry them in Massachusetts? They have had gay marriage for over 4 years? Anyone suing to be married in the Boston Temple? Alberta Temple?

    Really. Get back to reality. We have the strongest freedom of religion clause in our constitution in the world!

    Pure fear mongering.

  • Anonymous
    April 24, 2009 8:34 a.m.

    "Are your envisioned civil unions (CUs) eligible for adoption?"

    Don't be deceived. Gays can adopt in Utah already. They just have to be single.

  • Anonymous
    April 24, 2009 8:33 a.m.

    "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."


    Sorry. You would need his consent to have a civil union, and, looking at your greed, he is better off without you.

    Silly man. This isn't funny to a lot of people.

  • Cats
    April 24, 2009 8:12 a.m.

    I am EXTREMELY disappointed in the governor. Of course, he can always find any excuse for a photo op. I swear, that guy could turn going to the bathroom into a photo op.

    He's a competent guy, but if he thinks he's going to have a snowball's chance at the presidency, he's in for a big let down.

    And to Albemar...There is no democracy in truth. It makes no difference what is popular now or in the future. Right is right and wrong is wrong. That will never change no matter what happens to our sick, twisted, misguided society.

  • Albemar
    April 24, 2009 7:50 a.m.

    Huntsman is the GOP of the future, and many on this page are the GOP of the past. Hurray!

    People are finally starting to listen to rational minds around the issue of "Marriage Equality". It's time we get religion out of government and let every religion practice it's own faith in it's own church.

    The country is changing on this and Utah will have another example of being intolerant to add to the history books. Congratulations, you took the lead in this fight and you will own the ugly reputation when it's over.

  • Rdub
    April 24, 2009 7:37 a.m.

    Unless Huntsman is willing to go through the process of changing the Utah consitution we will not have civil unions. Huntsman is using politcal poturing in the hopes of becoming the republican candidate for President. H.e doesn't give a rat's ___ about civil unions. He knows they are unconstitutional in Utah. Do yourselves a favor and read the amendment:

    Utah Constitutional Amendment 3 is an amendment to the Utah state constitution that defines marriage as a union exlcusively between a man and woman. It passed in the November 2, 2004 election, as did similar amendments in ten other states.

    The amendment reads as follows:

    Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
    No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

  • Jim/DC
    April 24, 2009 7:28 a.m.

    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.

  • Chandler Levrich/Nevada
    April 24, 2009 6:14 a.m.

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

    YouTube it.

  • Anonymous
    April 24, 2009 5:53 a.m.

    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.

  • To bad
    April 24, 2009 4:34 a.m.

    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
    April 24, 2009 3:38 a.m.

    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.

  • Some people on this thread amaze
    April 24, 2009 12:40 a.m.

    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.

  • Anti marriage, not anti union
    April 23, 2009 11:24 p.m.

    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

  • our time together
    April 23, 2009 7:10 p.m.

    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.

  • Huntsman why build the divide
    April 23, 2009 7:00 p.m.

    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.

  • The way it is
    April 23, 2009 6:42 p.m.

    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 the deceiver
    April 23, 2009 6:33 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    April 23, 2009 6:29 p.m.

    Let them marry!

  • You expected this!
    April 23, 2009 6:22 p.m.

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

  • John II:09
    April 23, 2009 6:09 p.m.

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

  • Please clarify
    April 23, 2009 5:56 p.m.

    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.

  • Huntsman & Anderson
    April 23, 2009 5:46 p.m.

    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.

  • Sinking Ship
    April 23, 2009 5:44 p.m.

    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.

  • KJB
    April 23, 2009 5:27 p.m.

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

  • Mark
    April 23, 2009 5:09 p.m.

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

  • arc
    April 23, 2009 5:08 p.m.

    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.