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
patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

Jon Huntsman Jr is free to pursue his own new agenda for what ever reason he chooses which appears to be aligned left unfortunately. I suspect he is floating this political trial balloon with gay marriage in an attempt to sway some in the GOP to follow nationally or at least see what response he gets. Look for Jon Jr to leave the GOP sometime in the next two years (after the GOP rejects him outright) and most likely register as a Democrat and then throw his hat in the ring for the presidency once more. I think Jon is going to find himself in no-mans-land politically speaking. The Democrat's nationally are bordering on full fledged Communism and I think the GOP will be ruled by the conservative senate stars such as Mike Lee, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. Huntsman will find that his attempt to place a foot on both sides of the political fence is a disaster I'm afraid. This USA is THE most divided and polarized ever since the Civil War and I suspect that will only worsen thanks to the "great divider" Barack Obama.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ twspears6007 1:27

You stated your belief in the King James Bible you wrote:
"I do know that God says that homosexuality is a sin and man will suffer the consequences of his choices".

I read the Bible, the KJB, and other versions, with more or less books, i.e. Catholic, Agnostics gospels, apocripha.

In all my readings I have "Never" read anything that indicates that "God" condemns homosexuality.
Yes, I have read the story of Sodom and Gomorra, Leviticus, and Romans. But nowhere "God" says anything negative about homosexuality.

Moses received the 10 commandments from God. It doesn't say anything about homosexuality. Moses and others added "the Law of Moses" in Leviticus. Paul as a Jew was influenced by the law even after his conversion.

Isaiah 56: 4,5

For this is what the Lord says:

“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant—
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;"

Eunuchs was the term that was used indistinguishable for castrated men and what we "now" call homosexuals.

I find this interesting.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

" We must remember that this great country was founded upon Christian doctrine "

Would that be Christian doctrine that considered only 3/5 of the black population to count and denied voting rights to women as well?

Society advances in knowledge and understanding and so must our laws.

observator
east of the snake river, ID

If this is the inevitable, then it is time to discard the term "marriage" from the legal lexicon altogether and reserve it for private or religious ceremonies--if those pushing this agenda insist on having the same legal terminology for any kind of union between consenting adults, then say I am in a "civil union" for purposes of the law, along with anyone else. Let the consequences follow.

When we use the term "marriage" for unions of any gender we lose a distinction, traditionally reserved for units that are fundamental to society as they are where new members of society are brought into the world. However well-meaning or equalizing we may try to be, failing to recognize the unique nature and potential of a traditional marriage will do damage over the long term--not because sociological studies say so, or that any evidence is currently available to support it, but that changing marriage's definition will weaken its status as a stabilizing social structure; and just like removing nails from the supports of a house, we cannot expect but that a weakened societal fabric will be the result.

Doogie
South Jordan, Utah

Hey even the French have this one right as evidenced in the million person march against gay marriage and adoption. There people from many different walks of life came together to protest what is "evidently one thing to degrade oneself through an unspeakable act against nature, another to institutionalize that degradation as marriage". About gay adoption a group of French philosophers asked "In the name of what modernity,they ask, would one deprive a child of half of his identity construction?" These comments are coming from as far left as you can go in France.

The very term matrimony derives from the Latin mater,meaning mother. Clearly, a mother is not the proud owner of a human pet. Society has an obligation to provide children with real parents and not just pleasure-seeking titleholders.

Sometimes I wonder what planet those that espouse gay marriage and thus adoption are from.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

One way or another, the Constitution will either be supported or it will all come down. It is interesting to watch both Democrats and Republicans to come to terms with what it means to have 'unalienable rights' and why States' Rights will return as it originally was intended, meaning this: If one state wants to define marraige as between any consenting adult, they may do so; If a state wants to legalize drugs, they may do so; If a state wants to put everyone on welfare, make the minimum wage $100.00 an hour, they may do so, etc., etc. Eventually, the real America will emerge in the states that offer the most liberty and freedom. Both Republicans and Democrats have problems with control and power, just different issues, and both want to compel each other to live by their rules and make exuses as to why Gay marraige needs to be the same for every state, or why every one needs to support standing armies everywhere in the world, or any other issue. Neither party is concerned about spending, but one way or another will have to face up to it.

sls
Columbia, MO

Huntsman has evolved, just as his former boss (Obama). This evolution clearly has a political motivation, and is not because he really sees this as a solution.

Despite what gay people would have us think, calling their unions "marriage" doesn't improve the way that anyone sees them. It won't do away with any discrimination and may actually increase discrimination. It does affect younger people who have difficulty seeing past the smoke and mirrors.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

If Democrats, Republicans, or Libertarians will get rid of the welfare state, then I'm more than happy to grant them those individual rights they want, such as gay marraige, etc under states' rights. You can't have it both ways, however. You can't ask for Gay marraige, or legalized drug use, or any other social problem and then want me to pay for the rehabilitation of drug offenders, psychological evaluations, public mental health counselors, etc. You can't have freedom without also taking responsibility for the consequences of the choices you made with your freedom.

suzyk#1
Mount Pleasant, UT

Homosexuality is absolutely "unnatural" and against God. You can twist any subject to make you feel better about what you want to do but doesn't make it right..what is right is a man and woman being married and procreating and not woman and woman or man and man.

iron&clay
RIVERTON, UT

This article brings out that Huntsman is involved in a "Think Tank".

His statement about conservatives accepting gay marriage sounds like the kind of mischief that one would expect to come out of a "think Tank".

smsch
San Francisco, CA

The time has come brothers and sisters to more firmly stand for righteousness, dignity, and respect without compromise of belief. That last part is kind-of the most important. ;) This topic only makes me stronger because I know exactly where I stand and who I follow.

JRJ
Pocatello, ID

It's only a matter of time before he declares himself a Dumobrat. He's been a RINO for a long time now.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ Observator, Patriot, and others who share the same anti SSM position.

Guys, please help me out. I really want to understand what you are trying to say and obviously I'm somewhat slow.

When you are talking about "Traditional Marriage", are you talking traditional marriage in the U.S. after the European colonizers? or are you talking worldwide historical marriage? You usually refer to your religious point of view, is that Jewish, Christian, Budhist, Muslim, or other ?

I am asking, because Traditional Marriage really seems to vary according cultures and religious beliefs.

Are you talking about Monogamy? if it is so, is this Mathriarchy or Pathriarchy?

Traditional also could be Polygamy which is condone in the Old Testament and currently practiced in many Islamic Countries.

In Tibet, traditional marriage could be Polyandry, where a woman marries more than one men. Usually brothers.

There are also arranged marriages, people who marry for money or social status,Some people are even forced into marriage. All of them legal and common in our society.

Please clarify for me and may be for others who need to know what is "Traditional Marriage".

If you clarify, you may convince me that you are right.

CWEB
Orem, UT

I will NEVER vote for this man. I don't mind civil unions..., but don't be calling it marriage. Really? You are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

How far off the beaten track we have fallen. You scare me Huntsman...really, you do.

Candide
Salt Lake City, UT

@suzyk#1
Homosexuality is a naturally occurring human variation like left handedness or blue eyes. Anything that happens in nature is by definition natural. And how do you know that homosexuality is against god? Is it because a book written by middle eastern tribesmen thousands of years ago says so? I don't believe your book should dictate who I should love or be able to marry.

BYUalum
South Jordan, UT

Connect the dots: Obama openly favors gay marriage. Huntsman openly favors gay marriage. Two socialist Democrats, sounds like to me.

Huntsman left my favor long before he left for China. I would never vote for him for even dogcatcher! He has also left the values and principles that most Utahns hold dear, the traditional family unit of a man and a woman as ordained by God in the beginning of the world! Anything different is opposite to God's plan.

wrz
Ogden, UT

@KJB1:
"So is a marriage between a man and a woman who are infertile or too old to have children not valid in your eyes?"

So is a marriage between a grandfather and his sub-teen granddaughter not valid in your eyes?

How about a mother marrying her son or a father marrying his daughter. Or a man marrying several women or several men and women? What about a group marriage full of men and women marrying each other... Or a woman marrying her pet cockatoo?

If one aberration to traditional marriage is allowed there should be no stopping as to what combinations should also be allowed. We are better than that. And to keep us better and a civilized society we need to draw the line somewhere. And that line must be one woman and one man marriage.

Alfred
Ogden, UT

@Tolstoy:
"Once again the fact that a duck or a golf court can neither provide consent nor legally enter into contracts (which is what marriage is)..."

No problem... change the law of contracts. Voila, problem solved.

"Homosexuality has existed and continues to exisit throughout nature..."

So has sexuality... Take my pet dog for example. He wants to mate with every other dog in town. But we humans are better than animals. I would hope, anyway.

"...and at the definitions of marriage have changed freqently over history and from one culture to another."

That's mostly likely why many cultures fail.

@sovereign joe:
"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."

As someone posted above, marriage is a contract between three parties - the state, and the two that are marrying. The purpose of the contract is to secure a family for children and to have a set of laws that will govern separation on divorce and/or death. Without the contract there would be chaos.

Gracie
Boise, ID

To Lane Myer: "Can you give me a legal, logical reason to deny citizens to marry the person that they choose?"

There's no point. Many people here and elsewhere do that all the time. Apparently you weren't listening. Yet one more "legal, logical reason" to redefine the ancient family system would be added to the list, and then you could go on asking the question of the next one with whom you disagree. It's a useless, silly exercise.

kargirl
Sacramento, CA

Mr. Huntsman and I may or may not share political ideas, but on this we agree. Why? Perhaps what informs his feelings towards backing gay marriages is what informs mine. His statement on the joy his own marriage has brought him and his reluctance to see that denied to others, and to do so without judgment, tells me that, one, he respects others' feelings and sensitivities, and two, he respects their God-given agency to choose, as we are taught that we have freedom to do. None here on this board has the right to judge him, either as to his righteousness or his political purity or lack of either. But I would say, as far as I can see, he has a good deal of courage.

to comment

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