Quantcast

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
observator
east of the snake river, ID

All this fuss about whose relationship the government can require you to file paperwork for.

If a state or local entity wants to recognize any number of relationships, that's up to that entity and the people within. But I am still not convinced that recognizing some relationships have the potential to produce offspring without the assistance of a third party (marriages, traditionally defined), and some do not, is an act of bigotry. Civil marriages do not exist to declare mutual affection. They exist for the state to keep track of where the next generation MIGHT be produced. (To see if offspring actually will be produced is overly intrusive.) Outside of this fact, there is no compelling interest for a governmental entity to be in the business of registering relationships. Calling another relationship marriage both ignores this point and also ignores basic biology.

Any number of relationships could be recognized as equal under the law. This does not make them identical, nor does it mean they should use the same name.

Third try screen name
Mapleton, UT

The timing of his announcement is interesting.
The Utah Legislature is gathering all sorts of input on this issue at the moment, even from churches.
Was there some ulterior motive here?

roughd
Draper, UT

"Fiscally conservative and socially libertarian", um, that would just make him libertarian, but I don't believe he's fiscally conservative. Never seen anything from him that disproves that he's just another big-government RINO. "Fiscally responsible" for liberals just means raising taxes when you want more money to spend on the takers that voted you in.

Mugabe
ACWORTH, GA

The marriage license bestows the State with the legal right to decide the fate of the husband, wife and the possessions they procured during their marriage, should the marriage fail. Their divorce must now be decided by and through the States Corporate Court by a Corporate Judge, and the Judges first and foremost concern is the “interest of the State.” The interest of the bride and groom is now secondary. [See: VanKosten v. VanKosten, 154 N.E. 146]. A comment by the Judge deciding this divorce says it all! “The ultimate ownership of all property is the State: individual so called ownership is only by virtue of government, [i.e.] laws amounting to mere use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the state.” [Also See: Senate Document No. 43 of the 73rd Congress, 1st Session] and [Brown v. Welch, U.S. Superior Court].

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Meadow Lark Mark
"I think Huntsman will bend to any wind that comes through."

Says the guy who probably voted for Mitt Romney...

@RBB
"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."

Not an issue, it's unconstitutional to do that and most gay marriage supporters including myself would stand by your church's right to limit marriage however it wants (after all, we have religious protections in this nation but you don't see the LDS church being sued to marry mixed-faith marriages in their temples).

@Big Bubba
"I am going to support traditional marriage between a man and woman because that is what God wants marriage to be"

We're not a theocracy. Find a secular reason (and when you do send it to the pro-Prop 8 side, they need one if they're going to win the case).

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@patriot
"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."

Elder Whitney Clayton of the Seventy was the GA in charge of that effort. He himself stated that members should feel free to disagree on the issue without the fear of sanction.

@Clear Eyes
"And the fight for a child's right to both a mother and father is coming from both gay and straight citizens. "

So since my parents divorced would you have wanted my sister and I to be placed in foster homes?

amazondoc
USA, TN

@itstime --

You said: "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?"

Actually, Roman civilization -- in which homosexual relations were common -- lasted for roughly 1000 years. Similarly, in Greek civilization homosexual relations were common, and often encouraged. And, again, that civilization was around for something like 1000 years.

Have you read YOUR history??

bandersen
Saint George, UT

I want to know if all those who want gay marraige to be legal, will stand up for polygamy or any other form of 'marraige' that someone comes up with? If not, you are hypocrites?

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

I'm Arlen Specter and I approve this message.

Obama10
SYRACUSE, UT

Huntsman has always ridden the coattails of his father. Without his last name, he never would have been Governor or CEO of a major corporation. I didn't like him as Governor. When I met him in person he seemed fake.

morpunkt
Glendora, CA

It's quite obvious that he recognizes that if you don't back gay marriage you will never have the backing of 95% of the media. Therefore, no candidate will ever get a win, unless you buy into the master plan. This is precisely why media outlets, such as MSNBC, CNN, etc, have given him very favorable press all these years. They knew he would "come out".

Palm Star
Merced, CA

What is the worth of a man's soul? Apparently the hope for a presidential party bid.

twspears6007
Bakersfield, CA

LVALFRE Chicago ILL. I know more about God than I know about caveman. I wonder if any cavemen were homosexual. There seems to more evidence that they were heterosexual than homosexual. They did a good job on procreation. I give credit to their great wisdom and the absence of political correctness that may have saved the future of man. Sincerely, Trenton

bullet56
Olympia, WA

I am so glad Mr. Huntsman has declared his support and I do hope he switches party affiliation. He is so right that it is Un-American to oppose the dreams of our friends, family members and fellow Americans. If he runs in 2016 as a Democrat, this straight man will be supporting him. The Party Of Lincoln can change again as it did at other times in our history.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@bandersen

I will. As long as everyone is said relationship is a consenting adult, it's really none of my business. If someone were to challenge polygamy laws, I would support them.

mcdugall
Layton, UT

Jon Huntsman's is correct. It is a conservative principle to limit government control and intrusion on peoples lives. Keep the Government out of relationships. Telling people what they can or cannot do is a liberal view not a conservative view.

kishkumen
American Fork, UT

I'm so happy to read all of the comments resisting Huntsman's position here. We can be assured we will have Democrat leadership in this nation as long as the Republicans continue supporting backwards positions on gay marriage, immigration and gun control. Really, the Jon Huntsman Jr. types are the only threat there is to many more years of Democrat leadership.

LValfre
CHICAGO, IL

@twspears6007,

So you're sticking to your statement that marriage has existed since man and woman was created? When we're they created? What years? What years were caveman around? First humans? Something just doesn't add up with what we know today and what you're saying.

SlopJ30
St Louis, MO

Cavemen? Huh? Now we're admittedly modeling our moral code on that of neanderthals. I can't say I don't see the similarities, but I wasn't expecting someone to come right out and say it. I do view the far right as hopelessly old-fashioned and unsophisticated, but even I wasn't literally thinking Stone Age. Apparently I overestimate some of you.

The question about supporting polygamy is interesting and requires some thought. If we were living as LDS folk 100 years ago, we would be fighting for it, wouldn't we? Social norms shifted . . or more accurately, since polygamy wasn't the norm in the first place, focus shifted to polygamy. Something that really should have been private became illegal. Why? US society overwheilmingly wanted it that way. We face the same situation now, and those that would've likely been railing against the government for banning the Godly institution of plural marriage are now dead-set against SSM. Polygamy isn't immoral in and of itself.

airnaut
Everett, 00

Didn't most of the nay-sayers vote for Mitt Romney?

You know, THE Mitt Romney who said basically the same thing - supporting gay rights - while Governor of Massachusetts?

to comment

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