Quantcast
Utah

Hunstman calls self 'moderating voice' on many issues

Comments

Return To Article
  • Beesar
    Feb. 10, 2009 11:15 a.m.

    It is refreshing to see a politican stand up for what is right, regardless of his religious views. Gov. Huntsman was the only Republican I voted for this last election, because he doesn't do what is popular, he does what is right.

  • Utah
    Feb. 10, 2009 11:19 a.m.

    "its not a new position"?? Really? I don't remember ever hearing this in any of his two campaigns. Did he keep his position secret until he won election? Also, could some crack-reporter please report how many gay people have ever been denied access to a "friend" at a hospital. I have never been denied access to visiting a friend at a hospital so why would they? I think this is a red-herring. Also, life insurance beneficiaries can be designated to whomever you want? This is also a red herring thrown out by the gay community. I don't believe these are real problems.

  • D
    Feb. 10, 2009 11:24 a.m.

    Reader comments
    Utah governor supports civil unions

    IN REF: "WRITTEN PRENUPTIAL CONTRACTS FOR POLYGAMISTS" TO PRECEDE CIVIL UNIONS


    WHILE I WAS SHOPPING, I PERSONALLY MET AND SPOKE WITH COUNTY MAYOR PETER CORROON



    IF TRUE, MARK WITH AN (X)::

    ( ) BEFORE REGISTRIES, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ENTERTAINED WITH

    A FIRST STEP, A "TEST CASE," THE "PERFECT TEST CASE:"

    (A) AGAINST AND (B) FOR WRITTEN PRENUPTIAL CONTRACTS FOR POLYGAMISTS.


    SIGNED: RECKIPS (DOT) COM

  • deltabelle
    Feb. 10, 2009 11:26 a.m.

    Before all the pro-gay and anti-gay people get on here, let me say that my 53-year-old sister, who has a kidney transplant, is being offered a retirement package that they say will be the last to include insurance for the next five years. At that time, she will be without and I will have to live with her because she is unmarried. So, if I am lucky enough to have insurance at that time, this will be a great benefit to help a great woman in her elder years.

  • Whoa!
    Feb. 10, 2009 11:37 a.m.

    The Guv's spokesman says:

    "It's essentially the contractual rights of two people living together. It's not something that has to be necessarily limited to an intimate relationship."

    Or even to two people! In other words, what would limit this law's application to two people? There is no concept in contract law that would do so.

    What would prevent polygamists from arguing infringement of their 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law?

    What are the other unintended consequences?

    This is a dangerously slippery slope we're on.

    Let's slow this one down and think it through!

  • What is happening...
    Feb. 10, 2009 11:39 a.m.

    to our society? When did up become down and left become right?

    Mr. Huntsman needs to change his political affiliation from Republican to Socialist. It's time for him to stand up and be honest to the citizenry of the State of Utah.

  • Re: Utah @ 11:19
    Feb. 10, 2009 11:42 a.m.

    Actually, you can't designate anyone you want as your insurance beneficiary. The beneficiary has to have an "insurable interest" in the insured. To simplify a rather complicated concept, family members automatically have an insurable interest; others do not (not automatically, at least).

  • Thanks
    Feb. 10, 2009 11:46 a.m.

    Congratulations Governor for a common sense position in a difficult political environment.

  • Lowell Steele
    Feb. 10, 2009 11:48 a.m.

    As "Utah" has noted, this is, in fact, much ado about nothing. I challenge anyone reading this to contact all your local hospitals and ask them their policy about visitation rights. Not a single hospital limits hospital visits by anyone, unless requested by the patient (the exception is Primary Children's, which takes child safety/security very seriously, as you'd hope they would). One hospital laughed when I asked the question...they noted they even allow visits by pets, so why would they bar people.

    Each hospital also has available both in registration and online the state-approved healthcare power of attorney form to assure that another person (anyone) can make healthcare decisions for you if you are incapacitated. Once that form is executed you never need to bother with it again unless you change your mind.

    As noted, you can designate anyone you wish as a beneficiary to an insurance policy. You may also name anyone you want in your will.

    This information is not new to Governor Huntsman, nor to the GLBT community. The governor is grandstanding. The GLBT community is trying to soften us up step-by-step to nullify Amendment 3.

  • To: denied access @ hospital!
    Feb. 10, 2009 11:49 a.m.

    Being denied access to visit a "friend" @ the hospital is unusual. But, being involved in major decisions, especially when "the friend" is unable or even unconscious is a totally different thing.

    My partner was @ LDS hospital last year. He was incoherent and unable to understand what was going on. His family had disowned him years prior.

    It was not until I provided a copy of our medical power of attorney that the hospital would even let me know what was going on. He had been moved to ICU by the time I could return with the paperwork they accepted. I could not even locate him for a few hours, let alone see him.

    That is what Equality and civil unions provide.

  • lost in DC
    Feb. 10, 2009 11:57 a.m.

    D 11:24, could you please restate your comments? I have no idea what you're talking about.

    quite the selection we had last fall for Governor, a RINO (Huntsman), an old hippy (Springmeyer), and a nut-job.

  • out of the closet
    Feb. 10, 2009 12:00 p.m.

    I respect Huntsman for taking the same position as Mitt Romney and John Kerry (it is just that in 2004 Kerry was thought evil for this position), what 5 years does to a people. Romney was the first GOP person in the country to have courage to say in his state in New England that civil unions should be legal. Having said all this, I am still grateful 90 percent of our country and 90 percent of the politicians are against gay marriage.

  • Not surprising
    Feb. 10, 2009 12:04 p.m.

    Given this it's not surprising that most governors in the US consider Huntsman to be a closeted democrat. He's a joke!

  • To Beesar
    Feb. 10, 2009 12:07 p.m.

    It may be "right" to you but it's not to 70% of Utahns. That is how much Amendment 3 won by when it was voted on.

    The governor isn't doing what is right, he is doing this to widen his appeal to national voters. Looks to me like he is throwing the people who elected him under the bus in order to set himself up for national politics. This guy is a total sham!

  • CB
    Feb. 10, 2009 12:08 p.m.

    Denied Access: Wouldn't you need papers to prove that you had a Civil Union?

  • Principles?
    Feb. 10, 2009 12:19 p.m.

    How disappointing. This is just another example of Gov. Huntsman caving into the common and often repeated distortions of rights.

    Govenor Huntsman continues to look like a conservative, talk like a conservative, and act like a moderate to left-leaning liberal. Just another wolf in sheep's clothing who cannot stand by their principles amid the constant moral decay of our society.

  • to CB:
    Feb. 10, 2009 12:26 p.m.

    This happened before SLC legalized the so called "Civil Union" rules.

    My partner and I have been together for 15+ years. While living in Utah we spent thousands with an attorney obtaining what legal papers we could that would be recognized in Utah.

    We now live 9 months in California (since married, waiting for outcome of prop 8) and 3 months in Utah. We stay in Utah (Capitol Hill) due to that is where the old family residence is. My other siblings have left Utah and seldom return.

    My company extends medical and pension benefits due to the California laws and married. The California residency / marriage provides for that.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 10, 2009 12:38 p.m.

    When it comes to "civil unions" for Gay couples, if "separate but equal" means exactly that, I don't see the problem. When you raise the specter of "separate but equal," people often harken back to the days of racial segregation when the facilities that blacks were forced to use were substandard, and it became apparent that "separate but equal" was a farce.

    If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly. If all the roughly 1,100 federal benefits and responsibilities that are bestowed on married couples would be equally bestowed on Gay couples that have entered into "civil unions," I really don't have a problem. Any couple in question would still refer to one another as "husbands" or "wives" or "married."

    But let's keep in mind, as Andrew Sullivan pointed out, "that the forces against marriage equality are also adamantly against civil unions for Gay people. And they have no intention of allowing Gay couples any civil recognition, because we are an emblem of sin to them."

  • In it to make money
    Feb. 10, 2009 12:47 p.m.

    Insurance companies are in business to make money -- not really interested in your welfare. Therefore, a civil union bill would probably not be in their best business interest. It would mean that my elderly mother with no health insurance could be added as a dependent on my policy if she lived with me. My insurance rates would probably go up because as an elderly person she typically would cost more to insurance. I can see the insurance companies getting behind the opposite side of this bill.

  • A great person
    Feb. 10, 2009 1:00 p.m.

    Its wonderful to see Gov. Huntsman do the right thing and respect others, and tolerate beliefs that are different than his own. If only the state legislature was not full of racists, bigots and homophobes.

  • utah
    Feb. 10, 2009 1:09 p.m.

    I agree with Huntsman's view. There is no harm in helping gay people to attain many of the asumed rights given to married couples. It is just too bad that we now have to listen to the gloating of intolerant pro-gay-marriage crowd. Anything we can do to weaken their claim that marriage is appropriate for gay couples is a step in the right direction.

  • Yes!
    Feb. 10, 2009 1:28 p.m.

    Nice to see some common sense and humanity rule the day. Good for you, Gov. Huntsman! I applaud your courage!

    And all the venom and attacks will be arriving in 3, 2, 1....

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder
    Feb. 10, 2009 2:13 p.m.

    Well, back in the good ole daze, in Utah, then there folk there, could have more then one wife, today (other then the FLDS) they in Utah gripe about the people in the middle east having more then one wife, no matter how young she is, and still call themself a Red State?. Now, this same Red State of Utah, caves into, and, along with their elected leader, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. supports civil unions, aka "same sex marriage", and the people in Utah allow it, support it, love it, can't live without it, well, all I have to say to this is this, I guess Utah is stir crazy along with cabin feaver from being locked up in-doors all winter long, and perhaps, because they are all bored to death with nothing else to do, dream about Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. supports civil unions and it really turns them on, so they just say "so be it" aka "amen", and let it rest in piece. Not peace. Perhaps them you need a vacation in Florida, to get away from this evil Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. that supports civil unions, and move your temple to here.

  • Lowell Steele
    Feb. 10, 2009 2:26 p.m.

    It might be useful to remember the language of Amendment 3, which, as was pointed out above, was approved by a substantial majority of the voters in Utah:
    1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
    2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

    Any time you try to give another relationship the same benefits now reserved for marriage, you are going to run afoul of the language of Amendment 3, which is now part of our Utah Constitution.

    'Nuff said.

  • Andrew Sullivan
    Feb. 10, 2009 2:40 p.m.

    . . . is right!

  • Danny C.
    Feb. 10, 2009 2:45 p.m.

    I think I could support civil unions so long as dependent relationships like Deltabelle's were included. I don't want to know what goes on in anyone's bedroom, whatever their orientation, but I think civil unions should be offered to all good "friends" who want to (or may need to) live together.

    Just don't try equating it to marriage, unless you're making a joke.

  • Movie Productions
    Feb. 10, 2009 3:02 p.m.

    according to Mr Roskelley civil union or the rights to be given by the movement aren't on the governor's top priority list which is "health insurance reform, alcohol reform and an effort to lure more movie productions to Utah." If Gov Huntsman wants to lure the movie industry here he would do well to bump up these reforms into his top agenda because the movie industry is largely in support of giving rights to same sex couples. And I wouldn't be surprised to see many hollywood machines boycott Utah the mormon's support on Prop 8. As well they should....

  • Nuff said
    Feb. 10, 2009 3:41 p.m.

    Lowell Steele said:
    "Any time you try to give another relationship the same benefits now reserved for marriage, you are going to run afoul of the language of Amendment 3, which is now part of our Utah Constitution.

    'Nuff said."

    Any time a state enacts laws (including amendments to their constitutions that restrict access to legal rights to a certain class of people, it is going to run afoul of the language of the US Constitution, which guarantees equal protection. Apparently it isn't "Nuff said." Seems to me that there is plenty of room for a constitutional challenge to Utah's Amendment 3.

  • Mike M.
    Feb. 10, 2009 3:47 p.m.

    Thank you thank you thank you Mr. Governer. It is so refreshing to see a Utah Republican who stands up for freedom and not bigotry out of fear and hate! I am so proud to be a Utahn under this wonderful governor!

  • JHP
    Feb. 10, 2009 4:03 p.m.

    This comment from the Trib article rings very true:

    Jeff Reynolds, spokesman for the conservative Salt Lake City-based Sutherland Institute think tank, which opposes the Common Ground Initiative, said he's "not surprised" by Huntsman's softened stand.

    "He had to be dragged to the altar of Amendment 3," Reynolds said in an e-mail, "and everyone has known since then that Governor Huntsman would rather be nice than right."

  • Kudos to Gov Huntsman
    Feb. 10, 2009 4:18 p.m.

    Civil unions should be recognized. It is the fair and right thing to do.

  • Troy
    Feb. 10, 2009 4:28 p.m.

    Way to go Governor Huntsman! I'm glad I voted for you! And I'm glad that a common sense politician is in charge in Utah. Gay citizens deserve access to all the rights and protections of straight citizens. Let freedom ring!

  • Defense of Marriage
    Feb. 10, 2009 4:54 p.m.

    Nuff said:


    "Any time a state enacts laws (including amendments to their constitutions that restrict access to legal rights to a certain class of people, it is going to run afoul of the language of the US Constitution, which guarantees equal protection. Apparently it isn't "Nuff said." Seems to me that there is plenty of room for a constitutional challenge to Utah's Amendment 3."


    You are forgetting the defense of marriage act passed by congress

    1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

    2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

    The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.




  • To A great person
    Feb. 10, 2009 4:55 p.m.

    What you really mean is that people who disagree with you are "racists, bigots and homophobes." Thanks for being our moral compass. It must be wonderful to be so lofty and have the privilege of judging others.

  • Re: Beesar
    Feb. 10, 2009 5:42 p.m.

    He is not a republican. Therefore you still haven't voted for a republican.

  • Gov?
    Feb. 10, 2009 5:58 p.m.

    Yah did the right thing. Now stand tall and firm and don't move. You got it right.

    And a republican too... wow..... next thing you know we will have a black American as President. When that day happens you just know we are near the end or close to karma.....

  • His fever is rising
    Feb. 10, 2009 6:40 p.m.

    I detect a rise in his "Potomac fever." A moderate foundation for a run at the presidency is being put in place -- you can bank it. Oh, wait a minute, by then there won't be any banks ;-)

  • Appalling
    Feb. 10, 2009 6:42 p.m.

    I find it appalling that Huntsman supports equal rights for this minority group. What country does he think this is? America?

  • You Have 1 New Message
    Feb. 10, 2009 6:52 p.m.

    The Founding Fathers called. All men are created equal. If you have any questions, please refer to a document called The Constitution. Thank you.

  • David
    Feb. 10, 2009 7:06 p.m.

    Everyone needs to relax. The governor was confused the words civil union weren't on his test for the GED. What I would really like to know is what is Orrin Hatch's stand on this issue. Oh wait he has the same opinion as the governor he came out with it in 2004 when utah was voting on the ammendment. Yet everyone still loves him and everyone will forget about this and still love the governor. The LDS church also has said a very similar thing.

  • Steve
    Feb. 10, 2009 7:18 p.m.

    What?? The governor would not appoint a woman to the Board of Pardons to replace the only woman on the board, and yet he supports this issue?

  • Rick
    Feb. 10, 2009 8:03 p.m.

    It appears to me that it will be a lot harder to repeal amendment 3 than it was to pass it. Hence, no civil unions for you!

  • JNZ
    Feb. 10, 2009 8:45 p.m.

    I oppose Governor Huntsman's stand on this issue for some of the reasons mentioned earlier, ie. hospital visition rights are already given depending on the wishes of the patient and if one wishes to have someone as a monetary/property beneficiary I believe that this can be done as well. We all have these same rights. A "Civil Union" would be the same thing as marriage only under another name. Let's keep our "individual" rights but let's put an end to the blur which has occured between what marriage "or civil union" is and what it is not. Marriage is between a man and a women, not two men and not two women. The distinction must be made very clear for the sake of our children, our families and our nation.

  • Joseph Atwater
    Feb. 10, 2009 9:03 p.m.

    Good on ya John!!!
    Listening to peoples hearts not politicians heavyhandedness.
    We support you 100%
    You are aware of peoples plights and pains and adressing them with compassion!!

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 10, 2009 10:35 p.m.

    *** "So, if I am lucky enough to have insurance at that time, this will be a great benefit to help a great woman in her elder years." ***

    There is ZERO, NIL, NADA legal requirement that company insurance cover spouses or significant others. Businesses do so at their leisure. Once businesses that provide it for spouses are required to provide it for significant others you can effectively say goodbye to spousal coverage. It could increase their costs dramatically.

  • JNZ
    Feb. 10, 2009 11:51 p.m.

    Anonymous-

    Very good point!

  • Thank You
    Feb. 11, 2009 12:29 a.m.

    Gov. Huntsman,
    Thank you for taking a stand for what is right. It is time that people give others the same basic rights that mainstream people enjoy every day of their lives.

  • Joke!
    Feb. 11, 2009 1:48 a.m.

    Whatever!.....Huntsman is a Joke! You give an inch, they'll try to take a mile! "Get your act together Johnny, Your fooling no one"! I knew there was something about this dude that I didn't like.

  • Founding Fathers were voters too
    Feb. 11, 2009 3:37 a.m.

    You Have 1 New Message,

    "The Founding Fathers called. All men are created equal. If you have any questions, please refer to a document called The Constitution. Thank you."

    Those words can not be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution instead Thomas Jefferson wrote them in the Declaration of Independence when he said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    By the way Thomas Jefferson wouldn't necessarily be considered a Founding Father since he wasn't at the Constitutional Convention and was at first opposed to it. Using the words of a man who believed that it was okay for each generation to write a new organic law and constitution because it wasn't bound by the will of past generations doesn't help your argument.

    Being created equal means that each voter has the same rights and gays who are a minority don't have the right to rule the majority. That's tyranny. If you have any questions please feel free to spout off more nonsense.

  • sally ann
    Feb. 11, 2009 5:35 a.m.

    I didn't vote for Huntsman because I knew he was a democrat, calling himself a republican, in order to win the vote in Utah. I wondered why so many in this state couldn't see through him. He truly is a joke.

  • Robert
    Feb. 11, 2009 5:42 a.m.

    I am very disappointed with the Governor. First, he kept these views to himself during the recent election. Second, his views go against the intent and language of Amendment 3.

  • Joey in Brazil
    Feb. 11, 2009 6:00 a.m.

    Governor Huntsman,
    Thanks for showing that republicans can occasionally be reasonable and compassionate. Maybe now the rest of the country won't look at Utah as some backwards, bigoted state. What is the purpose of government? Some of these comments suggest that government exists to encourage moral behavior. I fundamentally disagree. The founder fathers understood that government exists to PRESERVE the freedom and rights of the people. Civil Unions preserves freedom, the government forbidding civil unions is government taking a moral stand, while simultaneously taking away freedom.

  • 2 people-FORGET the GAYS
    Feb. 11, 2009 6:01 a.m.

    The article stated:
    "...things like insurance, mutual benefits...Those contracts can extend beyond gay couples..."It's essentially the contractual rights of two people living together. It's not something that has to be necessarily limited to an intimate relationship."

    Does this mean that I can have my widowed mother (with whom I live--I am single) as my "partner", and that my employer must consider her as such, and that she will receive medical benefits? I SURE HOPE SO--what an AWESOME IDEA!!

    I know a father, wife deceased, who would love to have his 25 year old son also receive medical benefits. His company cuts these benefits off at age 23. But if what the governor says is true, they will have to re-instate him as a "partner" who will be eligible to receive benefits.

    And my cousins, brother and sister--both spouses have died--who now live together. I can think of many other examples. WONDERFUL!

    What a REFRESHING thing--we can think about this concept and it can be TOTALLY FREE of worrying/thinking about/debating about Gay and Lesbian overtones and their "rights"--It can be just be "two people." GO Governor Huntsman!!

  • Majority rules?
    Feb. 11, 2009 7:14 a.m.

    Just because a majority of you think it's ok to deny equality for all doesn't make it right. What about when the majority was strongly opposed to civil rights for African Americans? Are we all proud of our ancestors' support of legal discrimination? I think not.

    Will your grandchildren be proud of you?

  • Deltabelle
    Feb. 11, 2009 7:18 a.m.

    53 is NOT elder years! I'm 51 and my youngest child is FOUR.

  • in a sorry State
    Feb. 11, 2009 7:22 a.m.

    Utah Evil Forum President Gayle Ruzicka is full of hate. Her moral compass is out of control. The founders of our country promised life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone.

  • As Prop 8 pointed out
    Feb. 11, 2009 7:26 a.m.

    Civil unions are not marriages. Sometimes, my fellow Utahn's have their minds shut tight. They would closet discriminate when given the golden opportunity. I am against gay marriage. But allowing some of the same 'right's' I enjoy as a woman married to a man, should happen. It's more than visitation. I heard in conference not too many years ago, President Hinckly telling us to love our gay brothers and sisters. When will we start following the counsel of our prophets?

  • RE: Joey
    Feb. 11, 2009 7:27 a.m.

    What freedom(s) are preserved by civil unions?

  • RECALL
    Feb. 11, 2009 7:56 a.m.

    Time to recall Huntman.
    RECALL! It worked on Gov. Davis of Cali a few years ago we can do it here too! People of Utah unite and recall this democrat in conservative clothing and by doing so we will not suffer his wayward governing anymore!

  • Refreshing!
    Feb. 11, 2009 8:11 a.m.

    Recognizing civil unions is the right thing to do. The next generation will wonder why it took so long for gays to have equal rights. I applaud Governor Huntsman for having the courage to state his beliefs on this issue.

  • Robert Oh
    Feb. 11, 2009 8:54 a.m.

    Thank you Governor, for you bravery and leadership.

  • Give us liberty oir death voters
    Feb. 11, 2009 9:12 a.m.

    Nuff said,

    "Any time a state enacts laws (including amendments to their constitutions that restrict access to legal rights to a certain class of people, it is going to run afoul of the language of the US Constitution, which guarantees equal protection. Apparently it isn't "Nuff said." Seems to me that there is plenty of room for a constitutional challenge to Utah's Amendment 3."

    Of course theres plenty of room for a constitutional challenge but those of us who voted for it will not stand by as unelected Judges who wouldn't have voted for it tell us that their vote takes precedence over ours. Amendment 3 doesn't deny equal protection and anyone who says it does is a liar who wants to force those of us who disagree with them to bow to their votes and they want judges who would vote the same way as they did to back them up.

    If we have to we can always amend the U.S. Constitution and then if your buddies on the courts try a fast one on us then we will abolish the constitution and kick their butts and yours. How about that tyrants?

  • Michael Hall
    Feb. 11, 2009 9:21 a.m.

    Thanks Gov.
    It is great that Utah has a Governor that is capable of thinking for himself and considering all of his constituants. Myself and my partner of 42 years live a quiet life in West Valley. I know that my vote doesn't count in Utah because the people we elect time and time again have a closed mind and are prejudice and judgemental. By the way ICU and CCU are restricted to family visits only. We had that problem when my partner was in ICU because a nurse felt the need to make it an issue. Were not asking for much just a simple form of equality. Afterall we are the single people who pay more taxes to put your kids through school. I figure it's just Utah, I didn't choose to be born here or born gay.

  • Funny
    Feb. 11, 2009 9:24 a.m.

    What are you all surprised about? You thought that by simply voting for a "Republican" you'd get conservative governance?

    You love making celebrities of the Mormon elite and think your adorations will be paid back to you by God's smiling favors.

    Wrong!

    Poke a hole in that bag over your head and put off this silly cultural behavior of making celebrities of people.

    I want a humble, confident leader who shares my views; you pick an egotist.

  • Laura
    Feb. 11, 2009 9:26 a.m.

    ROFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!! Typical politician, got have it both ways!

    So glad I didn't vote for him. What a joke.

    You know though...the real joke will come after the next election when all the good little republicans will bahhhhh their way (like good little sheep) to the election booth and vote for him again.

    I suggest that every person able to read this, read the Constitution of the United States....and then start voting for those who uphold it...or you can simply shut up and take more of what we have at this very moment.

  • Albemar
    Feb. 11, 2009 9:36 a.m.

    "Utah" & "Lowell Steele" asked for real examples of people denied access in the hospital, that's easy.

    1 - Janice Langbehn & Lisa Pond from Olympia Washington. Lisa unexpectedly collapsed just prior to boarding a cruise ship in Florida and Janice along with their three adopted children were denied access by the hospital. Google It!

    2 - Julie & Hillary Goodridge of Boston MA, the same. Julie gave birth to their daughter Annie, and Hillary goes with the new born. Hillary then leaves Annie to see how Julie is doing. Hillary is then denied access to see her spouse, Julie by the hospital. Hillary then attempts to go back to their newborn daughter Annie, and is denied access to her as well by the hospital. Google It.

    Does this happen in real life? Is Utah any different than Florida or Massachussets? Yes, much less tolerant.

    It's time for this so called "Compassionate" "Christian" state of Utah to quit denying the facts and get about the work of being compassionate. Otherwise these claims of caring about other human beings are just a bunch of lies.

  • Tim
    Feb. 11, 2009 9:57 a.m.

    I appreciate our Governors feelings that it is "important to have a communitywide discussion on these issues in a way that shows temperance and respect and an enhanced understanding." I am not apposed to some of this legislation. Even thought my personal feelings are that homosexuality is a sin. There are plenty of heterosexual sinners in this country also. I think we need to back away from some of the borderline hate groups on both the left and right in our country and be able to remember that these issues address real people and not just "them" or some faceless group and especially not the "enemy"

  • I hate to break it to you
    Feb. 11, 2009 10:11 a.m.

    But there are many adult LDS children who are gay. Treating them with dignity and respect would be the Christian thing to do, wouldn't it?

  • LDS supporter
    Feb. 11, 2009 10:12 a.m.

    Thanks, Governor Huntsman, for a reasonable response to a difficult issue. The proposal doesn't have a snowball's chance in August of making through the hidebound Utah legislature, but thanks for saying publicly what a majority of Utahns already think. Maybe someday.

  • Jason Fila
    Feb. 11, 2009 10:35 a.m.

    LBGTQ argue that important rights are being taken from them. That is obviously a red-herring, although I believe it appears to be true. We can get rid of the appearance if lawfully give them the same rights and protect them against discrimination in housing etc. Then they have no real argument. The real issue will then come to light: They way their relationships to be accepted on the same level that heterosexual relationships...they want society to celebrate gay relationships. They're seeking validation. I am LDS. I served a mission. I was a leader on my mission. I still do missionary work as a member. In other words I consider myself to be strong LDS. I am not against GLBTQ. I am against gay marriage because I believe it is forcing me to accept and even celebrate something that I believe to be morally wrong. However just like the LDS church has said I have no problem with them receiving the same rights and protections as heterosexuals have. Homosexual acts are sins, homosexuals are not sins; they are children of God. Let him whose life has been without sexual sin be the first to deny them their rights.

  • To Laura
    Feb. 11, 2009 10:36 a.m.

    Laura | 9:26 a.m. Feb. 11, 2009

    "I suggest that every person able to read this, read the Constitution of the United States....and then start voting for those who uphold it...or you can simply shut up and take more of what we have at this very moment."


    What part of the constitution did he go against? I have read it many times and refer to it often. I cannot find where Gov. Hunstman did anything against the constitution. Could you enlighten me?

  • to Tim
    Feb. 11, 2009 10:38 a.m.

    Thank you, Tim. I think you understand what America is about better than most Utahns.

    Thanks again.

  • How refreshing...
    Feb. 11, 2009 10:49 a.m.

    I thank the Governor for restoring my faith in the common sense of people!

  • I am surprised and happy.
    Feb. 11, 2009 10:51 a.m.

    I thank the Governor of Utah for restoring my belief in the basic common sense of people!

  • I hate to break it to you
    Feb. 11, 2009 12:07 p.m.

    Yes everyone deserves to be treated with respect as a human being. That does not mean that all behaviors should be equally respected. It is sad to see people confuse these two so frequently, becoming less Christian in the process.

  • To Jason Fila
    Feb. 11, 2009 12:19 p.m.

    "I am against gay marriage because I believe it is forcing me to accept and even celebrate something that I believe to be morally wrong."


    For all the LDS Canadians, Norweigians, Spaniards, South Africans - do they "celebrate" gay marriage? Have they stopped believing that it is evil?

    What about the members in Connecticut or Massachusetts? Do they "celebrate" gay marriage? Do they now accept it in the LDS churches there?

  • Adams
    Feb. 11, 2009 12:22 p.m.

    We now see clearly that Mr. Huntsman is not a friend of the traditional family or a friend generally of conservative values. He has been a wolf in sheep's clothing. Unfortunately, there apparently is no recall procedure under Utah law (only impeachment). Thankfully, the state legislature better represents the views of the vast majority of Utahns who support the traditional family and do not want to erode marriage by granting marriage-like privileges to other types of arrangements.

    We need to remember what Mr. Huntsman has said and done and demand in the next election cycle that a true conservative and friend of the traditional family is on the ballot instead of him.

  • Jud
    Feb. 11, 2009 12:35 p.m.

    My respect for our governor just shot up, and I think that would be true for most thoughtful people. It's a brave man who can stand on a principle of fairness and equity despite the bigotry that surrounds him.

  • To Adams
    Feb. 11, 2009 12:54 p.m.

    "Thankfully, the state legislature better represents the views of the vast majority of Utahns who support the traditional family and do not want to erode marriage by granting marriage-like privileges to other types of arrangements."


    But if you have looked into what our church (LDS) is saying about civil unions, they are NOT against them. Why would most of Utahns be against them if the church is not?

  • Re: Albemar
    Feb. 11, 2009 1:04 p.m.

    I find it interesting that you worry about gays being denied visitation rights in Utah, yet you were unable to come up with a single instance where that happened in Utah.

    Instead you had to cite a famous February 2007 incident from FL (which does not recognize same-sex unions). They're suing, we'll see what happens.

    You also resorted to citing the well-known Goodridge incident in 1995 in MA. If you're so concerned gays are being turned away at Utah hospitals, where's the evidence? So to answer your question, yes Utah is different than MA and FL, but not in the way you suggest.

    Another correction: Annie was not "their" daughter since Julie was artificially inseminated and Hillary had no legal relationship to Julie or Annie. Therefore Hillary was not "denied access to see her spouse" or to "their newborn daughter Annie." As you suggest..."Google it."

  • Classic Rock
    Feb. 11, 2009 1:31 p.m.

    Huntsman has just gone on the "politically correct" bandwagon. Gee whiz, why didn't he tell us republicans this was how he felt before election? We could have gotten a real conservative in there. I'm sick of these lying politicians. Now I won't believe anything he says, because he changes with the wind.

  • ConservativeRepublican
    Feb. 11, 2009 1:38 p.m.

    I have voted and supported the GOP all my life. I am pro-life, pro-2A, a lover of economic freedom, and a supporter of our military.

    But I'm also a gay man. My partner and I would like to get married in the near future (or at the very least, get a civil union), but we are unable to without moving to some leftist place like Massachusetts. Because of that fact, we're already making our moving plans. I know, I know, good riddance to bad rubbish, right? Just tell me, why is two, secure, honest, hardworking conservative men who have never harmed a soul getting at least a civil union such a bad thing that some of you would rather us move than support our rights?

  • ConservativeRepublican
    Feb. 11, 2009 1:39 p.m.

    To continue from above (200 word limit required splitting the post into two parts):

    I am obviously not LDS, but I am a Christian who has lots of LDS relatives and friends. I guess I just don't understand why legalizing gay marriage harms the LDS concept of marriage when you guys and gals already have something that you believe is more sacred than regular civil marriage. No reasonable person is saying that the LDS Church should start performing temple marriages for gays. It is your Church's right to set its own requirements for membership, recommends, and so forth. All we're asking for is the right to civil marriage (or at least a civil union).

  • Laura
    Feb. 11, 2009 1:40 p.m.

    I've decided that I want to be his kid. How lucky they must be. All they have to do is throw a fit and they get what they want. What a life, hey?

  • Hey Classic Rock
    Feb. 11, 2009 1:44 p.m.

    I agree that politicians change with the wind. So, obviously using your iron-clad logic, I'm sure you did NOT vote for Mitt Romney.

  • Laura
    Feb. 11, 2009 1:46 p.m.

    'to laura' said: | 9:26 a.m. Feb. 11, 2009

    "Could you enlighten me?"

    No, I don't think I can.

  • To Laura
    Feb. 11, 2009 2:06 p.m.

    "Laura | 1:46 p.m. Feb. 11, 2009
    'to laura' said: | 9:26 a.m. Feb. 11, 2009

    "Could you enlighten me?"

    No, I don't think I can. "



    That is because he has done nothing against the constitution. He actually is supporting Amendment #14.

    You, Laura, do not have a leg to stand on.

  • RE: To Laura at 2:06
    Feb. 11, 2009 2:44 p.m.

    The Supreme Court has already said that states do not violate the 14th Amendment when they prohibit same-sex marriage. Baker v. Nelson

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 11, 2009 3:10 p.m.

    RE: To Laura at 2:06 | 2:44 p.m. Feb. 11, 2009
    The Supreme Court has already said that states do not violate the 14th Amendment when they prohibit same-sex marriage. Baker v. Nelson


    But what has Huntsman done to go against the constitution? She (Laura) has no reply.

  • lost in DC
    Feb. 11, 2009 3:49 p.m.

    ConservativeRepublican, I read your comments with some sympathy. You say no reasonable person is saying that the LDS church should start performing temple marriages for gays.

    the sticking point is that word "reasonable" Unfortunately too many on both side of this issue are unreasonable, as evidenced by beatings of gay people just because they are gay and the vandalism and intimidation and hatred aimed at the LDS church because of it's support for prop 8. I'm not comparing murder to property damage, please don't get that idea, but remember that mormons were the target of an executive termination order from the state of MO.

    I think a generation ago reasonable people would have said a photographer would not be successfully sued for declining to take a job photographing a gay wedding or that a religious group would be successfully sued for refusing to rent it's hall for a gay wedding. The definition of of 'reasonable' is too fluid.

  • What a Joke!
    Feb. 11, 2009 4:01 p.m.

    Who does Huntsman think he is fooling. I'm incensed that he would have people believe he is a conservative, while not holding to the teachings he was taught by his parents and grandparents. His Grandfather; David B. Haight, must be turning over in his grave. I knew him personally and he would not be pleased with Huntsman not supporting the sanctity of the marriage covenant. Perhaps, he should be impeached for his views. He certainly does not reflect the values of his family, society or Church!

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 11, 2009 4:15 p.m.

    lost in DC:

    Anyone can sue anyone else for whatever they want to, if they can find a lawyer to represent them.

    The trouble comes when a judge must look at the suit and see if it has merit.

    With our strong first amendment, there is very little that a suit of that kind could get this pass any judge. Remember, those other suits were decided about tax payers monies (or tax exemptions). Our church is not taking any money from the government.

    Canada has gay marriage and no one is suing to be married in the Calgary temple. No one in Mass is suing to be married in the Boston temple.

    Why are you so afraid of this? Gay marriage is in quite a few countries but this just isn't happening.

  • To What a Joke
    Feb. 11, 2009 4:17 p.m.


    "Who does Huntsman think he is fooling. I'm incensed that he would have people believe he is a conservative, while not holding to the teachings he was taught by his parents and grandparents. His Grandfather; David B. Haight, must be turning over in his grave. I knew him personally and he would not be pleased with Huntsman not supporting the sanctity of the marriage covenant. Perhaps, he should be impeached for his views. He certainly does not reflect the values of his family, society or Church!"



    Actually, the church is on record as not being opposed to civil unions. Gov. Huntsman is NOT saying anything that the church has not said. Look up what Elder Clayton said about civil unions.

  • Jane
    Feb. 11, 2009 4:25 p.m.

    A "moderating voice" would not create an all male Board of Pardons. A "moderating voice" would give women a voice.

  • Julie Pollock
    Feb. 11, 2009 5:06 p.m.

    Huntsman is trying to change Utah into a "little California" on so many issues so it is only natural (for him) that this would be his position.

    In every state that has approved "civil unions" it has ALWAYS been followed with the push to change the meaning of "marriage". THEY WILL NEVER BE SATISFIED UNTIL WE CALL THIS MARRIAGE!

    I hope voters keep pressure on their State Reps. and Senators to vote against such measures.


  • Re: Re: Albemar
    Feb. 11, 2009 5:13 p.m.

    The 10th posting on this very article is a story from Utah. (See below)

    However does it really matter? Readers who post comments like yours don't want to know the truth and will find another reason to deny these stories and belittle gays & lesbians.

    Just say it like it is, you don't care about these human beings and don't care if they are treated unfairly. Honesty no matter how ugly sounds better than sugar coated disingenuous lies.

    *********************************

    "My partner was @ LDS hospital last year. He was incoherent and unable to understand what was going on. His family had disowned him years prior.

    It was not until I provided a copy of our medical power of attorney that the hospital would even let me know what was going on. He had been moved to ICU by the time I could return with the paperwork they accepted. I could not even locate him for a few hours, let alone see him."

  • Ed Meyer
    Feb. 11, 2009 5:38 p.m.

    I hope people read what Governor Huntsman said very carefully. His view includes issues such as the rights of children caring for their aging parents and grandparents caring for grandchildren. Both situations are increasingly common, especially in times of economic stress. Another increasingly common situation involved people who choose to not be married... ie: senior citizens who do not married because it would impact their Social Security... and, yes, people who live together in loving relationships. There are many things that should be done in a compassionate society and allowing for legal rights between loved ones, gay or not, is something that needs to be seriously considered. Personally, I get personally disgusted when the semantics of a single word "marriage" gets in the way of compassionate service. I don't care what you call it, God will recognize what he... or she... chooses. We are not the ones who will make that call. We should practice true charity toward everyone and err on the side of being more compassionate than less.

  • KOY
    Feb. 11, 2009 5:48 p.m.

    Smiling Johnny wont win another election in utah unless he runs as a Dem. If he runs for Senate as a GOP he wont make it out of the convention.

  • DRN
    Feb. 11, 2009 5:59 p.m.

    "Being created equal means that each voter has the same rights and gays who are a minority don't have the right to rule the majority. That's tyranny. If you have any questions please feel free to spout off more nonsense."

    Be careful, 3:37. The "Tyranny" door can swing both ways. It only depends on which side of the issue you're on. The majority can tyrannize the minority just as effectively, which is definitely the case in Utah!

  • Holmes
    Feb. 11, 2009 7:38 p.m.

    Every last person on this list wants our society to be a more stable and responsible society, don't you?

    Civil unions and marriage equality promote a more stable society for all of us. We should ALL be for civil unions, especially those who claim to believe in family values.

  • No One of Consequence
    Feb. 11, 2009 10:32 p.m.

    They say what they need to say to get elected and then do what they want to afterwards. The voters of Utah never learn.

    Should have voted for Super-Dell for governor. He would have performed as advertised....

  • wow
    Feb. 12, 2009 8:51 a.m.

    I am married and I can't get insurance coverage. I am being denied because my husband is self employed and I had a surgery that they don't want to cover any one who has had before. Even if they are healthier now.

    This is a non-issue, for me. It is the reason being sung by the roof tops by the GLBT community. It isn't a real reason for validating these "unions".

    Basically their agenda is clear, to break the foundation of the family. This legislation needs to be looked over in a global way in how the reality will effect the whole. Perhaps we need to privatize schools so they don't have to teach legislative agendas to our children first. Perhaps we need to look into how this will effect all men and woman of all arrangements. Do we want to give blessings and benefits to a woman with two or more husbands? Or a Man with two or three wives and a bus load of children?

  • Huntsman needs to work
    Feb. 12, 2009 8:57 a.m.

    On Justice in the Courts.
    The Courts are running away without being watched
    We need a Judicial watchdog
    Prosecutors are prosecuting innocent people
    Failing to do their JOB
    We hear about all these criminals
    Let's start with the JUDICIAL SYSTEM
    Justice Courts are a Prosecution and Collection Court
    No Justice

  • RE: Anonymous | 3:10 p.m. Feb. 1
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:29 a.m.

    Huntsman has not violated the Federal Constitution in any way, that I know of.

    He may have difficulty passing a law that does not violate the State Constitution.

  • Majority Act!
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:31 a.m.

    To: Founding fathers...Great point!
    We would all do well to remember that our country was founded on the premise that government should represent the people it served--not minority special interest groups... Since less than 2% of Americans are homosexual, why aren't the 98% of us making our voices heard more clearly? The minority speaks loudly, the media magnifies their stance-- and what does the giant majority do? Mostly nothing. Writing a simple email, or placing a 2-minute call to our representatives is a very easy thing to do to, but why don't more of us do it? We need to let the world know that although these uproarings make for good TV and news ratings, they do not represent the VAST MAJORITY of public beliefs. Until then, however, we are destined to see this slippery slope progress and reach an eventual reality.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:03 a.m.

    "Since less than 2% of Americans are homosexual, why aren't the 98% of us making our voices heard more clearly?"


    Probably because it is not 98% that are against gays having rights. There are MANY heterosexuals like myself that have absolutely no problem granting them marriage, etc. And our numbers are growing.

  • To Wow
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:08 a.m.

    "Basically their agenda is clear, to break the foundation of the family."


    As a gay person, I call bullony on that statement. I love my family that I was born in. I would never try and break it up, nor my brothers and sisters and their marriages and family.

    We merely want to partake of the priviliges and benefits that the GOVERNMENT offers Americans that have made a public, legal commitment to another person and called it marriage. We want to broaden the term. This should not cause a breakdown of any marriages that are strong. If it causes yours to breakdown, I apoligize, but it must not have been a good marriage to begin with.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:13 a.m.

    Only among Utah fascists would taking a stand for liberty and equality be a bad political move.

    Only in Utah...

  • Andrew Cole
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:44 a.m.

    Wow, Huntsman's statement was refreshing. This is why I voted for him even though I'm not a republican. The man get's it... equality for all regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Huntsman is a man I can be proud of... I was ashamed to be a Utahan after Prop 8 passed; but now I'm proud to be a Utahan once more with Huntsman's statement.. progressive thinker... truly a great man!!

  • Professional Newspaper?
    Feb. 12, 2009 3:36 p.m.

    Are my eyes deceiving me or did the Deseret News spell our Governor's name in the headline wrong? "Hunstman"???????????????????????????

  • mark
    Feb. 12, 2009 5:22 p.m.

    Gays and Lesbians have been around the block MANY times, and we've been lied to by the BEST of both parties.
    We can smell how disengenuous this Civil Union speel really is.
    The governor said himself, "THIS is to heal a divided community over prop 8" and what I expect ALL Common Ground Bills failing.
    It won't heal ANYTHING, your gay and lesbians won't tollerate being treated as LESS THAN 2nd Class citizens in Utah,they'll LEAVE, and we won't tollerate LDS attempting to impose their RELIGION on OUR Constitutional Rights ANYWHERE.

  • RE: mark
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:09 p.m.

    No one is forcing anyone to stay in Utah. Utah was settled when it was a desert wasteland by a people that had been driven from their homes on several occasions.

  • Seattleview
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:39 p.m.

    I applaude a "moderate" view of many issues but I doubt the gay community will ever agree to anything less than social acceptance of "marriage" for their members.

    It is amazing what consequences even civil unions will have.

    Consider Healthcare. People think it will be great to be able to have anyone (sick relative or other person willing to pay for the privilege) live with them so that they can add them to their insurance policy. That would destroy the current form of employer sponsored health insurance thus forcing a national healthcare program that Obama is promoting anyway.

    Something will need to be done with civil unions but the full consequences will need to be discussed at the same time.

  • Please clarify
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:00 p.m.

    What is the difference between a "civil union" and a marriage conducted at a county courthouse by a justice of the peace? If a civil union requires some sort of government action to make it official, wouldn't it then require some sort of government action to make the contract ineffectual? How is this different from divorce? Sounds a whole lot like "marriage" to me.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:24 p.m.

    @RE:mark
    MY family was in Utah at the time it was a Territory, I knew my great grandparents. My great grandfather adopted by a Mormon family walked with his father from NYC to Utah while his mother and sister rode in a cart. My great grandmother's family was in Utah even earlier. So I don't need either an LDS or Utah History lesson...thank you.
    btw I was raised by a Mormon mother who converted to my father's Protestant faith.

  • Just to say
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:27 p.m.

    A rose by any other name is still a rose

  • mark
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:42 p.m.

    There are already 2 states with same sex marriages available to ANY couple from ANY state. Three more states are working towards same sex marriages, and CA will overturn prop 8 in June. There won't be any settling for either domestic partnerships or civil unions which CA supreme court stated, SETS UP LGBTS as second class citizens.

  • RE: Anonymous | 10:24 p.m. Feb.
    Feb. 13, 2009 8:20 a.m.

    I was not trying to give anyone a vast history lesson.

  • The difference in court
    Feb. 13, 2009 9:10 a.m.

    would only be a name. Civil unions are performed between men and women through the court system. This is usually considered a marriage by both the court and those involved. Some religions consider being "married" to only take place in their churches or temples. Therefore, even though courts recognize civil unions between those married there, religions don't recognize it fully. In the Mormon church the goal is always to "go to the temple and be sealed" since this is supposedly the only way to be with a spouse for "eternity". Churches would not be required to change this if two gay people were allowed to have "civil unions" too! I think religions are scared that they would eventually be forced to perform these marriages too, but I don't think this would change unless the religion changes, But I do believe that the court system should be fair to all. This is separation of church and state.

  • Tom
    Feb. 13, 2009 7:21 p.m.

    Guv- Hunstsman is just too cool. He is our super hero. I just love the man.

  • Thank you!!
    Feb. 14, 2009 10:02 a.m.

    I remember seeing a poster years ago that said: "Stand up for what is right, even if you are standing alone." The Governor is standing for something RIGHT. Unfortunately, many will not stand with him, because they fear the uneducated and prejudiced. Thankfully, things are changing. I see this especially with the youth. They recognize that we are not all the same, but that we are all human beings. Thank you Governor Huntsman and those who dare to stand with him!

  • RE: The Difference
    Feb. 14, 2009 10:12 a.m.

    In Mass. the courts did force some people to go against their deeply held religious beliefs.

  • Gordon B. Hinckley said to
    Feb. 14, 2009 12:03 p.m.

    Stand for Something, but he didn't mean to stand for evil.

  • Huntsman=Sunshine Patriot
    Feb. 14, 2009 12:09 p.m.

    Huntsman is blowing to and fro in the winds of popular opinion. He appears to be as stupid as they come. He's really just trying to increase his power, prestige, and wealth at the expense of others.

  • Dutch
    Feb. 14, 2009 12:18 p.m.

    To Gordon

    Define Evil - Are equal rights under the protction of law - evil. Some times those that try to define evil fit the bill them selves

  • TriciaCT
    Feb. 23, 2009 2:17 p.m.

    Note that the Civil Unions legislation SPECIFICALLY stated that "marriage" was only for "a man and a woman," although "civil unions" would provide ALL of the "rights and benefits of marriage" that the state was empowered to grant.

    But NO!! That was not good enough for the GLBT activists, as they screamed "Separate is not equal!!" (They had actually filed suit against the state in Kerrigan vs. Connecticut even PRIOR to the April 2005 civil unions legislation; and did not drop the suit after that landmark legislation.) The court ruled AGAINST the plaintiffs, but the gay and lesbian plaintiffs appealed to the state Supreme Court, which ruled in their favor---narrowly 4 against 3 as in Massachusetts.

    So, that's how Connecticut came to have SAME-SEX 'marriage,' imposed by 4 UNELECTED, ROBED MASTERS, 3 short years after the effective date of "civil unions!" Don't be so sure it could not happen in Utah. Just as governors, senators and others don't always seem to stay true to the party and principles which got them elected---JUDGES are *even less* accountable and predictable!

  • TriciaCT
    Feb. 23, 2009 2:34 p.m.

    One more note to deltabelle and others who see benefits for others besides homosexual couples in "Civil Unions"---please also take a lesson from the actual EXPERIENCE in Connecticut.

    Back in 2005 when the civil unions legislation was being debated in the Capitol's general assembly, amendments were specifically proposed which would have allowed those in care-giving, dependent relative situations (non-sexual relationships) to qualify and get health, beneficiary benefits etc. from having a "civil union." It was also proposed that some heterosexual couples might want to get civilly united rather than "married."

    But the GLBT advocates (and their sympathetic representatives in the GA) would have NONE OF THAT!! They insisted that the legislation benefit ONLY same-sex couples.

    And, as we see from what the four UNELECTED JUDGES ruled, all seeming *protections* IN LAW, to keep the definition of MARRIAGE as "the union of one man and one woman, signified NOTHING in their eyes.

  • TriciaCT
    Feb. 23, 2009 4:49 p.m.

    I guess the moderator did not like something about my first post, in which I was referring to Civil Unions legislation of Connecticut--and urging people to learn from it and other states' EXPERIENCE.

    Anyone who researches the *history* and momentum of "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" in other states KNOWS that a state which enacts "Civil Unions" is simply extending an invitation for same-sex 'marriage' (GENDERLESS MARRIAGE)---by way of an indirect process.

    Take the history of "same-sex marriage" in Connecticut, for example. Eight or nine years ago, the GLBT lobbyists convinced our legislature to enact gay adoption and foster care laws, *promising* that it was not a prelude to demands for same-sex 'marriage.' So the trusting representatives passed laws forcing DCF to grant gays and lesbians EQUAL standing (with married couples) to adopt or foster parent.

    But a few short years later they were back demanding same-sex 'marriage.' Nutmeggers were NOT accepting of that, but the legislature of Connecticut enacted "civil unions" in April 2005. (Read my earlier posts to see how we got from there to today's SAME-SEX (or "genderless") 'marriage'