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

I think it bears repeating, so I'll ask the question more directly: Wouldn't we solve the whole supposed "inequality" problem if we removed the term "marriage" completely from legal terminology? Simply substitute the phrase "legal union" for the term "marriage" wherever it shows up in state or federal law. Leave it to churches or individuals to use "marriage" in the way they see fit.

@observator --

You said: "Demonstrate that relationships other than those between a man/woman were referred to as "marriages" at any other time in history, and then we may have a discussion. "

That's easy. Here's just a coupla quick examples --

Same sex marriages were first recorded during the early Roman Empire period. For more details, check the book "Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe" by John Boswell. Nero was the first (notice I say first, not only) Roman emperor to marry a man. In fact, he had at least three different marriages to men, at least one of which was celebrated in large public ceremonies in both Greece and Rome.

In somewhat more modern times, Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz were married by a priest in Spain in 1061, complete with church documentation.

Let the discussion begin!

I believe Jon Huntsman like Charlie Crist would say or be anything to get elected. He's very dangerous in my opinion. Once again he's proving my point with this story!

@Sophie 62
While I agree with the sentiment of a moderate third party, I would hope they can come up with a better name than using a catch phrase by a comedian who created a character designed to be the epitome of white trash redneck. Add to the fact that so many of his fans, who don't realize he's making fun of them, also tend to be among the most extreme of the right wingers, the name loses something.

@Furry1993
Kudos! Last two posts were both spot on responses.

@ Gracie,

In response to Lane Myer's question: "Can you give me a legal, logical reason to deny citizens to marry the person that they choose?", you replied:

"There's no point. Many people here and elsewhere do that all the time."

No they haven't. They've given religious 'reasons'. America promises freedom of religion to ALL. Some religions are for equal marriage. Lane asked for "legal, logical reasons", not religious ones.

And, the only other 'argument' I've ever seen (here and elsewhere) is all about procreation. But procreation is not a requirement of marriage for anyone. So again, not a "legal, logical reason to deny citizens to marry the person that they choose".

The California political action taken by the LDS church was the biggest mistake of their last one hundred years.

one vote: The Church took no action in California prop 8. It was some people in the Church not the Church itself.

snowman,

Nonsense. The Church itself was fined for violations of non-profit tax codes because of its involvement in Prop 8.

snowman wrote:

"Scoundrel: Yes I talked to God. I do it everyday. and His words in the scriptures tell us what we are supposed to be doing"

I talk to god multiple times a day, and frankly, he has never mentioned you, your Church, or your scriptures.

You must be talking to the wrong god.

Marriage is NOT a civil right, but a religious ritual. Gay couples don't need marriage any more than they need baptism, communion, or any other religious ritual. Governments have been wise to promote the religious ritual of marriage within society at large because of its tremendous advantages in stabilizing and advancing our civilization from one generation to the next. Gays only want the label of marriage for their relationships because they want the social stigma of their relationship erased, and because they have resented their opponents' view of their relationship as sinful or unnatural. To further remove the stigma they want to use legal marriage to force agencies to allow them to adopt children. Maybe Huntsman should adopt out his own children or grandchildren to gay couples and experiment with his own offspring before subjecting other children in this reckless social experiment, and he might consider the ramifications a little more deeply.

This Huntsman idiot has just proven that he has no moral stability, but will change his positions in whichever direction the political winds blow.

TwistedNerve wrote:

"Marriage is NOT a civil right, but a religious ritual."

The laws of most civilized countries says otherwise. The requirement to get a marriage license says otherwise. The fact that even in the LDS Church you can't get married in the Temple unless and until you also get a civil marriage says otherwise.

At most you might say marriage is BOTH a civil right and a religious ritual... but the one is required by law, the other is optional.

Why does that bother you so much?

How fortunate for us that his campaign went nowhere. Rights ok, but not marriage.