Comments about ‘Huntsman backs gay marriage, calls for conservatives to push issue’

This guy belongs to the wrong party.

Does anyone read history? Has any civilization that departed from the norms that BUILD society ever lasted more than a few measely generations after adopting the variance?

Pick the reason you WANT but stick with it. Think LONGER - what are you trying to accomplish with the change, comment, or stance?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana

Why should or would any conservative, against carved-in-stone religious dictates and conscience, take the lead on fast-forwarding gay marriage?

Given how unstable male-male marriages are going to be, our divorce rate should go up.

"It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". Is there a higher power as acknowledged by Alcoholics Anonymous or has man (or woman) become God? The various religions look to Scripture for guidance. I am not so sure that the tv media counts as a type of scripture. We all have to believe in respect for the rights of all. However, a society will not survive without standards of conduct which are woven into our legal system. This is all about world socialism and one rule of conduct which will be accepted by all and the obliteration of separate religions into one based on democratic belief. Mr. Huntsman was Ambassador to China. This means that he "swam" in the "Big Boys Pool" with those who wish to instigate this world government and world religion. His opinions should be seen and evaluated within that context.

Huntsman is someone definitely who I don't ever want to vote for. Marriage is between a man and woman. I think Huntsman will bend to any wind that comes through.

With Republicans like Pete Domenici, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Larry Craig, and many others providing the model of traditional marriage, why would anyone worry about whether John Huntsman supports Gay Marriage? Don't you have enough publicity regarding the GOP's real vision of traditional marriage?

Huntsman waa soundly rejected in the primaries. He is a Democrat at heart and many saw through his charade. He is carrying a grudge and wants to do as much damage to the republican party as he can before he defects to the Dems. He needs a jumping off point and this just may be it. Whenever that happens I say Bon Voyage.

Favoring the Government to define "Marriage" makes as much sense as favoring the Government to define "Baptism". We need to strip the religious term "marriage" from the laws. The proper role of governments, as described in the Declaration of Independence, does not contain any explicit provisions for domestic partnerships.

My biggest problem with gay marriage is that as soon as it passes some will seek to force churches and other groups to perform or recognize marriages against their principles.

A better solution is to allow civil partnerships. Society benefits from people living together and forming an economic unit. However, there should be no requirement that those people are sleeping together. Two straight single women who chose to live together or a single mother, her child and her mother acting as a single economic unit provide the same societal benefit. If they care for each other and provide economic support, they should have the same protections. If grandma has lived with helped raise a child, she should have rights to visitation just like a gay man who has helped raise his partner's children.

While civil partnerships would help prevent people from enforcing their views on individuals, it would also prevent individuals from forcing their views on groups. My church and your church can marry whoever they want and will not have the government being used to push someone's agenda on either side. The great thing about freedom is that it works both ways.

He's jumped the shark.
Political life has become more important than his religion.
Sad

Is it any wonder that God fearing Constitutional fiscal conservative liberty loving patriots have left the Republican party? Of course, ask someone in either party what the above mentioned terms mean and you will get a melange of answers that leaves you in tears of laughter! It is the only way to start the day!

I think saame sex marriages or civil unions will be approved by the courts in the near future. If the courts decide, their interpretaions will be narrow in scope, but broad in application. They will create precedents. If these marriages or unions are defined by legislation, then protections can and should also be created at the same time for those who do not support same sex marriages or unions. Huntsman has it partially right. Allow the same sex unions, but more importantly legislate protections for those who do not approve of homosexuality. If not, soon those who oppose homosexuality will be the ones fighting for their rights, and will only have legal precedents that will work against them, and no legislative rights for protections. Shortly we will be on the other side of this issue, and not be in a good position for legal recourse.

Sorry John. I am going to support traditional marriage between a man and woman because that is what God wants marriage to be (as stated in the proclamation on the family).

Is a Mormon's responsibility to fight against federal and state laws allowing gay marriage? Or just to believe that people can't return to live with God if they break the law of chastity?

Huntsman's comments are very disappointing and if he runs for President again, he will definately not have my vote!

I have not supported the Republican party for Years and also not supported the Dem party for even LONGER. May they both go away.

@Big Bubba

"Sorry John. I am going to support traditional marriage between a man and woman because that is what God wants marriage to be (as stated in the proclamation on the family)."

Go ahead, tie yourself to books that are shoved down your throat. Can you make this dissertation yourself without someone's words or book?

John's doing a good thing. It doesn't matter what you believe or what I believe. What matters is that everyone gets equal rights and freedoms in this country. Nobody will agree with everything and they never have. But the principle of freedom and equality should stand.

Is there anyone of us on this site who wasn't required to secure a "Marriage Licence," from our respective states prior to getting married? First of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract. The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties. The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other. The state's marriage license is "strictly secular." The State regards any mention of God as irrelevant, even meaningless. Marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife and God with husband and wife joined as one. Marriage is a strictly secular relationship so far as the
State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a "privileged business enterprise"

So, when it comes to Same Sex Marriages, it is pointless to argue about gospel standards, they don't apply, as far as Satan is concerned. If we have a contract with the state, then we cannot refuse, or in other words, we have no legal or moral argument against Same Sex Marriages.

re:Mugabe

Not sure what your point is but the reason prop 8 came about in California is because The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints felt it was an important enough issue to fight for. Of course marriage is a state thing but it is also - and more importantly - a spiritual thing which is the foundation of the family unit in society and eternity.