Huntsman backs gay marriage, calls for conservatives to push issue

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • tenx Santa Clara, UT
    March 1, 2013 7:53 a.m.

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

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    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?

  • TwistedNerve Ontario, CA
    Feb. 26, 2013 5:18 p.m.

    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.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    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.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 9:38 a.m.


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

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 4:42 p.m.

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

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 4:03 p.m.

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

  • 2 tell the truth Clearwater, FL
    Feb. 25, 2013 2:03 p.m.

    @ 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".

  • UTAuley Taylorsville, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    @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.

    Kudos! Last two posts were both spot on responses.

    Feb. 25, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    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!

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    Feb. 24, 2013 9:00 p.m.

    @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!

  • observator east of the snake river, ID
    Feb. 24, 2013 8:33 p.m.

    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 east of the snake river, ID
    Feb. 24, 2013 8:18 p.m.


    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. Otherwise, your question is a red herring--and the discussion of "poly-" relationships is a smokescreen. All of the "poly-" relationships you refer to still involve a man/woman relationship somewhere...even if plural relationships between one man and more than one woman (or vice versa), a man/woman relationship was still central.

  • HotGlobe SAN RAFAEL, CA
    Feb. 24, 2013 2:24 p.m.

    Huntsman is the future of the Republican party...trying to move left but unable to outflank the Democrats and losing the Republican base. 2016 is now hopeless, so breaking up into multiple parties, like an exploding meteorite, becomes a real possibility for Republicans.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Feb. 24, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    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

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 24, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    To Theeng2 6:19 a.m. Feb. 23, 2013

    In a world filled with extremism, being a conservative isn't cool.


    Sadly you're right. In a world of radical far right extremism, being a true conservative makes the extremists call you a RINO.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Feb. 23, 2013 7:53 p.m.

    Carnak--here's a thought for some on the board to chew on: the reason so many find these boards attractive places to put their comments is that so many who do so have found that their unmovable and rather prejudicial and one-sided comments have no other home where their owners are safe from physical and psychological harm. Were they to be spoken aloud to family,neighbors, or friends, even fellow worshipers, the speaker would find him/herself with few of those left, and possibly not enjoying the process of losing them, either. Not a happy prospect, compared with simply having the written word as a weapon thrown by strangers on a comments board. And this is why Jon Huntsman and others in the public eye, those who belong to groups that some love to hate, and others who are just unlucky enough to belong to the Out Groups of the Decade are useful to so many.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    Feb. 23, 2013 7:18 p.m.

    @just sayin 7 --

    You said: " If you are talking about marriage in terms of contracts or rights, seems no form of marriage can be discriminated against."

    Why not?

    Our society has no trouble making or preserving laws against lots of things, **when those things are known to have significantly bad consequences**.

    Notably, there are NO known undesirable consequences to same sex marriages. Lots of hype and hysteria, sure, but no actual bad consequences.

  • Just saying 7 BLOOMINGTON, IN
    Feb. 23, 2013 6:47 p.m.

    So, how about Huntsman coming out in support of polygamy? If you are talking about marriage in terms of contracts or rights, seems no form of marriage can be discriminated against.

  • ethnie Seattle, WA
    Feb. 23, 2013 6:06 p.m.

    No one should drag religion into a social issue. The lord has made us equal to one another regardless of life's beliefs. One is lucky in these day and age to find someone to love and who loves them in return. To those that think that it' s evil to love someone of the same sex, is listening to Satan's voice and needs to turn their ears to the Holy Ghost. Our Heavenly Father will never turn his back on his children, regardless who they are...

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Feb. 23, 2013 5:22 p.m.

    LValfre: Every one has equal rights. We also have rules and laws that all must obey.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Feb. 23, 2013 5:14 p.m.

    Scoundrel: They do not have the God given right to marry the same sex

  • Carnak Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2013 3:46 p.m.

    Mr. Huntsman is not relevant to this or any other discussion.

    He holds no elected office.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 23, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    To Mayfair 7:36 a.m. Feb. 23, 2013

    My deepest condolences to his parents....


    Actually, congratulatinos to his arents are more in order. They raised a compassionate, courageous, rational son. Good for them . . . and him too.

  • Harley Rider Small Town, CT
    Feb. 23, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    Just a diversion to keep attention away from the real issues such as - Removing the 2nd amendment , Granting Amnesty , Our out of control Debt , and an Economy that is failing

    Something for the Sheep to think about , that really means nothing , now the other stuff , well that's another story

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Feb. 23, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    I read the comments on here and look to my right and see the link to an article about a bullied teen who committed suicide. How can we as a society eliminate bullying when we are so hateful on these comment boards?

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Feb. 23, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    My deepest condolences to his parents....

  • Theeng2 Holladay, UT
    Feb. 23, 2013 6:19 a.m.

    In a world filled with extremism, being a conservative isn't cool.

  • Sophie 62 spring city, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 11:26 p.m.

    I am surprised that Mr. Huntsman has endorsed gay marriage. That stand is somewhat left of center; at least he's brave enough to say what he thinks and what will be an unpopular position with the local Republicans.
    Maybe he should consider changing to the Dems party, only because the Republicans are so very far to the right, he'll never be elected President by them.
    Or he could change places with Jim Matheson, who claims to be a Democrat but is really a moderate Republican.
    Or how about a moderate party - throw out the extremists on both ends of the spectrum and get some work done, for Pete's sake. You could call it "The Get'er Done Party."

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    Feb. 22, 2013 11:19 p.m.

    @Gracie --

    You wrote: "the ancient family system "

    Which ancient family system would that be? Would that be the ancient Roman system, which encouraged homosexual relations and which lasted for roughly 1000 years? Or the ancient Greek system, which did the same? Or perhaps the ancient Tibetan system of polyandry? Or maybe even the ancient Biblical system of polygamy -- which included having sex with your wife's servant if your wife couldn't get pregnant? Plenty of those guys in the Old Testament had multiple wives, ya know.

    In reality, there has never been just one "ancient family system". There have been many family systems over time.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Feb. 22, 2013 11:00 p.m.

    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.

  • Gracie Boise, ID
    Feb. 22, 2013 10:40 p.m.

    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.

  • Alfred Ogden, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 8:35 p.m.

    "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.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 8:12 p.m.

    "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.

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 7:41 p.m.

    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.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 7:34 p.m.

    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.

  • CWEB Orem, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 7:02 p.m.

    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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 22, 2013 6:50 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • JRJ Pocatello, ID
    Feb. 22, 2013 6:49 p.m.

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

  • smsch San Francisco, CA
    Feb. 22, 2013 6:42 p.m.

    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.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 6:18 p.m.

    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".

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 6:03 p.m.

    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.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 5:53 p.m.

    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.

  • sls Columbia, MO
    Feb. 22, 2013 5:39 p.m.

    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
    Feb. 22, 2013 5:35 p.m.

    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.

  • Doogie South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 22, 2013 5:22 p.m.

    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.

  • observator east of the snake river, ID
    Feb. 22, 2013 5:05 p.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Feb. 22, 2013 3:24 p.m.

    " 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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 22, 2013 3:01 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 2:59 p.m.

    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.

  • Pianoman Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 2:14 p.m.

    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.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 1:52 p.m.

    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?

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 1:37 p.m.


    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?

  • twspears6007 Bakersfield, CA
    Feb. 22, 2013 1:27 p.m.

    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

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 1:24 p.m.

    @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."

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 22, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • ksampow Farr West, Utah
    Feb. 22, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    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.

  • sanpaco Sandy, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 12:50 p.m.

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

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    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.

    Feb. 22, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    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.

  • KamUte South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 12:32 p.m.

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

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 22, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    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.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    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.

  • Gracie Boise, ID
    Feb. 22, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 22, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    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.

  • Dont Tread Iron County, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 12:17 p.m.

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

  • Gracie Boise, ID
    Feb. 22, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    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.

  • BevWel Grants Pass, OR
    Feb. 22, 2013 12:13 p.m.

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

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 12:05 p.m.

    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.

  • fortydam OREM, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    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.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Feb. 22, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    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?

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    Feb. 22, 2013 11:54 a.m.

    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.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    Feb. 22, 2013 11:50 a.m.


    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.

  • kishkumen American Fork, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    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.

  • mcdugall Layton, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 11:43 a.m.


    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.

  • bullet56 Olympia, WA
    Feb. 22, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    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.

  • twspears6007 Bakersfield, CA
    Feb. 22, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    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

  • Palm Star Merced, CA
    Feb. 22, 2013 11:20 a.m.

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

  • morpunkt Glendora, CA
    Feb. 22, 2013 11:20 a.m.

    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".

  • Obama10 SYRACUSE, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    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.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    I'm Arlen Specter and I approve this message.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    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?

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    Feb. 22, 2013 10:42 a.m.

    @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??

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    "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?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 10:35 a.m.

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

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

    "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).

  • Mugabe ACWORTH, GA
    Feb. 22, 2013 10:36 a.m.

    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].

  • roughd Draper, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    "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.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    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?

  • observator east of the snake river, ID
    Feb. 22, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    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.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    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.

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    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?

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    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!

  • Obama10 SYRACUSE, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    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.

  • laudelino Los Angeles, CA
    Feb. 22, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    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.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    Feb. 22, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    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.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    Feb. 22, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    @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?

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    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.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    Feb. 22, 2013 9:43 a.m.


    "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?

  • Anti Government Alpine, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    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.

  • whatnext Clearfield, Utah
    Feb. 22, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    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.

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 9:39 a.m.


    "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.

  • twspears6007 Bakersfield, CA
    Feb. 22, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    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

  • Clear Eyes Highland, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    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 is very interesting.
    (January 14, 2013.)

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Feb. 22, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    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.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    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.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 9:12 a.m.

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

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    @ sovereign joe

    So prostitution should be legal?

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    Feb. 22, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    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.

  • sovereign joe Draper, Utah
    Feb. 22, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    I thought that there were no reasonable republicans remaining in this country. It's good to know that at least one man is willing to stand up to the know nothing GOP/Tea Party. A republican that believes in science and equality just may get my vote. Thanks Jon Huntsman, you have restored my faith in humanity, at least for today.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 8:44 a.m.


    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. Of course marriage is a state thing but it is also - and more importantly - a spiritual thing which is the foundation of the family unit in society and eternity.

  • Mugabe ACWORTH, GA
    Feb. 22, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    Is there anyone of us on this site who wasn't required to secure a "Marriage Licence," from our respective states prior to getting married? First of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract. The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties. The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other. The state's marriage license is "strictly secular." The State regards any mention of God as irrelevant, even meaningless. Marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife and God with husband and wife joined as one. Marriage is a strictly secular relationship so far as the
    State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a "privileged business enterprise"

    So, when it comes to Same Sex Marriages, it is pointless to argue about gospel standards, they don't apply, as far as Satan is concerned. If we have a contract with the state, then we cannot refuse, or in other words, we have no legal or moral argument against Same Sex Marriages.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    Feb. 22, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    @Big Bubba

    "Sorry John. I am going to support traditional marriage between a man and woman because that is what God wants marriage to be (as stated in the proclamation on the family)."

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

    John's doing a good thing. It doesn't matter what you believe or what I believe. What matters is that everyone gets equal rights and freedoms in this country. Nobody will agree with everything and they never have. But the principle of freedom and equality should stand.

  • Oldy Glocks Orem, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    I have not supported the Republican party for Years and also not supported the Dem party for even LONGER. May they both go away.

  • Nancy L.V. Las Vegas, NV
    Feb. 22, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    Huntsman's comments are very disappointing and if he runs for President again, he will definately not have my vote!

  • Bill Shakespeare Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    Is a Mormon's responsibility to fight against federal and state laws allowing gay marriage? Or just to believe that people can't return to live with God if they break the law of chastity?

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 7:49 a.m.

    Sorry John. I am going to support traditional marriage between a man and woman because that is what God wants marriage to be (as stated in the proclamation on the family).

  • John Wilson Idaho Falls, 00
    Feb. 22, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    I think saame sex marriages or civil unions will be approved by the courts in the near future. If the courts decide, their interpretaions will be narrow in scope, but broad in application. They will create precedents. If these marriages or unions are defined by legislation, then protections can and should also be created at the same time for those who do not support same sex marriages or unions. Huntsman has it partially right. Allow the same sex unions, but more importantly legislate protections for those who do not approve of homosexuality. If not, soon those who oppose homosexuality will be the ones fighting for their rights, and will only have legal precedents that will work against them, and no legislative rights for protections. Shortly we will be on the other side of this issue, and not be in a good position for legal recourse.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    Is it any wonder that God fearing Constitutional fiscal conservative liberty loving patriots have left the Republican party? Of course, ask someone in either party what the above mentioned terms mean and you will get a melange of answers that leaves you in tears of laughter! It is the only way to start the day!

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    Feb. 22, 2013 7:34 a.m.

    He's jumped the shark.
    Political life has become more important than his religion.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    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.

    A better solution is to allow civil partnerships. Society benefits from people living together and forming an economic unit. However, there should be no requirement that those people are sleeping together. Two straight single women who chose to live together or a single mother, her child and her mother acting as a single economic unit provide the same societal benefit. If they care for each other and provide economic support, they should have the same protections. If grandma has lived with helped raise a child, she should have rights to visitation just like a gay man who has helped raise his partner's children.

    While civil partnerships would help prevent people from enforcing their views on individuals, it would also prevent individuals from forcing their views on groups. My church and your church can marry whoever they want and will not have the government being used to push someone's agenda on either side. The great thing about freedom is that it works both ways.

  • Healthy Skeptic Saratoga Springs, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 7:31 a.m.

    Favoring the Government to define "Marriage" makes as much sense as favoring the Government to define "Baptism". We need to strip the religious term "marriage" from the laws. The proper role of governments, as described in the Declaration of Independence, does not contain any explicit provisions for domestic partnerships.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 7:01 a.m.

    Huntsman waa soundly rejected in the primaries. He is a Democrat at heart and many saw through his charade. He is carrying a grudge and wants to do as much damage to the republican party as he can before he defects to the Dems. He needs a jumping off point and this just may be it. Whenever that happens I say Bon Voyage.

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 6:40 a.m.

    With Republicans like Pete Domenici, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Larry Craig, and many others providing the model of traditional marriage, why would anyone worry about whether John Huntsman supports Gay Marriage? Don't you have enough publicity regarding the GOP's real vision of traditional marriage?

  • Meadow Lark Mark IDAHO FALLS, ID
    Feb. 22, 2013 5:53 a.m.

    Huntsman is someone definitely who I don't ever want to vote for. Marriage is between a man and woman. I think Huntsman will bend to any wind that comes through.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Feb. 22, 2013 5:50 a.m.

    "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". Is there a higher power as acknowledged by Alcoholics Anonymous or has man (or woman) become God? The various religions look to Scripture for guidance. I am not so sure that the tv media counts as a type of scripture. We all have to believe in respect for the rights of all. However, a society will not survive without standards of conduct which are woven into our legal system. This is all about world socialism and one rule of conduct which will be accepted by all and the obliteration of separate religions into one based on democratic belief. Mr. Huntsman was Ambassador to China. This means that he "swam" in the "Big Boys Pool" with those who wish to instigate this world government and world religion. His opinions should be seen and evaluated within that context.

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    Feb. 22, 2013 5:46 a.m.

    Given how unstable male-male marriages are going to be, our divorce rate should go up.

  • Albert Maslar CPA (Retired) Absecon, NJ
    Feb. 22, 2013 5:34 a.m.

    Why should or would any conservative, against carved-in-stone religious dictates and conscience, take the lead on fast-forwarding gay marriage?

  • it's time for some perspective WAUSAU, WI
    Feb. 22, 2013 5:28 a.m.

    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?

    Pick the reason you WANT but stick with it. Think LONGER - what are you trying to accomplish with the change, comment, or stance?

    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana

  • poyman Lincoln City, OR
    Feb. 22, 2013 3:09 a.m.

    This guy belongs to the wrong party.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 3:03 a.m.

    "Why is there such a fever to demonize the traditional family and celebrate two people of the same gender having sexual relations? "

    Not at all. Heck I want to get married to a woman someday and have kids. I want to have a traditional family. Nobody is demonizing traditional families. What they are opposing... is the demeaning of those who aren't in a traditional family. They oppose the idea that only a traditional family is acceptable.

    " In fact you're a bigot if you have a mother and a father."

    That... I have never seen or heard anyone make that claim before.

    ""He was brought up by 'goodly parents' who taught him correct principles, true principles. "

    People don't take issue with this kind of talk because of any hate for traditional families... they hate that you're demeaning their families.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Feb. 22, 2013 12:30 a.m.

    @toosmartforyou. if your assertions are true, then society should now allow divorce and any man that fathers a child should be forced to marry the mother of that child. That's what is best for us, right? Does anyone reading the DN know what equal protection under the law means? Separate is not equal.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Feb. 22, 2013 12:07 a.m.

    It's about time a conservative stood up for what's right. This man has the courage to speak the truth. May God bless him.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Feb. 22, 2013 12:04 a.m.


    "Link up however, but don't label it "marriage." If you get the legal benefits, why do you need to call it marriage? What about "civil unions?" Significant Other seems to be OK for most folks- why the stigma to it?"

    Good grief. Why not call it marriage?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:56 p.m.

    Too many spoiled Americans whining, and feeling sorry for themselves. As a nation, we don't know what suffering is

    We haven't seen anything yet.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:34 p.m.

    @ KJB1

    No, if they are a man and a woman certainly they may be married. Not every hetrosexual couple is fertile or capable of reproduction. Often one doesn't know until after marriage. But they are together in such a fashion that allows it in normal relationships.

    The gay couple, on the other hand, are never capable. Children need, according to the reasearch I've read, both a father and a mother. Broken homes are not the answer, either, just like cohabiting consenting adults of the ssame gender are not generally the best choice for parenting a child. There are exceptions certainly, and I understand that, like I understand the need to allow persons to live with whomever they choose, love whomever they will, and have the same legal protections as anyone and everyone else. But that isn't a "marriage." Marriage is between a man and a woman and centuries of history in countless cultures says that.

    Link up however, but don't label it "marriage." If you get the legal benefits, why do you need to call it marriage? What about "civil unions?" Significant Other seems to be OK for most folks- why the stigma to it?

  • jasonlivy Orem, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:22 p.m.


    You say 'no religion should keep us from doing the right thing'. Do you know how absurd that sounds?

    A religion's purpose is to develop a solid foundation based on truth and right. Here's something from the scriptures, "...a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon the house; and it fell'. Religion, specifically Christianity, teaches us that when we follow worldly views, like gay marriage, we have a weak foundation, or, in other words, we've built our house on the sand. Instead Christianity teaches us to have a solid foundation, one built on solid principles like traditional marriage.

    Here's another. ' are free according to the flesh...and they are free to choose liberty and eternal life,...or to choose captivity and death.' In other words, choose right or choose wrong.

    Now lets look at what's right and wrong. Traditional Marriage? Is that right? Or to support the gay lifestyle by allowing them this sacred right? How solid is your foundation? We as a society must decide what is truly right.

    My vote is for traditional marriage.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:18 p.m.

    How exactly does history or nature back you position? Homosexuality has existed and continues to exisit throughout nature and at the definitions of marriage have changed freqently over history and from one culture to another.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:51 p.m.

    Gov Herbert says he supports traditional marriage. Well, who doesn't?!!! Bigger minds, secure minds, support marriage without bias.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:51 p.m.

    Once again the fact that a duck or a golf court can neithe rprovide consent nor legally enter into contracts (which is what marriage is) your argument is nothing other then another rroneous (and unoriginal) distraction from the fact there is no ligitimate arguments against gay marriage.

  • hardware Erda, Ut
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:38 p.m.

    Sad to see everyone is a politician. You can't count on anyone to stand behind their own convictions. Huntsman should come out of the closet now and say he's a Democrat. No real Republican would ever vote for him.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:36 p.m.

    Huntsman wants the gop to change for him rather than him wanting to embrace there party platform.

  • guswetrust Cebterville, Utah
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:25 p.m.

    Are you kidding - I like Huntsman even more now. Too many people (especially Mormons, as I am one) are too tunnel vision. Let people be true to themselves. Let God judge them later on. Accept the differences of others. Let them be happy. Look in our own back yards. Leave the other backyards to the others!

  • Sentinel Ogden, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:12 p.m.

    I support what Jon Huntsman is saying. His sentiment that his marriage has been one of the top joys of his life is exactly right and needs to be afforded to all.

    He is also exactly right when he talks about gay marriage today as the equal to Lincoln's issue against slavery. Even though Lincoln himself felt very ambivalent "towards the black man", "wondered if the black man could ever be equal with the white man", Lincoln knew it was wrong to support slavery. All people, black and white, in his mind, deserved equality. He said it best, in his debates with Douglas, that just because the "will of the people decide they want slavery does not make it right." Lincoln was for what was, is, right. Same thing with Jon Huntsman. He will have my vote every time. He knows what is right.

    I get a little tired, no, very tired, of people always bringing religion in to things. Why does it have to be? I love my religion. But, I do not use it as a crux not to do the right thing. No religion should ever keep us from doing the right thing.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:10 p.m.

    Jon Jr's back in the news? Shock me!

    The most irrelevant Republican from the last election just can't stay out of the limelight. Thanks, DesNews for the non-stop, weekly stories. What's in it for you?

  • jasonlivy Orem, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:06 p.m.

    Why are we stumbling over ourselves to protect the homosexual lifestyle? Why is there such a fever to demonize the traditional family and celebrate two people of the same gender having sexual relations? Does this not strike you as concerning? This is what's going to save the Republican Party?

    We need to stand by our basic principles! If we don't stand up for the traditional family, who will? It seems a mother and father is out of vogue. It's not trendy to have a mother and father. No. In fact you're a bigot if you have a mother and a father.

    I've lost total respect of Huntsman. He knows what is right. He was brought up by 'goodly parents' who taught him correct principles, true principles. He doesn't represent traditional values. As was said in the article, 'he would make a great Democrat."

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:06 p.m.

    All the problems our country is facing and this is the one he wants Republicans to rally around?


    The reason I will not ever vote for him is his inability to put the most important and pressing problems at the top of the list.

  • AZ Blue & Red Gilbert, AZ
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:53 p.m.

    There are many things that anyone LDS has to live with that we are taught is not in compliance with the word of God. Alcohol, tobacco, abortion, adultery, pornography, children out of wedlock, sexual promiscuity, drugs etc. Gay marriage is similar. I agree that marriage and family is a man and a women. However this too is going to change whether we like it or not. Does not make it right just like the other things that we are taught that are not in harmony with God's teachings. I am not a supporter of Gay marriage but I do agree they do have rights. As do all. We can not treat them or any others any different. This like the other things I listed we have to somehow live with it yet know to not agree. I teach my children to not do these things. I think the world would be a much better place if we could live these commandments. Not all are willing to do so. Abortion & Gay Marriage will be debated forever. Till the Savior comes again we may have to live with worldly things that are not what is best for mankind.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:53 p.m.


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

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:50 p.m.

    @Kalindra: While it is correct that no state law says that the couple needs to be able to have children on their own for it be a marriage, with real marriage, (between a man and a woman) it is obvious that the couple is capable of consummating their marriage in a biological meaningful way. Otherwise, you could marry your golf game or you could marry a duck.

    (In fact, the late 1970's, in response to a comment about our state law on marriage, someone did actually marry a duck as part of a publicity stunt.)

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:43 p.m.

    There are lots of conservatives who already support gay marriage. There was recently a state senator in Colorado who did a rant about people with religious convictions or cultural beliefs who support traditional marriage should live in a nunnery as an example of conservative support for gay marriage.

    There are lots of conservatives who support gay marriage because it gives them an opportunity to suppress freedom of conscience, human rights and to promote their belief on freedom of speech is "You have the right to express your views, but not the right to keep your job after you've said it."

    I think that he means mainstream, normal conservatives rather than the scary law-and-order fringe types.

  • Wanderer West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:43 p.m.

    How disappointing. His moral compass has obviously failed.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:41 p.m.

    @ Kalindra

    History (and nature itself) would seem to support my definition.

    Not everything a person knows or experiences is contained in state law. With regard to that, remember what Paul Harvey said: "Anyone who loves law or hamburger should not watch either being made."

  • Melanna Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:36 p.m.

    There is one major flaw to your logic, state laws pretty much universally talk about marriage in terms of the contractual right and obligations that you say gay people deserve but not one of them says anything about the need to be able to procreate.

    what is your need to prevent them from saying they are married and why is your need any more legitimate then theirs. I would say they have more of a claim since we already know separate is not equal and the very fact you want to deny them the right to call it marriage proves it is not equal or there would be no reason to deny them the right.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:30 p.m.

    so the same two things that have been pointed out to you before. One no where in an state law does it say that a couple must be capable of having children on their own or otherwise. secondly you can define marriage how ever you want it does not make THE definition of marriage "biologically" or otherwise.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:22 p.m.

    I am in favor of granting the same basic "rights" to everyone, regarding visitation, wills, assets, etc, but don't call it "marriage" because it isn't. Marriage is between two adults of opposite genders and involves the opportunity to reproduce and perpetuate the race. Gays and lesbians cannot do that biologically. While they are committed to their relationships with each other, that in itself is not "marriage."

    So since they are biologically different than a married couple, why do they insist they be together in a "marriage" when it is really a civil union? Do they feel nature has somehow discriminated against them, and changed their will and outlook into being someone or something they would rather not be?

    Let them be together and let them have all the same legal protections and rights as others who happen to be married, fully vetted as such, but don't say they are "married." Aside from the legal rights (assuming they will now enjoy those same rights and benefits) what's the need to say they are "married" anyway?

    Why is marriage between a man and a woman a stigma? Seriously, just how were they born if not that way?

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:58 p.m.

    @dont tread
    interesting attempt but yet you provide no proof to your claims, why is that? maybe because the science does not support such a claim and the only reason to discriminate have nothing to do with preventing a social harm? the research is very clear and it does not support your claims of a harm.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:40 p.m.

    The belief of discrimination has spread its covetous venom to all facets of American life.

    Like the spread of cancer, it's destroying our country.

  • Dont Tread Iron County, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:39 p.m.

    Many comments about the homosexual issue ignore the wrench in their argument that causes us who believe in traditional marriage to oppose gay marriage. The "wrench" is two-fold: the nature of gender confusion and what actually can cause it is ignored and pushed aside, and how that confusion will affect the adopted children of same-sex couples. The whole issue is not a civil rights issue, as gay rights supporters would have us all believe. It is a civil, and social, acceptance issue. It isn't about whether homosexuals should or should not have certain RIGHTS, it's about whether we as a society decide to ACCEPT homosexuality as moral or immoral, and whether the laws should be changed, or retained, to match that determination. Those who write people off that think like me, people who feel that gender confusion is a factor in the disintegration of the family as a basic unit of society and the overall moral fabric of the nation, as uncompromising bigots are grossly oversimplifying this issue and are taking part in an uncompromising attempt to marginalize the opinions of those who disagree with them.

  • Ophelia Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:14 p.m.

    My dear, loving, wonderful son is gay. I'm so grateful we live now instead of even a few of decades ago. We still have a long way to go as a society, but thankfully, good men and women everywhere are realizing gay people are just as human as straight people. They should have the same opportunities to live and love as anyone else. Thank you, Mr. Huntsman! Thank you.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:08 p.m.

    funny how so many are so quick to condemn huntsman for what they believe is going against his religion when that same religion recently counseled its members against openly questioning other faithfulness.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:05 p.m.

    He was a good Democrat under the Obama administration. Congressman Matheson has been able to walk that line and get elected in Utah. That would add another dimension to the future for this person from the sidelines from this last election. He could run with Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and others that may run in 2016 which would start in about a year from now.

  • Breakfast of Champions Provo, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:03 p.m.


  • mornixuur Layton, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 7:53 p.m.

    Very nice job, Mr. Huntsman. A little late, but not bad all the same.

    For those claiming that he's not abiding by his religion - I wasn't aware that your religion felt entitled to obligate everyone to live by your values.

    I'd like my elected officials to live their personal lives as per their conscience and their religious values, and allow others the freedom and equality to do so as well - subject to it not harming anyone else. I'm sorry that you all seem to find that an unreasonable expectation, but you're not being persecuted here.. unless you define persecution as not being allowed to force your beliefs on the rest of us.

  • Mr.Glass Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 7:54 p.m.

    Huntsman is man of principle and sound reason. The Republican Party will eventually see the light; many of them are seeing it already.

  • wYo8 Rock Springs, WY
    Feb. 21, 2013 7:44 p.m.

    My feelings exactly. The only person I will even think about voting for is Ben Carson if he decides to run. I will never vote for Christie and absolutely NOT HUNTSMAN. The political system has about done me in as far as voting in the future.

  • jzer Haworth, OK
    Feb. 21, 2013 7:43 p.m.

    I have long suspected that Huntsman is a liberal. He needs to quit being disingenuous and switch to the party his values agree with; democrat. His views do not seem to be in line with either his religion or the republican party. It won't surprise me if we see him disown the republican party and switch parties before his next presidential campaign.

  • No One Of Consequence West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 7:38 p.m.

    "Jon Huntsman would make a great Democrat," he said.

    That's what a lot of Republicans have been saying for a long time...

  • LAL South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 7:16 p.m.

    When a man turns his back on his religious convictions before God, what trust do the rest of us hold in any of his words? My vote is now lost to this man forever.