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

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Feb. 21 2013 7:10 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
sovereign joe
Draper, Utah

I hope society evolves to a position where government removes itself from defining and/or regulating relationships between consenting adults altogether. It's not the proper role of government.

St Louis, MO

Is it too hopeful to believe the Huntsmans of the GOP will eventually displace all the professed "true conservatives" pandering to an aging, ever-shrinking base? I had a sort of affection for Mitt, but it was almost like affection for a puppy. He was a pleaser, or, to put more of a point on it, a panderer. I want to elect someone who's not afraid to defy the more staunch members of his party and take a stand he knows will alienate a lot of people who may otherwise support him. Don't say what you think will maxmiize your votes . . tell me what you really think.

All of you moaning about faith, God, and moral compasses are losing. You'll soon be in the ol' folks' home, and able to complain to each other all day about today's wicked generation and reminisce about the good ol' days. Bye bye.

Farmington, UT

@ sovereign joe

So prostitution should be legal?

Salt Lake valley, UT

Here is a question for all to answer: What are your reasons for wanting governments to continue regulating marriage?

The Skeptical Chymist

BRAVO for you, Mr. Huntsman! You were the only one in the Republican field of candidates who I could ever have considered voting for in the last Presidential election. This is an issue that the Republicans will need to come around on, if they want to win a national election again.

Charleston, WV

The GOP may not “Go Gay” anytime soon … but eventually they’ll have to come to grips with the fact that vilifying Gay Americans is no longer a vote-getter for them. Back in 2009 a CBS News survey found that while only 18% of Americans over the age of 65 supported marriage equality for Gay couples, 41% of American under the age of 45 supported it. That was FOUR YEARS AGO, and the generational shift in attitudes among young people toward their Gay friends and family members is accelerating.

30 years ago most Americans were not aware of any Gay friends, family members, or co-workers. Today most Americans ARE aware, and they have become dramatically more accepting and supportive of the Gay people and Gay couples in their lives. And social networking sites like Facebook have made the proverbial "closet" virtually obsolete. The Republican Party ignores this growing acceptance at their own peril. The economy is important, yes... but your friends are PERSONAL.

Clear Eyes
Highland, UT

The rights of a child should always be our highest priority. Interesting article from the Witherspoon Institute on how the French feel about a child's right vs. the right to a child. And the fight for a child's right to both a mother and father is coming from both gay and straight citizens.

"Lessons from France on defending Marriage," written by Robert Oscar Lopez at www.thepublicdiscoure.com is very interesting.
(January 14, 2013.)

Bakersfield, CA

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman that has existed since man and a woman was created. If any other type of marriage is created it defies all the morals of our society and will face certain rejection by our living God. Our nation is at a turning point in its future. Will it remain a nation of established moral and sustaining values or will become a nation of anything and everything goes. A nation that would be living in a shattered and fractionized society with ever-changing values that at best would be confusing and unsustainable for our children. How can we cure discrimination by discriminating? How can we support a United States by a Divided States? How can we leave a legacy by destroying a legacy? There are some in this nation that believes that it is acceptable to change society even though it goes against the foundation of the founding fathers and more important God himself. It will simply not work. God and time will prove this out. Mr.Huntsman has proved that even rightous men can enfluenced by political correctness. Sincerely, Trenton

Big Bubba
Herriman, UT


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

I don't tie myself to anything religious unless I have a strong spiritual conviction of its truth. In fact, I have written a dissertation and have a PhD. I am educated, have published several articles in peer reviewed journals, and have written a science book, yet I also have spiritual convictions which tell me John's position is contrary to gospel truth.

You don't have to accept my viewpoint, you only need to acknowledge it and realize that, among those who support traditional marriage, there are independent thinking and educated persons.

Clearfield, Utah

I don't claim to know what the law says we can and can not do in regards to marriage, but I am one who does oppose gay and lesbian marriage. This is not because I am prejudice or am trying to discriminate because I'm not, it is because I believe in a higher law. In the scriptures God joined Adam and Eve together as husband and wife and commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth. He never any where joined a man to a man or women to a women. Nor did He make it possible for them to procreate together. I know their are many of you out there that don't believe in God or maybe just choose not to follow his commands, but for me it is important that I do so. And until He changes those 2 things in my mind marriage will always be between a man and a women.

Anti Government
Alpine, UT

Political chameleon.

Will basically do or say whatever it takes to gain power and authority over others.

I guess we know where a man stands when he stands in direct opposition to his God he supposedly believes in.

These days you don't even have to bother mingling it with scripture. People are so blatantly lost you can just overtly say without needing to obscure it.



"Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman that has existed since man and a woman was created."

Really? So caveman were practicing marriage and following commandments given by God? They knew the definition of marriage?

Wilf 55

Thank you, Mr. Huntsman. A wise and courageous standpoint. Some countries have had gay marriage now for ten years. None has collapsed. These gay couples (all by all a small minority) now enjoy the rights and obligations of any two persons who love each other and are committed to each other. None of us has the right to deny them this.


@Anti Government

"I guess we know where a man stands when he stands in direct opposition to his God he supposedly believes in."

How do we know where a man stands when he follows a God who is consistently changing revelations and policies?

St Louis, MO

It takes a truly nimble mind to convince oneself that allowing two adults to marry if they wish is somehow discriminatory. The term "backwards" doesn't do that kind of thinking justice.

Just because something has traditionally been a certain way is a lousy reason to fight against change. In debates about pretty much everything, just strike "well, that's always the way it's been done" from your vocab. Any social change is and always has been accompanied by howls from sour-faced traditionalists who think the sky is falling. They seem to frequently cite God's will as their beacon. You're a cliche scared of things that seem odd to you, and you're becoming more and more irrelevant every day.

Los Angeles, CA

Fine for the Governor to express his opinion. But wasn't he the one that prosecuted the poor polygamists in Southern Utah? If he's for "marriage equality," why not fight for the polygamists instead of prosecuting them? #hypocrisy.


Why is it that only homosexuals are interested in marriage anymore? More and more heterosexuals are opting for live-in relationships and quick "hook-ups" I am against gay marriage, but what group of people is actively defending and promoting marriage? That would be the homosexuals.

Salt Lake valley, UT

There are two issues involved in this discussion.

1. The legal status and definition of marriage.
2. The religious status and definition of marriage.

Most of the commentators about this article seem to be focusing on the second issue, the religious aspect, and many of the comments imply that their religious definition of marriage should become the legal definition. If we had a theocracy government, that viewpoint would be proper. But we don't have a theocracy government. Legal definitions of what ever should not be based on religious teachings. Legal definitions should be based on the role of government as defined by our Constitution. And, as far as I know, the Constitution does not authorize government to define what marriage is and what it isn't. Government should be concerned about civil relationships between people, not about defining what marriage is and isn't.

So, to all you who give religious reasons for defining marriage, do you really want government to say what marriage is and isn't? Do you really want government to institute laws enforcing your particular religious views? If so, then you really want a theocratic government not a Constitutional government!

Free Agency
Salt Lake City, UT

Republicans who consider Huntsman "not one of us" because of this are exactly the reason why their party lost so badly last November.

Huntsman is still the same on fiscal responsibility. He simply wants to include more Americans in his position. Is his approval of gay marriage in opposition to his religion's teachings? Absolutely.

But if he's going to be a leader in America, he needs to step outside those teachings when they conflict--as polls show--with what the growing majority of Americans feel. That's what's required of a leader, and if you want to live a full Mormon life to the letter, then don't expect the rest of America to automatically approve.

As a lifelong Democrat, Huntsman was the one Republican I would seriously have considered voting for. That he's seen as a pariah by many Republicans shows what little chance (again, based on last November's election) they have to win in our evolving America.

And as for Wright's statement that it's the "over-50's who vote"--excuse me? Wasn't it the young people's vote that turned things around for Obama on Nov. 6?

Springville, UT

We'll stand for the sanctity of marriage, Jon. If you want to join with us, great. If not, adios to you and the horse you rode in on. You've become increasingly shrill and annoying, except to the media.

to comment

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