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
fortydam
OREM, UT

The hate and judgement that consumes many of you makes me wonder about your interpretation of your faith. If you are really who you think you are, or ever hope to be, you must love and forgive unconditionally. Wasn't Christ liberal? The conservative narrative that drives parts of this nation is nothing different than prior to world war two in Nazi Germany.

Free Agency
Salt Lake City, UT

Let's assume a Mormon became President and he ordered that coffee would never be served at White House functions. Wouldn't even the most devout Mormon find that ridiculous, since the White House plays host to people of all different persuasions?

Then why would a Mormon Presidential candidate not be in favor of gay marriage, even though his religion dictates against it, when America is home to people of all different persuasions? (And most Americans enjoy coffee, just as more and more Americans approve gay marriage.)

The principle of right or wrong in a diverse society is whether or not a victim results. There are no victims in gays being allowed to marry. Equating it to, say, marrying a child or a dog is a false comparison since in the latter two situations, a victim *is* involved: neither a child nor a dog is equipped by age or faculty to make a reasoned decision on marriage. Two adult gays are.

Anyone who feels victimized by gay marriage is self-imposing that victimhood. It doesn’t exist in law.

BevWel
Grants Pass, OR

And what does God say? Man has lots of opinions. I am disappointed in Huntsman but I was before this.

Gracie
Boise, ID

to alt134: "....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)."

Not yet.

Dont Tread
Iron County, UT

Interesting that so many people on this forum who call those who oppose gay marriage bigots and discriminatory are attacking my religion.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

As an American citizen, I declare my full support for the right of heterosexual men and women to get married if they so desire. I will oppose anyone who threatens the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage.

As an American citizen who believes in equality under the law, I fully support the right of consenting adults to marry "the one" he/she loves regardless his/her gender.

Mr. Huntsman is being vilified for expressing the most conservative of tenet, "keep your government away from my private life". As a citizen you are required to obey the law, pay taxes, and hopefully contribute to the well being of society. Our love life should not be promoted nor restricted by governments. Much less, government shouldn't pass laws based on religious doctrines that represent "a bias" segment of society and that does not represent the well being of all members of society.

Mr. Huntsman, Thank you for the audacity of expressing your believes. Especially knowing how your fellow citizens of Utah would react.

Gracie
Boise, ID

To Free Agency: "Let's assume a Mormon became President and he ordered that coffee would never be served at White House functions. Wouldn't even the most devout Mormon find that ridiculous, since the White House plays host to people of all different persuasions?"

I don't know about "ridiculous," but the White House belongs to the whole of the American people. Legal behaviors should apply in those common areas. The family of the president lives in certain parts of the House that are designated to them while that president is in office; those areas probably ought to be the only places in which that president, he or she, could determine stricter and specific ground rules that apply to their core beliefs.

JayTee
Sandy, UT

In this instance, I think Huntsman has a point. I'm becoming more and more of a libertarian myself, because whenever Super Nanny gets involved in some issue, they always compound the problem and make it more expensive than ever imagined. Government needs to focus on the things it SHOULD be concerned with, like the conflagration of runaway spending, the incalculable public debt, and stopping the invasion of this homeland. They need to get out of our pockets, get out of our bedrooms, quit trying to police the entire planet, and basically get out of our lives as much as possible. Bad people will find ways to be bad and even self-destruct, but it isn't up to the rest of us to coerce them and save them from themselves. Churches can concern themselves with matters of morals and salvation, and let government TRY to do governing right in the areas where it's SUPPOSED to be involved.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Interesting comment, go tme to thinking ---

Religion is all about being Pro-Marriage - in the eyes of God, etc., etc., etc...
What God sanctions, man and Government can not dispose - OK I get it.


BUT -
Religion and the uber-religious commentors here remain strangely silent, never even getting involved in the procedeing of a divorce of marriage...instead, they leave that entirely 100% up to the Courts [i.e., Government] to decide.

So which is it?

Based on the divorce example in reverse - If Government alone disolves the legality of a marriage, then it is Government that establishes the "legality" of marriage.

Keep the religous rites and blessing were they belong,
and keep them out of the court rooms.

KamUte
South Jordan, UT

Apparently speaking against all he knows in order to pander future votes. I guess we all sell our souls at some point.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

Jon Huntsman, Jr has long walked a thin and sometimes unpopular line in his political life. He accepted the President's call to serve as ambassador, and is now stating a truly inclusive and fair view on same-sex marriage. In today's climate, this makes for a huge risk. Politicians who do not pander to the extremes in their party (where the money is) don't last. Bob Bennett is another example.

Civil Unions allow for a solution to this whole issue. Government provides a license for this, and religions perform marriage ceremonies. Marriage is a religious covenant - it always has been. Government took it over, and it is time to bring it back where it belongs. Too bad that we don't have more Huntsmans who will stand up and offer solutions instead of rhetoric.

As an active LDS member, an American, and one who has gay friends, I agree with Huntsman. And I have no trouble reconciling that with my religious beliefs.

iron&clay
RIVERTON, UT

Huntsman has obviously recently been going through the mind altering re-education camps given to all those who want to advance their careers in the ranks of the elite politicians, educators, entertainers, corporate and government leaders who want to be accepted by the mainstream media. It's the only pathway to the White House.

One of the most notable re-education camps is the National Training Laboratories Institute of Applied Behavioral Sciences. It has many subsidiaries notably The Stanford Research Institute.

In these laboratories individuals from varying backgrounds and personalities are manipulated by a 'group leader' to form a 'consensus' of opinion, achieving a new 'group identity.' The key to the process is the creation of a controlled environment in which stress is introduced (dissonance) to crack an individual's belief structure. Using the peer pressure of other group members, (other elite politicians), the individual is 'cracked' and a new personality emerges with new values. The degrading experience causes the person, in this case Huntsman, to deny that any change has taken place. In that way, Huntsman was indoctrinated or as some would say, brainwashed without Huntsman even knowing that it has taken place.

sanpaco
Sandy, UT

Shouldn't this headline read "Hunstman Finally Admits He's a Liberal"

ksampow
Farr West, Utah

Huntsman has this wrong. He used to have it right, supporting civil unions. He says gays should be able to have relationships - which of course they can - bu they have no right to redefine a time honored institution (marriage) to suit their relationship.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ Gracie 12:24

You wrote: "I don't know about "ridiculous," but the White House belongs to the whole of the American people. Legal behaviors should apply in those common areas. The family of the president lives in certain parts of the House that are designated to them while that president is in office; those areas probably ought to be the only places in which that president, he or she, could determine stricter and specific ground rules that apply to their core beliefs"

Gracie, we agree 100%. In the United States should be an area for the legal and secular and an area for "core Beliefs".
The core beliefs areas are: Home and Church
The legal and secular areas are: The rest of the United States.

And about your.... "Not Yet". Fear when there is no evidence of harm, shouldn't be a reason to restrict the civil rights of law abiding citizens.

Free Agency
Salt Lake City, UT

@Red Wings,

I admire your acceptance of gay unions, but I beg to differ with your implied argument that marriage should be limited to straights because it's a religious covenant and always has been.

Certainly, religions (clergy) have traditionally formalized marriages--but those marriages could vary widely between the religious concept of "male and female cleaving to each other as ordained by God" and business transactions, property transfers, polygamy, etc.

And no one, to my knowledge, has ever complained when two heterosexuals got married in a civil ceremony. It was still reasonably called a "marriage."

In short, marriage throughout history has been molded to fit the needs and desires of straight humans--again, with clergy merely officiating. (What better example than Henry VIII?)

Now gays want their opportunity to participate in this institution. A "civil union" simply doesn't carry the same symbolic significance.

A sign carried by two lesbians at a pro-gay marriage demonstration says it best: "Life feels different when you're married."

I doubt that statement would mean very much if the sign had said: "Life feels different when you're civil-unioned."

twspears6007
Bakersfield, CA

Lvalfre Chicago Ill Sorry but you brought up the subject of cavemen my comments on cavemen were to bring in a little humor in the conversation. I admit that I know little about cavemen. I do know of and believe in the book of Genesis in the King James Bible. The First Chapter supports that God created this world for man to have dominion over all things in it including multiplying and filling the earth through procreation with a woman. I do know that God says that homosexuality is a sin and man will suffer the consequences of his choices.If you don't believe in God then Gods Commandments are not of any use to people who deny his existance. Sincerely, Trenton

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

@iron&clay:

Golly. How many 'scare' quotes and 'alleged' conspiracy 'theories' can one person put in a single supposed 'comment'? I'm always in favor of providing a little 'evidence' to back up my 'crackpot' 'ideas.' Maybe I've been brainwashed.* Never been to 'Stanford,' though.

Seriously, though, kudos to Gov. Huntsman for finally coming around. This shouldn't be a big issue in the 2016 race. By then SCOTUS will have overturned DOMA and same-sex military spouses will have full federal family benefits. Two or three more states will have voted for marriage equality. Gay marriage will be yesterday's issue.

* But, of course, how would I know?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Gracie : "I don't know about "ridiculous," but the White House belongs to the whole of the American people. "

------------

As do all the rights given to citizens by law, per our constitution. If you are enjoying the privileges of marriage, why would you want to keep other American citizens from enjoying that same right? Do you think your relationship is better than theirs? Do you think you and your family deserve protections that should not be afforded to gays and their families?

If you were to go to court to fight gays from marrying, what would you use for your legal argument? Religious beliefs are fine for each individual, but facts can only be used in a court of law. Can you give me a legal, logical reason to deny citizens to marry the person that they choose?

Pianoman
Salt Lake City, UT

I'm not sure what Huntsman is thinking (he sure has a liberal mind) but it doesn't matter if it's fair or how the world looks on it--it's all about our morals. We must never bend backwards to make the majority happy. We must remember that this great country was founded upon Christian doctrine and that this is a country that God prepared for us to be free. But this country will surely fall apart if we ever stray away from those doctrines.

to comment

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