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.
"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.
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
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.
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!
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
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).
Congratulations Governor for a common sense position in a difficult political
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.
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
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.
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.
Given this it's not surprising that most governors in the US consider Huntsman
to be a closeted democrat. He's a joke!
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!
Denied Access: Wouldn't you need papers to prove that you had a Civil Union?
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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....
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
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.
. . . is right!
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.
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
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.
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!
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."
Civil unions should be recognized. It is the fair and right thing to do.
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!
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.
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.
He is not a republican. Therefore you still haven't voted for a republican.
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.....
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 ;-)
I find it appalling that Huntsman supports equal rights for this minority group.
What country does he think this is? America?
The Founding Fathers called. All men are created equal. If you have any
questions, please refer to a document called The Constitution. Thank you.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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!!
*** "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
Anonymous-Very good point!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
53 is NOT elder years! I'm 51 and my youngest child is FOUR.
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.
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?
What freedom(s) are preserved by civil unions?
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
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.
Thank you Governor, for you bravery and leadership.
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?
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.
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.
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
"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.
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"
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?
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.
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.
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
Thank you, Tim. I think you understand what America is about better than most
Utahns. Thanks again.
I thank the Governor for restoring my faith in the common sense of people!
I thank the Governor of Utah for restoring my belief in the basic common sense
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.
"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?
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.
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.
"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?
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."
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.
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?
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).
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?
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.
'to laura' said: | 9:26 a.m. Feb. 11, 2009 "Could you enlighten
me?"No, I don't think I can.
"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.
The Supreme Court has already said that states do not violate the 14th Amendment
when they prohibit same-sex marriage. Baker v. Nelson
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. NelsonBut what has Huntsman done
to go against the constitution? She (Laura) has no reply.
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.
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!
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.
"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
A "moderating voice" would not create an all male Board of Pardons. A
"moderating voice" would give women a voice.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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!
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.
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....
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?
On Justice in the Courts.The Courts are running away without being
watchedWe need a Judicial watchdogProsecutors are prosecuting
innocent peopleFailing to do their JOBWe hear about all these
criminalsLet's start with the JUDICIAL SYSTEMJustice Courts are a
Prosecution and Collection CourtNo Justice
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
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.
"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
"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.
Only among Utah fascists would taking a stand for liberty and equality be a bad
political move.Only in Utah...
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!!
Are my eyes deceiving me or did the Deseret News spell our Governor's name in
the headline wrong? "Hunstman"???????????????????????????
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.
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
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.
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.
@RE:markMY 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.
A rose by any other name is still a rose
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.
I was not trying to give anyone a vast history lesson.
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.
Guv- Hunstsman is just too cool. He is our super hero. I just love the man.
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!
In Mass. the courts did force some people to go against their deeply held
Stand for Something, but he didn't mean to stand for evil.
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.
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
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
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.
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