Quantcast
Utah

Civil-union stance of guv spurs protests

Huntsman stays away from Capitol; Buttars circulates a statement

Comments

Return To Article
  • Thank You
    Feb. 12, 2009 1:27 a.m.

    Thank you Governor Huntsman. You are a great inspiration for all!

  • Utah Bill
    Feb. 12, 2009 4:18 a.m.

    I'm a Republican and don't feel threatened at all by Huntsman's stance or the possibility civil unions may occur. Giving that right to others takes nothing away from me. I'm still free to practice my chosen lifestyle. I see no reason to stop others from doing the same.

  • SpySmiley
    Feb. 12, 2009 4:22 a.m.

    Could it be that Utah's government is inching away from theocracy? Could it be that Huntsman's courageous statement on civil unions is establishing that the governor is in charge, not the Mormon church?

    What a great and momentous thing Huntsman has done!

    We are seeing superior leadership as this state never has before.

    Thank you Mr. Huntsman.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 12, 2009 5:41 a.m.

    He must face God for this decision. One more nail in the coffin of the family.
    Going against the church stance, you wonder if he has a conscious?

  • Shifty Buttars
    Feb. 12, 2009 6:02 a.m.

    The frustrating thing about people like Buttars is that their principle shift with each debate. His own words during the debate over Amendment 3 support the Common Ground initiative but now he opposes it. That is why so many people think he is motivated by an irrational hatred and not a clearly developed political position or philosophy. I personally believe he is a better person than that but every time he shifts his position it grows harder to explain that belief.

    Huntsman, on the other hand, is very clear on what he believe in and what he does not. Whether or not you agree with him you have to admire the fact that he has bothered to figure that out.

  • Gov
    Feb. 12, 2009 6:28 a.m.

    Good call Governor. It took intelligence and guts and morality to make the call. You are a wise man really.

  • Good Company
    Feb. 12, 2009 6:29 a.m.

    Let's See -

    After Prop 8 exploded, the LDS Church says it does not opposed civil unions, just gay marriage.

    The governor says he supports the idea of civil unions.

    The Eagle Forum and Chris Buttars oppose civil unions.

    Looks to me that the governor is in "good company."

    Whose side are you on?

  • Florien Wineriter
    Feb. 12, 2009 6:40 a.m.

    Congratulations to Gov Huntsman for supporting Equality of Human Rights.He is following the tradition of Utah governors being true leaders, far ahead of dogmatic legislators.

  • elliot
    Feb. 12, 2009 6:58 a.m.

    A rational, honest, CHRISTIAN man. Governor HUNTSMAN FOR PRESIDENT.

  • Laura
    Feb. 12, 2009 6:59 a.m.

    Next time you say the Pledge of Allegiance - note the word 'Republic'. Here's the definition -

    "a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them"

    The Founding Fathers purposely moved away from a monarchy. No matter how pretty his words, no matter how politely he speaks, his actions are not that of a Republic leader. And please, do not remind me that Ms. Roskelly stated the majority of the calls to the Governor were to say thank you. She is a spoke person for the Governor not the people. With 66 percent of the people in this state conservative....I sincerely doubt that Governor Politician Huntsman is representing the majority of people who voted for him.

  • A_Good_Citizen
    Feb. 12, 2009 7:03 a.m.

    Jon Huntsman Jr. is a liar! If he said so BEFORE the election, 95% of the voter will not support him. He knew it!

  • arc
    Feb. 12, 2009 7:04 a.m.

    HB 160, Adult Joint Support Declaration, is worth amending and passing. It would apply to a brother and sister sharing a house, two old friends, etc. It says nothing about "gay" or same-sex anything. It makes no approval of anyone's lifestyle. Based on the number of men/women living together with kids, it is a step in the right direction.

    HB 267 should be shredded as is. It asks for approval or at least legal recognition of GLBT status and could hurt churches, scouts, and others' ability to require a moral code of ethics.

    Any executive order from Gov Huntsman re: health insurance should be delayed until someone thinks things through.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Feb. 12, 2009 7:18 a.m.

    I like all of you who are posing as conservatives have an opinion too. Though very liberal in all areas except gay rights, I think the governor is nothing more than a politician who is sucking up to the current power base so he can advance his political fortunes. To equate sodomy with Equality and Human Rights is to be an idiot. I wish the governor would run again. He would loose at convention. What a pathetic fortune hunter he is.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 12, 2009 7:25 a.m.

    A grave mistake Governor. I hope you do go to China. After embracing the global warming baloney, and now kowtowing to the homosexual crowd--I hope you go...far, far away.

    The gays are not going to elect you to anything in this state, and now the family people aren't either.

  • Voice of Reason
    Feb. 12, 2009 7:26 a.m.

    There is nothing courageous about what Governor Hunstman has said. It was a clearly political move intended to ingratiate himself to Obama. If he really believes that Civil Unions are acceptable then that would be even more troubling, since his own faith clearly, without question, opposes "civil unions" as just gay marriage by another name.

    The LDS Church's recent statement that gay activists have taken grossly out of context does not, repeat DOES NOT, endorse civil unions at all. It only says that the Church "does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights . . . "

    That allows for some basic human decency that ALL people, regardless of sexual gender preference, deserve. But gay activists need to be very careful, since saying that someone shouldn't be fired for simply being gay is a far cry from an employer firing someone for openly espousing a deeply dangerous and high-risk sexual practice at work.

    And Governor Huntsman needs to be very, very careful in how he fulfills his obvious political ambitions.

  • Lost my support
    Feb. 12, 2009 7:34 a.m.


    All people have the exact same rights & restrictions when it comes to marriage. There is no reason to change that to accomodate the wishes of homosexuals. This is just another example of malcontented extremists demanding special rights. If we allow homosexual marriage, how long before extremists start demanding incestuous marriage? Plural marriage? Marriage to children? Marriage to farm animals? It never ends.....

    By the way, I am not LDS or Republican. Just a man who understands that marriage (traditional) is the cornerstone of civilization and any attempt to weaken marriage as it has existed for thousands of years will inevitably lead to the collapse of civilization.

  • Native Utahn
    Feb. 12, 2009 7:38 a.m.

    What a great moment in Utah's history! I am proud of our Governor, he is the Future and those opposing him belong to a not-too-proud past.

  • thank you
    Feb. 12, 2009 7:59 a.m.

    Thank you governor

  • Rediculus!
    Feb. 12, 2009 8:03 a.m.

    This is really sad. It was unnecessary as people who don't care about moral, ethical or legal unions find this legitimization of their weakness. They will do it whether it has the endorsements of GUV or not. Shame on Gov Huntsman.

  • Jumipin' jack
    Feb. 12, 2009 8:09 a.m.

    Why is it that the right wingnuts are saying that since the Gov is LDS that he can't hold an opinion that is different from the "official" church position? I my view that puts the LDS leadership in the same role that Hitler had in WWII.

    I thought we were living in the land of the free and the home of the brave. It seems that many Utahans believe that "The Church" is the only authority.


  • Encouraged citizen
    Feb. 12, 2009 8:10 a.m.

    Thank you Governor Huntsman for recognizing that CIVIL RIGHTS should be available to ALL citizens of Utah.

  • huh?
    Feb. 12, 2009 8:16 a.m.

    RE:Shifty Buttars

    Of all the things said about Buttars, your statement makes the least sense to me. Shifting principles? Chris Buttars? He has remained remarkably consistent in his opposition of Gay marriage and civil unions amoung same-sex couples. You may not appreciate his stance on things but to call him someone who shifts his position is either very mis-informed or delusional.

    Contrasting Huntsman with Buttars on the idea of consistancy? Buttars has never bowed to political interests to gain a more popular opinion. This is evidenced by his very narrow win (4% margin) in a district that votes consistantly 70% republican.

    While Huntsman does enjoy incredible popularity, I would not call him a bastion of principled consistancy. (When first running for office he voiced his support for admendment 3)

  • Is it just me?
    Feb. 12, 2009 8:29 a.m.

    Is it just me, or do some people just not get that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity. That even means those that may live a lifestyle contrary to what you have chosen. While I am disappointed by the reactions of many "adults" who judge and call others names, the younger generation in our state does leave me with some hope that we will stop treating others who are different as less than human. Come on people! It's time to wake up and look at how your words and actions actually do hurt other people. Stop pointing out other people's "sins" and work on fixing your own problems.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 12, 2009 8:31 a.m.

    Here's a little tidbit from Elder Whitney Clayton in the Nov. 6 Deseret News: 'He said in general, the church "does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships," that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights. That stand was outlined in a statement the church posted on its Web site earlier in the campaign.' When considered together with the Church's stance on abortion, it sounds like Sen. Buttars and the Eagle Forum crowd need to start holding rallies against the LDS Church as well. Frankly, I have nothing but admiration for Gov. Huntsman's stance. You go, Gov!

  • @Voice of Reason
    Feb. 12, 2009 8:32 a.m.

    Frank Schubert was the chief strategist for the LDS Church's Prop 8 efforts and stated, "the less we refer to homosexuality, the better." He made it clear that if the church was seen as attacking gays that they would lose the Prop 8 campaign.

    To further this marketing strategy, Elder L. Whitney Clayton said, in general, the church "does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships," that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights.

    This statement was seen for what it was, a way to improve the standing of the church in the court of public opinion. This has been confirmed by the silence of the church regarding the Common Ground initiatives. In fact, the silence coming from Temple Square regarding benefits like health insurance and property rights has been deafening.

    And before you start slamming me as a 'mormon-hater' - realize that I am LDS and just want my church to stand by what they have said - no more, no less.

  • James 1:5
    Feb. 12, 2009 8:42 a.m.

    Gov. Huntsman, you just earned my vote. Kudos to you for representing the common values of equality and dignity that should unite all Utahns and all Americans.

  • What does it matter to you?
    Feb. 12, 2009 8:43 a.m.

    I am all for supporting marriage as between a man and a women. BUT, welcome to MODERN TIMES! Civil unions are not just a benefit to Gays! The benefit all kinds of relationships: Brother/Sister, Mother/Daughter, Friend/Friend, Elderly/Elderly...
    Civil Unions could keep people OFF of Medicaid, OFF of Food Stamps, and out of the emergency rooms. HELLO, how is that a bad thing?
    Florida recently allowed individuals to add family/significant others to health care plans if they were living in the same household. THIS IS A GOOD THING!
    I Salute Gov Huntsman, and I condemn those who are opposed to positive change. Teach your children your values, dont force them on others.
    Utah is a hard enough state to live in with LDS values pushed on everyone. And for the most part, they are good moral values, but it is NOT your RIGHT to enforce YOUR VALUES on OTHERS who do not share your religion. Religion has NO place in Government. And Government has NO PLACE in the peoples bedrooms!
    LAND OF THE FREE & HOME OF THE BRAVE ~AND~ SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE!!!

  • He doesn't represent me
    Feb. 12, 2009 8:44 a.m.

    Many people that I work with are disgusted with Mr. Huntsman and have been for some time. I'm beginning to understand why. Could John be looking toward national politics?

  • I think every PROTESTER
    Feb. 12, 2009 8:48 a.m.

    Should have a GAY marry into your family
    You son or Daughter
    Now what are you protesting about?

  • elliot
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:08 a.m.

    Wow! Calm down "Good citizen", looks like you're just about to have a heart attack.
    We all can discuss these issues without resorting to name calling or worse.
    For those seemingly full of hate (or religious fervor, whatever you want to call it), just remember: WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

  • elliot
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:12 a.m.

    LEAVE MY GOVERNOR ALONE!!!

    I am an active LDS, conservative Utahn who supports him all the way. By the way (pardon the pun), I am a young, straight, married, family man.

  • Shifty Shifty
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:16 a.m.

    Read what Buttars said in 2004 about how limited Amendment 3 was and then look what he is saying now. If he hates gays he should be a grown up and say so. Lots of people in this state would agree with him. Otherwise he needs to come up with a rational set of principles to explain why he believes what he said then and believes what he is saying now.

  • Texas Gal
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:19 a.m.

    Just wanted to voice my agreement with "Lost My Support" @ 7:34.
    "marriage (traditional) is the cornerstone of civilization and any attempt to weaken marriage as it has existed for thousands of years will inevitably lead to the collapse of civilization."
    Thank you for saying it so simply.

  • Re: Protester
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:20 a.m.

    I do, and I still say no to civil unions, whats your point. I love my brother to death and his boyfriend is pretty cool, but it doesnt change the fact that I disagree with their lifestyle.

  • Michaelitos
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:26 a.m.

    @ What does it matter to you?
    Actually, it does matter to me. I hold certain opinions and values, and as a citizen I have a right to let them be heard. Furthermore, regarding your supposed separation of church and state comment, I'll let Neal Maxwell answer you:

    "If people are not permitted to advocate, to assert, and to bring to bear, in every legitimate way, the opinions and views they hold that grow out of their religious convictions, what manner of men and women would they be, anyway? Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established nor to have a particular religion favored by government. They wanted religion to be free to make its own way. But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church. Notice the terrible irony if this trend were to continue. When the secular church goes after its heretics, where are the sanctuaries? To what landfalls and Plymouth Rocks can future pilgrims go?"

    From Neal Maxwell's "Meeting the Challenges of Today" given in 1978.

  • READ the Article
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:38 a.m.

    For those of you saying that the Governor has "changed his stance" in an effort to possible run for National office, Even Sen. Waddoups said that what the Governor has always had this stance and that what he said was true: "He said, 'I've always felt that way. I've stated my position before and this is the first time it's been publicized,'"

    The Senate leader said Huntsman wasn't referring to civil unions as an alternative to marriage for gay couples but as a way for non-traditional couples to share benefits. The governor had tried and failed in 2005 to push through a Senate bill advocating reciprocal benefits for non-traditional couples.

  • @Texas Gal
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:41 a.m.

    "Lost My Support" and "Texas Gall" stated: "marriage (traditional) is the cornerstone of civilization and any attempt to weaken marriage as it has existed for thousands of years will inevitably lead to the collapse of civilization."

    If you believe "Traditional Marriage" has existed in it's current state for "thousands of years" you really haven't studied history. The current state of marriage didn't appear until the mid- to late-1700's. What about all of the prophets in the bible with multiple wives and concubines?

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:48 a.m.

    Dumb, dumb move Governor. Go to China and be gone. I had trouble voting for you in November, now I know why. What a stupid move by a supposedly conservative governor.

  • Rebuttal
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:48 a.m.

    Ref: "What does it matter to you"?

    You tell me to "teach my children my values", but "don't push them on you"?

    Then you "condemn" me for having values?!?
    "Utah is a hard enough state to live in with LDS values pushed on everyone"?

    I'm a non-LDS resident of this state. I have nothing but respect for the people who chose to reside here. I moved here from California like many others who were tired of the politics and poor values.

    I feel neither threatened or abused by anyone else' value system.

    I sounds to me like YOU are the the one with the problem.

    Why is it that when someone has a different opinion and shares it, they are considered anti-gay or homophobic?
    Land of the free (as long as I agree with YOU) Right?!?!?!?!?!

    Remember, apathy preceeds acceptance.

  • Cats
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:50 a.m.

    This is really sad. I'm very disappointed in the Governor. I thought it was really ungrateful and inappropriate when he openly campaigned against Mitt Romney in Florida. Now, he has disappointed me even more.

    I don't think I will be able to support him in the future.

  • grumpolman
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:57 a.m.

    And to think Huntsman could ever make me wish I had voted for Super Dale!

  • Joe Watts
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:05 a.m.

    My hat is off to Governor Huntsman.

    His courageous leadership will be beneficial to his church and to our state.

    It will encourage others who have been quietly supportive of equality for gays to 'come out of the closet,' and it will encourage everyone to re-evaluate their own biases and prejudices.

    This is a great day for all families, as all family trees have gay branches.

  • Robert
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:11 a.m.

    I am disappointed.

  • Ms. Maverick
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:25 a.m.

    Good for you, Gov! Thank you for taking a rational, reasonable and responsible approach to the issue. We've got to move past discrimination for our society to advance. More people would support the stance if the word "marriage" was not used to describe the institution. "Civil union" is probably the correct term for people to warm up to more just laws on the issue.

  • mtymouse
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:26 a.m.

    The ideas the governor proposes makes me worried, and I even wonder why he feels it's necessary. I have lived by, work with, and know individuals who are gay, and have never seen them lose a job, a home, or friends because of their sexual preference. I'm afraid this will be just one step forward to the demands of the gay community to want marriage to be legalized for them--something I am absolutely against, and the state has voiced their opposition as well. The governor needs to remember the community we live in, where the majority, not the loud minority, have values we don't want to change, which will be catastrophic in the future. The governor should seriously consider the impact of this decision for our children and grandchildren, not just to please the gay community now.
    I thought I had helped re-elect a conservative leader, whose party shares pretty much the same values I do--guess I was wrong.

  • Wake Up Eagle Forum
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:29 a.m.

    I love how the Extreme-right and Eagle-Forum and people like Gayle Ruzicka who ensured Hate Crime laws wouldn't pass because it might protect a gay from being beaten to death.

    Gayle Ruzicka and Eagle forum are nothing but a modern day group of Pharisee. They claimed to be of the covenant, the righteous, defending the faith, but they stoned people to death, and if I get the story right, were the ones who crucified their own Savior, because they thought that he wasn't following all their rules.

    We are not a religious state, the constitution ensures that. Having served in the military and being deployed to a religious state like Iraq, Pakistan and others. I am glad we don't live under that fear of the religious police enforcing the rules of the Koran.

    The truth is however, we are on our way to making it as such. Eagle Forum will probably soon lobby themselves the ability to enforce the rule of the Book of Mormon and Bible on all those in the state. We need to stop and remember one thing the constitution guarantees "Equal Representation under the law"

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:45 a.m.

    Maybe the solution is that everyone gets one adult that you can designate as the person to share your job benefits with, whether it be your spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend, parent, sibling, adult child, roommate, friend or neighbor, not someone you actually have to be having sex with.

  • Robin
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:46 a.m.

    I admire his willingness to listen to the current tide of harmony withing society. He can balance a motorcyle, too.

  • Olive D. Gazlebern
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:46 a.m.

    My partner and I have been together for 12 years without the benefits of other couples on our street. Thank you Governor; you've given me some hope.

  • Re: Joe Watts
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:47 a.m.

    As far as I know, my family tree doesn't have any gay branches.

  • To Liberal Democrat (from C. Rep
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:56 a.m.

    Um, I find your suggestion that some of us are posing as conservatives to be quite rude indeed. I am a lifelong republican who is pro-life, voted for McCain but thought he was too liberal, etc. If someone is conservative on almost all issues except gay rights, does it make more sense to label oneself a liberal because of that one issue or a conservative because of all the rest of the issues?

  • Voter
    Feb. 12, 2009 11:02 a.m.

    I am outraged!

    Jon Huntsman Jr. is a liar! If he said so BEFORE the election, 95% of the voter will not support him. He knew it!

    SuperDell has more sense than Huntsman, and I now regret I did not vote for him.

  • Huntsman better listen
    Feb. 12, 2009 11:11 a.m.

    Gov Huntsman needs to listen to the main stream majority that he serves and not the radical fringes. Most Utahan's don't want ANYTHING GAY in their state and the Gov needs to listen and not do his own thing.

  • Henry Drummond
    Feb. 12, 2009 11:12 a.m.

    It takes genuine courage to come out in favor of something that the majority are against. As a previous poster said, its time to get rid of the myth that gay unions stop threaten our marriages or our religion. Religious freedom isn't the freedom to MAKE everyone live the way you think they should live.
    I appreciate that there is at least one Republican in the state that has figured that out.

  • xscribe
    Feb. 12, 2009 11:13 a.m.

    Oh, I am so scared that if gays are allowed to marry, my own marriage is at risk. That is and always will be the most lame argument there is. Unless you're gay, that is. And then there's those who think somehow it will affect their children. They are right: Those children will grow up to be tolerant. What a concept. And the argument against religios freedom is ridiculous, unless you want this country to be a communist state.

  • @mtymouse | 10:26
    Feb. 12, 2009 11:16 a.m.

    You may not know anyone fired for being gay, but it happens - it happened to me. After working for a local company for two years, with GLOWING bi-annual performance reviews, a co-worker felt it was their "christian-duty" to inform the owner that I was gay. The owner told several people that he did not want any of "THEM" working for him and I was fired. No reason or cause was given.

    The Utah Labor Commission referred me to a lawyer. They also said that under current Utah law there were no legal protections provided to me in this situation, legal protections that WERE available to others based on gender, etc. I decided it was not worth my time and money to pursue and decided to move-on with my life. I was a valued and trusted employee - UNTIL the owner learned that I did not fit within his view of the world.

  • Hoodwinked
    Feb. 12, 2009 11:20 a.m.

    the Gov is pulling the hoodwinking trick here. What are his REAL intentions? The first step toward gay marriage is always civil unions so I think the people of the state have the right to be very very suspicious about the Gov's stance. Personally, I think the Gov is for Gay Marriage and this proves it. He waits until after the election to voice his approval of gay civil unions knowing full well making that statement before November would have cost him alot of votes. Again, the people of the state deserve a Governor that plays straight and doesn't try to bamboozle them. The Church and the GOP are dominate in Utah and both are against anything associated with GAY activism - so should the Governor be!!

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 12, 2009 11:21 a.m.

    voice of reason - your post is hardly worthy of the title. Civil unions are sanctioned by state recognized commitment. Marriages are sanctioned by church and god, in addition to the legal issue. Since we are supposedly ensured a separation between church and state, these two types of unions are very different. You should reconsider titling your posts Voice of Opinion - reason is much more logic based.

  • to Michaelitos | 9:26 a.
    Feb. 12, 2009 11:23 a.m.

    You have the right to have your voice heard regarding the issues at hand. You DO NOT have the right to force your values upon others. Because when you do, you inhibit MY RIGHTS as a citizen.
    This is not about GAY RIGHTS, this is about HUMAN RIGHTS. No body said you had to support or agree with the way other people live.
    And I am certain that if the topic was about allowing civil unions so that "spinster sisters" could share the SOCIAL benefits and take care of each other, no body would be complaining.
    CIVIL UNIONS DO NOT TAKE AWAY FROM MARRIAGE.
    Marriage is not a government act, it is an act of love and companionship made between a man and a women.
    A civil union can be compared to a CONTRACT where as TWO PEOPLE CONTRACT TO TAKE CARE OF EACH OTHER.
    If you do not support it, DONT DO IT!
    But it is immoral and illegal for you to force your will or the will of your church on others. And by denying others the right to make contract with each other, you forcing your will.

  • Michaelitos
    Feb. 12, 2009 11:38 a.m.

    @xscribe
    You confuse the words tolerance and acceptance. They are not the same thing. And actually, my primary reason for opposing gay marriage is because of my understanding of the "Plan of Salvation". Yes, it is a religiously based opinion, and yes, it is every bit as valid as your secular ones.

    I love our nation and the freedoms I enjoy, including being able to vote my conscience. This is a moral issue, and it is therefore absolutely reasonable to expect people to appeal to their religious beliefs - the primary source a "moral compass" for most people.

    In fact, the framers of the Constitution did not act solely upon secular grounds ("In God we trust"), and I don't think I should have to either.

  • Steve
    Feb. 12, 2009 11:41 a.m.

    I am deeply disappointed that Governor Huntsman has chosen to speak out for anything that will undermine the traditional family. I am also deeply disappointed that he did not publicize his views before the last election. He will never have my support again.

  • Funny.
    Feb. 12, 2009 11:49 a.m.

    I think all the comments on both sides either about how Huntsman is declaring independence from the LDS Church or how he will have to answer to God are funny and shortsighted. Lets nor forget the church made it very clear during Prop 8 that the church doesn't oppose civil unions. If anything, Huntsman is reaffirming the influence of the LDS church in Utah, not rebelling against it.

  • to Rebuttal:
    Feb. 12, 2009 11:50 a.m.

    Yes, Teach YOUR children your what you believe is right, you dont need legislation to do that. I never condemned you for having values, I simply stated that this state is inundated with LDS values and the states unofficial church's values could be consider restrictive to the rights of others.
    I have nothing but respect for the people who live here. I appreciate that the state is a wholesome environment (well the areas that dont have prostitution and murder daily) for raising a family. I dont feel threatened, but I do think the dominant church pushes a value system that is offensive to others. Yes, I have a problem with the way the LDS church feels it has the right to influence legislation in this state (and California). And quite self righteous of them to speak for all of the citizens of this state. I think it is sick that state legislators MEET with the LDS church prior to legislative session. Who runs this state? And No, it is Land of the Free Regardless of whether we ALL agree.

  • CB
    Feb. 12, 2009 11:55 a.m.

    I think what the Governor has done is prove that 'spoiled fruit' can fall from a good tree. Hope he gets the Federal Job he has been after since getting elected.

  • Catastrophic??
    Feb. 12, 2009 11:59 a.m.

    How is Civil Union or Gay Marriage a catastophic event?
    What is it really going to do to YOU, your children, or grandchildren?
    NOTHING!
    I believe that marriage is a union between a man and woman. And that definition of marriage should be preserved. HOWEVER, it is not going to hurt me, my kids, or my grand kids, if a homosexual couple call their relationship marriage!
    Gay relationships have been around for as long as the bible and longer, and they are not going away.
    These people are citizens, they are our friends, and neighbors, and family members.
    Giving them legal grounds to ensure heritability and insurance benefits is NOT going to hurt you!
    If anything, the ability to for a gay couple to provide health benefits for each other would be a great asset to the rest of the community.
    Who do you think pays now for uninsured individuals (gays included) to go to the hospital when they are ill? (regardless of whether the illness is related their sexuality!) WE DO! Now, imagine if they were insured under their partners group health insurance...

  • Michaelitos
    Feb. 12, 2009 12:05 p.m.

    @to Michaelitos 9:26a.
    I'm sorry that you are angry (let me just say right up front that all the caps and exclamation points actually detract from your credibility). However, I fail to see how I am "inhibiting" your rights. I have not "pushed" values on you, I've simply shared my opinion.

    Also, if by stating that I "DO NOT have the right to force your values upon other" you are claiming that morals should not be legislated, then we wouldn't have an entire system called "criminal law". You actually can't do whatever you would like to in Utah, from stealing to having sex with animals. That's not "forcing values", it's the democratic process.

    Now, I agree with you that marriage is not a government act. It is a religious institution that government borrowed and is now flirting with changing. And I guess I do exert some (albeit minor) force of will when I say, "I oppose same-gender marriage". However, having sharing that opinion is neither immoral nor illegal.

    Engaging in dialogue and sharing opinions is not immoral, illegal, unethical, or any other word you might try to use.

  • PP
    Feb. 12, 2009 12:05 p.m.

    For those "dont push your values on me" people, every single law we have in our society is based on some value. That is the nature of laws. A society that is not based on the majorities values is either a totalitarian state or anarchy. So before you push to have a fringe (less than 0.5 % in whole country according to the US Census) group allowed to have specific rights, think of what would happen if every group that lost an election or vote demanded that their point of view be legally recognized. There is a difference between protecting minority rights and granting special rights to minorities.

    For the record - I started to dislike Gov Huntsman when he was first campaigning for office.

  • to @mtymouse
    Feb. 12, 2009 12:08 p.m.

    It really is unfortunate, what happened to you. By the way, was it a large company or a small one? As I understand it, under current laws, very small companies are not required to abide by anti-discrimination laws (like 4 employees max type places).

    About the religious freedoms thing though, I do find it troubling that that catholic family services (or was it a hospital?) was ordered by a court to shut down for not placing kids with gays. I'm not saying it was right of the catholics, just that it seems like an infringement on their religious beliefs.

  • No Account
    Feb. 12, 2009 12:09 p.m.

    I think it's time the the Eagle Forum change it's name to "The Evil Forum."

  • Michaelitos
    Feb. 12, 2009 12:11 p.m.

    One more point on values in legislation:

    "If we let come into being a secular church shorn of traditional and divine values, where shall we go for inspiration in the crises of tomorrow? Can we appeal to the rightness of a specific regulation to sustain us in our hours of need? Will we be able to seek shelter under a First Amendment which by then may have been twisted to favor irreligion? Will we be able to rely for counterforce on value education in school systems that are increasingly secularized? And if our governments and schools were to fail us, would we be able to fall back upon the institution of the family, when so many secular movements seek to shred it?"

    From Neal Maxwell's "Meeting the Challenges of Today" given in 1978

  • PP
    Feb. 12, 2009 12:12 p.m.

    ---I dont feel threatened, but I do think the dominant church pushes a value system that is offensive to others. Yes, I have a problem with the way the LDS church feels it has the right to influence legislation in this state (and California). And quite self righteous of them to speak for all of the citizens of this state. I think it is sick that state legislators MEET with the LDS church prior to legislative session. Who runs this state? And No, it is Land of the Free Regardless of whether we ALL agree---

    Interesting comments but: The church does have the right to influence legislation, its called democracy. State legislatures meet with any big interest in their constituency - why should the church be any different? The voters run the state, most of the voters are LDS...hmm... It is a little disingenuous to appreciate the values in the state then attack the institution that gave the state those values. Also, if the LDS churches values are offensive to you... Look again, because there is nothing offensive there.

  • I Hope the Gov. is Listening
    Feb. 12, 2009 12:13 p.m.

    It's fine with me if any two (or more) people want to be friends, possibly to the point of rooming together and supporting each other emotionally and in many other ways.

    However, it is NOT OK to give any relationships other than a man and a woman who marry any legal standing. The weight of law should neither encourage nor enforce any government agency or business to provide any kind of benefits to a mere friend of an employee.

    If a private business elects to do so, that is their business. But the government should not provide such benefits, and the government should not enforce others to provide benefits.

    Any elected official who espouses a concept of the government enforcing or providing such benefits will never get my vote.

  • Catastrophic???
    Feb. 12, 2009 12:17 p.m.

    Civil Unions are could also be done in a situation where a woman becomes pregnant and is not married. If she lives with a friend or family member who has health insurance, then she could make a civil union for benefit purposes and NOT use Medicaid.
    My grandmother who lives with me could be on my employer paid Medicare bridge.
    We should look to the European model for Civil Union or as they call it a "PAC"
    From a legal standpoint, a PACS is a "contract" drawn up between the two individuals, which is stamped and registered by the clerk of the court. Individuals who have registered a PACS are still considered "single" with regard to family status for some purposes, while they are increasingly considered in the same way as married couples are for other purposes.

  • to Michaelitos
    Feb. 12, 2009 12:31 p.m.

    I am not angry.
    I feel that I have something important to share with others. I feel that all the opinions expressed here are valid concerns.
    Because it is so, doesnt make it right. And it is correct to state that laws have historically been made to protect moral values, and hopefully for the majority of those it governs.

    Perhaps you should read something other then Neal Maxwell, Being that he is an "apostle" of your faith, he may be a bit biased in his thoughts on legislation and social responsibility.
    You should try Jean Jacques Rousseau's "The Social Contract" - It details the individuals rights and responsibilities to their state. And although it was written in 1762 during a time of religious struggle, the principles still hold true today.
    I also notice you make no comments on the fact that the Utah Legislators met with LDS church representatives prior to the legislative session. And I understand that many other churches also were granted audience, and I think that it is shameful.
    Someone else noted that we are to be granted EQUAL representation in the government, and I can tell you non-LDS are not granted equal representation.

  • PP
    Feb. 12, 2009 12:40 p.m.

    -----I also notice you make no comments on the fact that the Utah Legislators met with LDS church representatives prior to the legislative session. And I understand that many other churches also were granted audience, and I think that it is shameful.
    Someone else noted that we are to be granted EQUAL representation in the government, and I can tell you non-LDS are not granted equal representation.---

    Legislatures always meet with influential groups in their constituency. This is not unusual nor is it shameful, it is done in order to learn the needs and concerns of the people they are governing. Please dont try and use the argument of church and state, it is not applicable. Yes you are granted equal representation. Equal representation does not mean you get your way, it means you have a vote.

  • VF to Jumpin' Jack
    Feb. 12, 2009 12:49 p.m.

    So, "the LDS leadership is in the same role as Hitler had in WWII?" Spoken like a true fool and idiot.

    Hitler murdered 6 million jews and only the Lord knows how many Gypsies and other individuals, including some of Hitler's own pwople.

    Instead, the leaders of the LDS Church have invited individuals like yourself to live in Utah and to speak their pieces as they have felt like doing so. And now the rest of us continue to listen to your diatribe without bringing damage to you or your families.

    Please, smarten up and you will be welcomed. Otherwise, you will continue to be ignored.

  • the other foot
    Feb. 12, 2009 1:05 p.m.

    Now that the shoe is on the other foot and people are protesting the governor should we refer to you as terrorist as well? Canceled meetings relocated meetings to his home, apparently concerned enough to not feel safe leaving his home. Sounds familiar?

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 12, 2009 1:11 p.m.

    "About the religious freedoms thing though, I do find it troubling that that catholic family services (or was it a hospital?) was ordered by a court to shut down for not placing kids with gays. I'm not saying it was right of the catholics, just that it seems like an infringement on their religious beliefs."


    Please. They CHOSE to shut down. They could have continued WITHOUT public funds but chose to shut down. Remember, taxes are paid by everyone (including gays) and if you use these funds, you cannot discriminate. It really is pretty simple.

  • To PP
    Feb. 12, 2009 1:14 p.m.

    "Interesting comments but: The church does have the right to influence legislation, its called democracy. State legislatures meet with any big interest in their constituency - why should the church be any different? "


    Article 1 Section 4 of Utah State Constitution:

    "There shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions."


    Pretty plain.

  • Civil Unions ...
    Feb. 12, 2009 1:31 p.m.

    Civil unions do not weaken my marriage; they strengthen it. I am not afraid of finally recognizing the rights of two consenting adults to enter into a civil union. Kudos to our governor.

  • Albemar Kudos
    Feb. 12, 2009 1:34 p.m.

    Kudos to our Govenor! Wow, a rational, thoughtful, compassionate answer that respects everyone. Why should we expect anything less.

    Additionally, the volume of comments here in support of respecting each other and treating our fellow human beings is encouraging.

    Sadly others still continue to rationalize discrimination and encourage the immoral tenets of treating human beings differently.

    Keep in mind, many many people do not approve of other people's discriminatory promoting lifestyle you see exhibited here. However, you don't see them trying to limit or take away their civil rights.

    Be careful, what you do unto others, may be done unto you!

  • to PP
    Feb. 12, 2009 1:40 p.m.

    How is the argument of church and state not applicable? It is wholly applicable in this case.
    Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other. The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.
    ~it would be more appropriate to offer a PUBLIC meeting where members of all constituency groups were afforded the opportunity to express their concerns for the upcoming legislative session. But a closed door meeting with the "Church" and the
    legislature is inappropriate .

    And, I am not the only who feels this way: It is a clear violation of American democratic principles, Americans Uniteds Director of Communications Joe Conn told the Tribune. The implication is that one church will have more influence than any other group in the state.

  • to PP:
    Feb. 12, 2009 1:48 p.m.

    LDS Church founder Joseph Smith wrote, "We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it,... but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul."

  • the LDS Church didnt invite me!
    Feb. 12, 2009 1:55 p.m.

    the leaders of the LDS Church have invited individuals like yourself to live in Utah and to speak their pieces as they have felt like doing so. And now the rest of us continue to listen to your diatribe without bringing damage to you or your families.

    Excuse Me...but, the LDS church did not invite me to live in Utah. Nor did they ask me my opinion on being governed by their laws.
    Last I looked, Utah was part of the United States of America. Not a seperate country. And my federal rights should apply in this state. AND, the state should also be held to abide by the FEDERAL constitution and make no laws that inhibit my rights.

  • Michaelitos
    Feb. 12, 2009 1:58 p.m.

    @ to Michaelitos 12:31p
    Perhaps you should read some of Neal Maxwell's work. In addition to being an "apostle" in the LDS faith, he was also a teacher of political science at the University of Utah, eventually rising to be Executive Vice President of the institution. In fact, in 1998, the University of Utah announced the establishment of the Neal A. Maxwell Presidential Endowed Chair in Political Theory, Public Policy, and Public Service.

    How about this, I'll agree to read Rousseau if you agree to read Maxwell.

    As for church groups meeting with the legislature prior to the opening of the session, I don't see why you have a problem with that. Why wouldn't our elected officials try to seek as much input as they can from ALL sources prior to embarking on their task of creating the law?

  • disappointed
    Feb. 12, 2009 2:07 p.m.

    Governor Huntsman, I wish I could revoke my vote for you. Why didn't you publicize the stance you were going to take BEFORE the election? Oh wait... let me think. I guess you knew you would have lost.

  • One Human Family
    Feb. 12, 2009 2:17 p.m.

    Kudos to the governor.

    I am LDS, I am married, I am straight and I am pro-gay marriage. I used to be as ignorant as most people in Utah, until my brother came out.

    Those who are against gay marriage and especially against civil unions, please tell me how my gay brother and his partner of 10 years getting civil rights affects you? Seriously?

    Banning gay marriage or civil unions is not going to stop gay people from being born or getting married to each other. All it does is cause people like my brother to have a harder life. How is that Christian?

    Please rethink your stance. It may not be long before you are faced with a gay loved one as I was.


  • PP
    Feb. 12, 2009 2:33 p.m.



    "Interesting comments but: The church does have the right to influence legislation, its called democracy. State legislatures meet with any big interest in their constituency - why should the church be any different? "

    Article 1 Section 4 of Utah State Constitution:

    "There shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions."

    Pretty plain.
    ------------
    Your right, it is plain. It never says that the church can not have its opinion heard. Why should the church have its freedoms and liberties curtailed just because they are a large special interest? You not liking them is not a reason.

  • Alex
    Feb. 12, 2009 2:37 p.m.

    Sorry to rain on everybody's party, but I remember something.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't equivalent marriage relationships in violation of the Utah State Constitution? Don't you need to do a Constitutional Convention or referendum to allow civil unions?

    I am not making a statement one way or another. I am just asking. You see, we have this pesky thing called the Constitution of the State of Utah which doesn't permit it.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 12, 2009 2:39 p.m.

    Note to conservatives: YOU ARE BIGOTS! And, in time, it will be proven that you are on the wrong side of history.

  • PP
    Feb. 12, 2009 2:44 p.m.

    ---LDS Church founder Joseph Smith wrote, "We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it,... but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul."---

    It says the govt is to stay out of the church, not the other way around. Just like the constitution says. Separation of church and state is a modern ACLU spin on what the constitution says.

  • Alex
    Feb. 12, 2009 2:54 p.m.

    Anonymous:

    "Note to conservatives: YOU ARE BIGOTS! And, in time, it will be proven that you are on the wrong side of history."

    Zzzzzzzzzzzz...........

  • Donovan
    Feb. 12, 2009 2:56 p.m.

    @PP...All of that come out of the hat also?
    Oh, and by the way the year is 2009 now, so dogma from a couple hundred or thousand years ago helps nobody to be better christians. We need to keep up with the times. All of the churches do it, so why can't we?

  • Interesting
    Feb. 12, 2009 3:02 p.m.

    I find it interesting that not one of you who are opposed to civil unions or rights for the GLBT community has given a single reason as to how civil unions will impact you on a personal level. It has no effect on you and your marriage and family, or the love you have for them. Marriage comes down to the basic emotion of LOVE. My relationship with my partner is based on love and trust. Our relationship is stronger than many, many "marriages." He is my soul mate and I could not imagine living without him. Why is our relationship considered inferior to yours? The basis is the same. We're even raising children together

    The claim that we in the GLBT community want to change the definition of marriage is interesting considering the LDS tried to change the definition of marriage 100 years ago.

  • PP
    Feb. 12, 2009 3:04 p.m.

    Donovan | 2:56 p.m. Feb. 12, 2009

    @PP...All of that come out of the hat also?
    Oh, and by the way the year is 2009 now, so dogma from a couple hundred or thousand years ago helps nobody to be better christians. We need to keep up with the times. All of the churches do it, so why can't we?
    ---------------
    I have no idea what you mean. Is that a way to avoid actually finding words in the constitution to support your point of view? Also, are you really advocating that a church change its beliefs to be popular? I dont think All churches do it, in fact most dont.

  • Voice of Reason
    Feb. 12, 2009 3:18 p.m.

    To those who think Elder Clayton's statement that the church "does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships" somehow indicates a seismic reversal in the LDS Church's long-established opposition to gay marriage or any civil unions, etc. like unto it:
    Just read every other official statement made by the Church on gay marriage, civil unions, etc. The LDS Church is consistently, and very clearly, opposed to gay marriage or civil unions. Period. If you think Elder Clayton's well-meaning but likely misspoken statement - proably unaware of the significance of "civil unions" - means anything more, just note that this statement is nowhere to be found on the Church's official website.

    However, the famous interview with Elders Oaks and Wickham saying the OPPOSITE is prominently featured, along with many other statements & talks opposing civil unions or anything like them.

    I know hope can drive people to believe that words mean something they don't, but dig a little deeper when you see something that is so obviously counter to past history.

  • Alex
    Feb. 12, 2009 3:27 p.m.

    Interesting:

    "Marriage comes down to the basic emotion of LOVE. "

    The family law has nothing to do with sanctioning love, as wonderful as that is. Family law deals with a union of sexes who have the statistical possibility of producing offspring together. It doesn't really matter how much you love your partner.

    So, no, it doesn't come down to the basic emotion of LOVE.

    "Why is our relationship considered inferior to yours?"

    Because homosexual unions have zero probability of producing natural offspring. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Protection of natural children is the whole point of government involvement and regulation of marriage.

  • @ Interesting
    Feb. 12, 2009 3:29 p.m.

    You are repeating one of the fundamental misunderstandings held by many gay activists about marriage: that marriage is based on love. That is categorically untrue.

    It may be true for you and me personally (we both love our life partner/wife), marriage in the formal sense is not historically an institution recognized by governments out of an interest to encourage "love" - it's actually been about two main governmental interests:

    1)It has always been about recognizing the importance of a stable environment for children borne of a man and woman - a somewhat common event in humanity - and to provide for the upbringing of that child into a productive member of society.

    2) It's also historically been about preserving lines of descent for purposes of inheritance and estate responsibility.

    The idea that marriage exists purely and simply to recognize "love" is a very post-modern, really post-1960's narcissistic idea that has little historical precedent. You may have noticed that love doesn't need marriage to happen . . . but preserving stable natural families and lines of descent do need it.

  • Michaelitos
    Feb. 12, 2009 3:34 p.m.

    @Donovan
    Assuming that you are LDS (I know, a dangerous assumption), we actually do keep up with the times. Please refer to the Proclamation on the Family (issued in 1995) or any number of the current statements by the 1st Presidency regarding this issue.

    @Interesting
    You see, that's where we differ. For me personally, marriage does not "come down to the basic emotion of LOVE". While love is a noble characteristic and one that is enviable in most relationships, the primary purpose of marriage is to facilitate the formation of families. And therein lies the difference. Having had a father and a mother and learning from both of them, I do consider that the ideal situation. I wish with all my heart that everyone could have had the opportunities that I did.

    Now I'm not so naive as to realize that life itself is not ideal, and so we learn to deal with single parent, grandparent, and other non-traditional families. However, that does not mean that I can put into law anything less than that ideal.

    You're right. It doesn't just impact me on a personal level, it affects our whole society.

  • @PP
    Feb. 12, 2009 3:39 p.m.

    The LDS church has "changed" its doctrine numerous times. Example: removing polygamy ...and why did they do that? So the great mormon state of Utah would be accepted into the US as a state.

    And, yes, All churches do it. Some take more time than others.

    But, this discussion is not about religions changing their doctrines. It is about Civil Unions - and the SOCIAL impact they will have.
    And, if you were secure in your morals, and your ability to teach them to others, you would not oppose the civil union.
    So, one can only think that you are not secure in your moral values or your ability to teach them to others, and rather than risk gay civil unions tempting your children, you chose to enact legislation to remove their civil rights.
    Should we assume that if civil unions passed we can expect straight marriage to fall apart and a large percentage of Utahns to go out and find a same sex partner??
    No, that would be ludicrous. It wont harm YOU, or your neighbor, or your churches attendance.
    If you are worried about the social impact - preach your doctrine, talk with your children and others. teach them.

  • Tired argument repackaged
    Feb. 12, 2009 3:43 p.m.

    Both you and Maxxwell no matter how eleguant either of you try to make it sound are simply making the same tired argument that you have a right to legislate your brandof morality for society because it is best for society regardles of the overwhelming evidance that contradicts your claims. Laws do not reguire at their base your brand of morality and can and should be based on sound observable evidance to avoid undue bias based on subjective morality. Both you and Maxwell no matter how elegant either of you try to make it sound are simply making the same tired argument that you have a right to legislate your brand of morality for society because it is best for society regardless of the overwhelming evidence that contradicts your claims. Laws do not require at their base your brand of morality and can and should be based on sound observable evidence to avoid undue bias based on morality that is subjective by its very nature.

  • CC
    Feb. 12, 2009 3:48 p.m.

    To PP,

    You did not read far enough:

    "9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
    10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, aaccording to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this worlds goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."

    To put it simply, Joseph Smith taught by revelation that Church's should mind their own business and stay out of politics!

  • So Steve
    Feb. 12, 2009 3:54 p.m.

    Governor Huntman's great attributes that you voted for him for don't matter anymore....all because he doesn't want to be closed minded any longer about gays. Hmm that says a lot for conservatives in my mind!

  • mark
    Feb. 12, 2009 4:01 p.m.

    Since I don't believe Huntsman doing anything except is trying to stave off a bigger gay/lesbian BLOWBACK, when all the Common Ground Bills, fail. Nationally LGBTs and CA progressives haven't softened our BOYCOTT of Utah, and Yes on prop 8 donors. Huntsman is facing a Utah economy and a BOYCOTT combination. So he tossed out this Civil Union line, knowing it would never come to his desk from a 85% LDS legislature.

  • mark
    Feb. 12, 2009 4:09 p.m.

    One positive outcome from Huntsman statement will be the TEACHING MOMENT Huntsman will receive from rabidly unhinged "CHRISTIAN" folks who will send him the most FOUL and VILE calls and letters, he has probably ever experienced. Welcome to OUR (LGBT) WORLD.....governor.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 12, 2009 4:36 p.m.

    " If you think Elder Clayton's well-meaning but likely misspoken statement - proably unaware of the significance of "civil unions" - means anything more, just note that this statement is nowhere to be found on the Church's official website. "


    If this were true, wouldn't the church immediately correct any misconception that his mistatement might have caused? They didn't do any corrections. What is the deal?

  • to Alex
    Feb. 12, 2009 4:38 p.m.

    "The family law has nothing to do with sanctioning love, as wonderful as that is. Family law deals with a union of sexes who have the statistical possibility of producing offspring together. It doesn't really matter how much you love your partner."


    Prove it. Show me a law anywhere that states this. It isn't to be found.


    Marriage is a civil contract between two people granting them rights, privileges and benefits along with responsibilities. It says NOTHING about having children.

  • My wisdom was confirmed...
    Feb. 12, 2009 5:11 p.m.

    I voted for Super Dell! By the way, I normally vote straight-ticket republican. Huntsman was the only exception. A RINO is a democrat at heart and a republican only for financial reasons.

  • Re my wisdon was confirmed
    Feb. 12, 2009 6:39 p.m.

    Voting straight-ticket anything is hardly wisdom. A one-party system is not a democracy.

    And voting for Super Dell? Really? You would have had more wisdom to write in my name. Think about it next time.

  • Like It Should Be
    Feb. 12, 2009 6:48 p.m.

    Heck, if it was up to me, I wouldn't even grant "civil unions" to homosexuals.

    Call me prejudiced, I don't care.

    Civil unions between homosexuals is just one more step towards their ultimate goal of achieving the status of being legally married. Gays say they are "entitled" to receive insurance benefits, medical benefits, etc because they are "in love" and are therefore a legitimate union like any other heterosexual couple.

    Bull.

    They most certainly have the right to do what they wish with their life (you want to act on homosexual desires, that's your choice) but to claim that you have a "right" to certain consequences that a wise society reserves for the ONLY union that can perpetuate the society (heterosexual unions in a heterosexual marriage) is a crock.

    A gay person wants to allow his "partner" to visit him in the hospital room, sure. That's called "a friend visiting". You want to give your partner your money when you die? That's called a will. Insurance money when you die? Nope. Health benefits from insurance policies? Nope. Sorry.

    It's not YOU this approach marginalizes, it's your homosexual actions.

    Shame on Governor Huntsman!

  • mp
    Feb. 12, 2009 6:50 p.m.

    Today I am proud to be a Utahn and to call Huntsman my governor. He is taking a wonderful step towards showing the rest of the country that we can put religious beliefs aside in an attempt to extend a hand to everyone.

  • For Jumipin' jack
    Feb. 12, 2009 7:03 p.m.

    "Jumipin' jack | 8:09 a.m. Feb. 12, 2009 - Why is it that the right wingnuts are saying that since the Gov is LDS that he can't hold an opinion that is different from the "official" church position? I my view that puts the LDS leadership in the same role that Hitler had in WWII."

    LDS leadership in the same role as Hitler?

    BA-HA-HA-HAAAAA!!!

    Excuse me while I wipe the tears out of my eyes.

    Just suppose, Jack, just think through this hypothetically now.....what if it WERE true that God DID speak to the head of the LDS church, ie, the prophet? What if that WERE true?

    Then what the LDS prophet speaks would really be God's teachings and counsel, wouldn't it?

    And if THAT were true then it would be pretty unwise to stray from that counsel, wouldn't it, Jack?

    The question every man must decide is whether the LDS prophet really IS the Lord's mouthpiece or not...

    Good luck finding that out, and I mean that sincerely.

  • Well
    Feb. 12, 2009 7:07 p.m.

    I know who I'll be supporting and voting for in the next primary - anyone but Huntsman.

  • @like it should ne
    Feb. 12, 2009 7:09 p.m.

    Prejudiced! There now are you happy? Seriously though your arguments are very old, tired and debated to death, if you want a serious response you can go back and read the hundreds of post that already addressed your arguments.

  • For: 8:48 on Feb. 12th
    Feb. 12, 2009 7:10 p.m.

    "I think every PROTESTER | 8:48 a.m. Feb. 12, 2009
    Should have a GAY marry into your family
    You son or Daughter
    Now what are you protesting about?"

    Nothing much, just the spiritual and emotional destruction of my son or daughter and, unless they make better decisions, their eventual, endless separation from their Father in Heaven and all the joy He wishes to share with them...


  • Alex
    Feb. 12, 2009 7:30 p.m.

    "Prove it. Show me a law anywhere that states this. It isn't to be found."

    I'll tell you what. Go to family court sometime and ask yourself who is getting the shaft when the family is broken up. What are a vast majority of traditional marriage laws designed to affect?

  • james
    Feb. 12, 2009 8:53 p.m.

    I think the governor is wrong to support civil unions, particularly in light of what has been happening around the country in the unraveling of family values and marriage between a man and a woman.

  • john gilmore
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:14 p.m.

    john huntsman is a breath of fresh air in the circus tent that is the GOP. If Obama needs to scratch his republican itch I nominate my governor.

  • GK
    Feb. 12, 2009 9:27 p.m.

    I guess he doesn't plan on running for re-election.

  • Ty
    Feb. 12, 2009 10:04 p.m.

    Thank you Gov Huntsman. I applaud your courage to stand up for the GLBT citizens in this state. You will always have my vote. I know of many gay couples who are raising families in this state and their families deserve all the protections offered to every other family. You are awesome!

  • Larry J
    Feb. 12, 2009 11:19 p.m.

    What in the world is Governor Huntsman doing? My friends how can Utah stay 20-years behind the rest of the country with such thinking?

    I would have thought it would have taken until 2020 before Utah would have the foresight accept a stance on these civil unions. By then the rest of the nation would accept such types of marriages, traditional marriages would still be the norm, and Utah would proclaim that the long-promised day has come when we can accept these types of civil unions.

  • Boo
    Feb. 12, 2009 11:32 p.m.

    Boooo Gov. Huntsman. I am happy that you did not get my vote. This is a step down a bad road. Boo,

  • To like it should be
    Feb. 13, 2009 9:13 a.m.

    "but to claim that you have a "right" to certain consequences that a wise society reserves for the ONLY union that can perpetuate the society (heterosexual unions in a heterosexual marriage) is a crock."


    The "crock" is that your statement is not true. A man and an older woman beyond child bearing years MAY marry. Why should they have these privileges just for companionship? Why not allow all Americans the same privileges for companionship? If you treat one segment of society differently than another just because you don't like what they are doing, you may be guilty of discrimination.

  • Dear Alex
    Feb. 13, 2009 9:18 a.m.

    Alex | 7:30 p.m. Feb. 12, 2009
    "Prove it. Show me a law anywhere that states this. It isn't to be found."

    "I'll tell you what. Go to family court sometime and ask yourself who is getting the shaft when the family is broken up. What are a vast majority of traditional marriage laws designed to affect?"



    Marriage laws and divorce laws are NOT intertwined. Marriage laws can stand by themselves. They are a legal commitment between two people providing privileges and benefits and responsibilities to each other. It AGAIN, has nothing to do with whether or not they have children.

    I really wish that you would quit using the line that marriage was made for people to raise children. It is false.

  • Pompous PU
    Feb. 13, 2009 10:00 a.m.

    This show us what happens when you have an arrogant stuffed shirt running things. The Governor is a fool!

  • Thanks Deseret News
    Feb. 13, 2009 10:05 a.m.

    In baseball the question is should they legitimize steroid use by not reinstating Hank Aaron's record, though Barry Bonds cheated, or should they get rid of Barry's illigitimatly made record and say NO to steroid use for good.
    If you are a homosexual yearning for marriage consider what I have just said. You are considered by the purists of religion, myself included, as living a lifestyle not in keeping with the laws of God and you don't have to be Mormon, but pretty much any religion that uses the Bible or Koran, to see it that way. Marriage is a God ordained union for the creation of family and he gave us laws against fornication and adultery to keep children from having to be aborted by the millions and for many other reasons. I'm not against civil unions so yeah Gov. Huntsman, but I'm against homosexual marriages because that leads to adoption of children into a fatherless or motherless home. They are both important and my opinion does not make me a bigot, but being a Mormon hater or Gaybasher certainly IS a bigoted thing. I DON'T HATE gays, but I disagree respectfully.

  • Shameful
    Feb. 13, 2009 11:29 a.m.

    I will never, not ever vote for this governor for anything whatsoever ever again.

  • @ Thanks Deseret News
    Feb. 13, 2009 11:47 a.m.

    "Marriage is a God ordained union for the creation of family and he gave us laws against fornication and adultery to keep children from having to be aborted by the millions and for many other reasons. I'm not against civil unions so yeah Gov. Huntsman, but I'm against homosexual marriages because that leads to adoption of children into a fatherless or motherless home."


    The marriage we are talking about is a CIVIL law that allows two people the legally commit to each other and then gives them privileges and benefits because of that commitment. You do not have to have children or even want them.


    If you would have voted against prop 8 in CA because of gay adoptions, please note that Prop 8 had absolutely NO affect on gay adoption. It is still illegal to discriminate against a gay couple re adoption. They are just as eligible for any baby as a heterosexual couple in CA.

  • Tracy L
    Feb. 13, 2009 12:24 p.m.

    This apparently is what happens to you when you state your convictions contrary to the "approved" view by the GOP party leadership. Now Huntsman is being upbraided for questioning the Party Line.

    Among Republicans are GLBT people, evidenced by the Log Cabin Republicans who have long supported the GOP's economics but have been totally marginalized by the GOP's social- and cultural-issue tendencies.

    I am personally surprised by the loyalty that the Log Cabin-ers have shown. As a former GOP voter, I left in disgust when the party swung to the right and abandoned the Civil Rights causes that they claim to have championed back in the days of Abe Lincoln, the First Republican President, glowingly spoken of quite recently around Washington, and according to some biographers, our first Gay President.

    As a Unitarian Universalist, I am proud of my faith tradition in unequivocal support of GLBT rights to marry and live their lives with the same goals that straight families take for granted.

    Since LDS assumed freely to intrude upon California politics, I therefore presume similarly to intrude upon those of Utah, and support the courageous show of integrity by their Governor.

  • LDS Proclamation on the Family
    Feb. 13, 2009 12:43 p.m.

    How can it be that the LDS doctrine maintains that marriage is for formation of families? If in heaven you are permanently married, then it would follow that you are therefore expected to procreate there as well. Which would negate the theological purpose for living on earth.

    Sorry, this idea does not hold much water. My marriage, not resulting in progeny, would likewise be annulled in a theocratic legal system such as the one implied here. Logically you cannot have it both ways: either you accept the phenomenon of families that form because people want to be together, or you REQUIRE them to procreate. Incidentally my partner and I happen to be opposite-sex, assuming that detail is somehow your business to know.

    Why we have not produced progeny is likewise not-your-business, nor is it so related to what Church the ceremony was done in (or whether, what kind of Minister, and so forth. Likewise when you see two women looking after kids, you do not know the nature of their relationship nor how the kids were produced.

    How total strangers conduct their lives and how they create families, is not your business to dictate.

  • Pledge of Allegiance
    Feb. 13, 2009 1:32 p.m.

    Since the Pledge was used as an excuse to upbraid Huntsman, this:
    Allegiance: loyalty to follow the national leadership, even if you are not the Majority Party in Congress or the White House

    Republic: a form of government, not a political Party. Huntsman lives in a republic, but he is not one. Nor do the members of a Republic have the right to vote on the civil rights eachother enjoys. Either all do or none do. Read the Preamble to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, if you misunderstand that.

    One Nation, Under God: not a bunch of separate nations. Individual states can be republics but they are all bound by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are not authorized to deny those rights to any subset of the populace even if they are not Mormons. The nation is not a theocracy. It does not say "under Moroni" or "under Jesus" or "under Allah" or "under nobody". It does leave open to interpretation who/what "God" is. And subsequent jurisprudence upholds that intentional vagueness.

    Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all:
    See above.

    Thanks for your attention.


  • @Thanks Deseret
    Feb. 13, 2009 1:47 p.m.

    re:"Marriage is a God ordained union for the creation of family and he gave us laws against fornication and adultery..."
    Perhaps you can account for the extensive practice of impregnating slaves and servants, and explain how this squares with "God ordained...". Either they are automatically punished, like a violation of gravity or they are not. The widespread occurrence of children born out of wedlock suggests strongly that, abortion notwithstanding, God does not interfere with the process. How many of these sins was King Solomon guilty of? Or does it not count when you are a king, and really rich?

  • God & Money
    Feb. 13, 2009 1:54 p.m.

    Well, if you have the money you can pretty much push yourself and everyone else around in the direction you please. Nevertheless, there are way too many people in Utah who mess with the wrong guy and that guy would be GOD ALMIGHTY.

  • @Like (sic) It Should Be
    Feb. 13, 2009 2:04 p.m.

    Dear Like:
    In English syntax, the expression is "AS it should be". And there are some other glaring inaccuracies
    :
    A "friend visiting" does not have rights to make medical decisions upon the unconsciousness of a patient. A married partner automatically does.

    Wills can be intestate or challenged by "family" members hostile to a life partner, contrary to the wishes of the decedent. Marriage automatically confers rights of inheritance.

    Since when did you have the authority to determine the rights accrued to an Insurance contract? I'll help you here. You don't unless you are a party to the contract.

    Similarly with health benefits, which typically include cheaper rates for husbands or wives than for any other related-party.

    "Sorry?" I don't think so. Just uneducated.
    But in this case I'll let your inaccuracy stand.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 13, 2009 2:11 p.m.

    @ LDS Proc 12:43p
    Now you claim to be an expert on LDS theology? You haven't got a clue what families mean to LDS faithful.

    Furthermore, how strangers conduct their lives is absolutely my business. If someone steals, even if it's not from me, it affects our whole society. And it is for society that I uphold values and ideals like the traditional marriage.

    No, I don't get to dictate, but I do get to vote. And I don't know if I will be voting for Huntsman again.

  • Doublestandards don't work
    Feb. 13, 2009 2:36 p.m.

    Um, a lot ANGRY people in Utah--and rightfully so.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 13, 2009 2:46 p.m.

    Anonymous | 2:11 p.m. Feb. 13, 2009
    @ LDS Proc 12:43

    "Furthermore, how strangers conduct their lives is absolutely my business. If someone steals, even if it's not from me, it affects our whole society. And it is for society that I uphold values and ideals like the traditional marriage."


    Stealing is against the law because it does not respect another persons rights.

    You are aware, aren't you that sodomy is LEGAL in all 50 states.

    There are no victims in " gay marriage," other than your idea of right and wrong.

    You do NOT have the right to not be offended in a democracy/republic.

  • Huh?
    Feb. 13, 2009 3:24 p.m.

    Everyone has the right to be offended. In fact, I take offense to your post.

    Furthermore, sex with animals is also illegal in Utah, not because it affects other people, but it's gross. The voting public agreed that it's immoral, and there you go, you can't do it.

    Same thing with gay marriage, as long as enough people think it is immoral (whether or not there is a so called 'victim"), it can't be legally sanctioned.

    Oh, and since we live in a democracy/republic, please don't be offended by this post (especially seem to think that you don't have the right to).

  • gay is choice
    Feb. 13, 2009 3:33 p.m.

    You can't tell me that someone who goes back and forth, bi-sexual is born to go back and forth, between genders. You choose what you want. Whatever you are feeling that day, go with it. I know that there are some things we can not control; for instance, many gay people I know had terrible fathers or lack of fathers in their life-----something they had no control over. If a guy is born into family with all girls, that is nothing one can control. But we do not have to act out either. Take up reading, cooking, gardening, painting, ----stay busy, avoid night clubs-----don't be bored----avoid dumb people. I'm 35 and never married and I have never ever ever ever ever been in a relationship, I want to---but because I love reading, I can go a whole life being single and be happy---there are a thousand hobbies out there that don't cause guilt and shame.

  • Offensive
    Feb. 13, 2009 5:01 p.m.

    Huh? | 3:24 p.m. Feb. 13, 2009
    "Everyone has the right to be offended. In fact, I take offense to your post."


    I guess I should have said, "you might as well plan on being offended when you live in a republic/democracy. Other people's actions or words WILL at some time offend you. Get used to it. It is called freedom."

    If their actionsj cause you harm (other than to your feelings), you may have recourse to sue or to get a law prohibiting the actions.

    Sorry I was so vague.

  • Jan
    Feb. 13, 2009 5:14 p.m.

    I'm just glad that the Governor doesn't do what the idiotic Eagles forum and Buttars dictates! Thank heavens he has some sense! Go Gov. Huntsman!

  • No GAY laws in ZION!!
    Feb. 13, 2009 5:22 p.m.

    Keep GAY activism out of ZION!!!

  • Johnny
    Feb. 13, 2009 5:27 p.m.

    I just love the Governor. He can come to my party anytime.

  • A Concern?
    Feb. 13, 2009 6:47 p.m.

    Civil unions are performed between men and women through the court system. This is usually considered a "marriage" by both. 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

  • Vince
    Feb. 13, 2009 9:21 p.m.

    To Laura 6:59 am

    Sorry Laura, I lost what point you were making...

    Are you saying that ultimately, the power rests with the people?

    If so, you're way off base ---

    Definition of a republic is in fact chosen by the power but the power rests on the elected officials who have been chosen by the people.

    The Founding Fathers moved away from a monarchy but not to a true democracy --- but a republican democracy --- which is what we have ---

    The power rests in the executive power, legislative power, and the courts ---

    sometimes the people can vote --- but any of those branches can overturn "the will of the people"

    When reading about history --- the Founding Fathers debated about whether to give ultimate power to the people. Some were extremely hesitant --- hence, the compromise to give some power to the people, not all.

    Perfect example --- the electoral college --- a buffer that stands from the voice of the people and 'elected' representatives --- twice in history a popularly elected President has been, in effect, chosen by the College.

  • Huntsman flip-flopper
    Feb. 14, 2009 8:29 a.m.

    While everyone accuses Romney of being a flip-flopper, the real culprit is Huntsman. He's flipped and flopped on immigration, the environment and, now, on gay marriage. No wonder he endorsed McCain early in the campaign, instead of Romney. The problem is that it's seen as okay to flip-flop from conservative to liberal, so nobody's calling Huntsman what he is. Meanwhile, it is anathema to flip-flop from liberal to conservative so everyone's all over Romney, all of the time. But I'd trade Huntsman for Romney anytime. We could really have used Mitt as governor in Utah. He was wasted on Massachusetts.

  • Jane
    Feb. 14, 2009 9:53 a.m.

    I offer a sincere, appreciative thank you to our Governor. He gives me new-found hope that there are rational, intelligent, compassionate, respectful ideals in the Utah State Government. Thank you, Governor Huntsman! (By the way, I'm very LDS and very straight.)

  • RE: Vince
    Feb. 14, 2009 10:16 a.m.

    The Founding Fathers believed that all power derived from the people and that they gave up some of that power to the government, but they can take it back when they feel the government is no longer working in the interest of the people.

  • RE: Concern?
    Feb. 14, 2009 10:17 a.m.

    Some in Mass. have been punished for holding to their religious beliefs.

  • Thomas Jefferson
    Feb. 14, 2009 10:19 a.m.

    He's fallen victim to the propaganda, like so many others.

    Go to the web site silencingchristians dot com and you'll see what I'm talking about.

  • As this nation falls to shreds
    Feb. 14, 2009 12:10 p.m.

    one consolation is that this Huntsman won't have any credibility to lead in the future world.

  • Dont count on the FEDS
    Feb. 14, 2009 4:13 p.m.

    LDS Church didnt invite me! said:

    "And my federal rights should apply in this state. AND, the state should also be held to abide by the FEDERAL constitution and make no laws that inhibit my rights."

    The Defense of Marriage act passed by the United States Congress requires the federal government to recognize no same sex unions. It also leaves it up to the individual states to decide what form of same sex unions they will honor, or none at all if the State so chooses. Dont count on the federal government to come to your aid to force States to honor same- sex unions

    "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
    tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
    judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
    respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
    treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
    possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
    relationship."

  • Ryan J
    Feb. 14, 2009 4:55 p.m.

    Just want to add my voice and say I agree with the Govenor.

  • To: Jefferson
    Feb. 14, 2009 5:02 p.m.

    Which propaganda? That video is hilariously bad.

  • @Thomas Jefferson
    Feb. 14, 2009 6:58 p.m.

    So some Christians got together and made a piece of propaganda film to make themselves look like the victims instead of the aggressors, Gee how (un)original. What was your point again?

  • Deja Moo...
    Feb. 14, 2009 7:15 p.m.

    Well, I just hope that this is not gonna back fire and used as a trap to clear other political hurdles. I'm beginning to lean towards the Utah Eagle Forum whenever I read articles like this.

  • artm
    Feb. 15, 2009 4:45 a.m.

    So, Another Polition puts himself on the wrong side of God,Olive D said, the Gov has given her some hope, The only hope dear is Jesus Christ,

    Turn to Him, and know what real freedom is, I thank God that he loves all people, But we must understand that God will judge us of sin unrepented of.

  • TJ Gilliman
    Feb. 15, 2009 4:54 a.m.

    Governor, are you not aware that promiscuous homosexuality is dangerous? You should be ashamed for promoting this deadly behaviour!

  • Brandon
    Feb. 15, 2009 7:00 a.m.

    I always though Governor Huntsman seemed like a very reasonable man free from typical Utah prejudices. Thanks, Governor.

  • soxs
    Feb. 15, 2009 7:48 a.m.

    its very simple homosexual activity is wrong and until i SEE TWO MEN OR TWO WOMEN giving birth to a child then marriage is between a man and a women last time time I checked that is what is needed to repopulated the world anything else is a frak of nature

  • C. Williams
    Feb. 15, 2009 11:10 a.m.

    Gov. Huntsman has no idea what he is saying. Civil Unions for gays is the same as marriage, just calling it another name and justifying this sexually immoral behavior. This is usually the first step, then Gays continue to press for full marriage and oppression of other free speech.

    Would also like to make mention of another poster referring legislation of Hate Crime Bills and how refusal to do so is promoting violence against gays. That is the most stupidest logic I have ever heard. Violence, assault, murder, etc. are already against the law, no matter who you are!! And anybody that commits those acts should be fully prosecuted. Murder in all cases already involves hate!!! Hate Crime Bills are just an attempt to silence religious freedoms and speech and promote a sexual act as a protected act.

  • mp
    Feb. 15, 2009 12:00 p.m.

    I'm confused. Many people here state that by allowing civil unions, their right to free speech would be compromised. I have no idea how that would happen. What other people do in their bedrooms is none of my business, and neither is it yours. Who people decide to extend the right to visitation, inheritance and insurance benefits to is none of your business. You got to choose who you wanted to share your life with, so why is it your business to deny that right to others? You don't have to agree with their lifestyles. I don't agree with the Mormon lifestyle, but I'll never tell a Mormon that they do not have the right to live how they see fit. They are not infringing on my rights, just as a homosexual couple living together and sharing insurance benefits do not infringe on your rights.

  • Vince
    Feb. 15, 2009 1:32 p.m.

    RE: Vince | 10:16 a.m. Feb. 14, 2009


    Nevertheless, the power given back to the people is a very long and tedious process --- There is some power which cannot be given back to the people ----

    Example: A president cannot be unseated unless through the process of impeachment --- at that, no president has ever been been taken out of office through the will of the people. Clinton was formally impeached but not taken out office and Nixon resigned. So I hold my ground.

    U.S. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life.

    When people quote the familiar "this union, for the people, by the people, of the people shall not perish from the earth" they fail to quote that this is President Lincoln's Gettysburg address --- I am not discounting the importance of the speech, it is nonetheless a speech, not part of the U.S. constitution. The speech was used, and arguably so, with great power to sway people to hold the Union together when the country needed to come together.

    Moreover, history will show that "the power of the people" (the majority) cannot be used to limit universal rights.

  • Vince
    Feb. 15, 2009 1:40 p.m.


    RE: Vince | 10:16 a.m. Feb. 14, 2009

    Further, to advance the notion that "the power of the people" rests supreme would be a long and tedious process.

    We do live in a true democracy, people. While it is true that some elected politicians can be unseated, by far, we choose to elect those representatives.

    If we choose to elect representatives who do not give rights to minorities, in this case, gays, do you sleep good at night knowing that somehow, your vote --- independent on your own marriage --- somehow deprived someone else's pursuit of their own livelihood that you enjoy?

    Heterosexuals never have to worry about sharing life stories of their families and children.

    Gays have to pick and choose whom they come out to sometimes ---

    At that, the LDS make themselves the victims when they advance many gays to keep themselves in the closet?

    And the LDS are the victims? Whose rights were taken away, again?

  • Thank you, Gov. Huntsman
    Feb. 15, 2009 5:32 p.m.

    after reading about so many senseless, anti-gay actions by the mormon church and Utah politicians on this site, I had to read this twice to make sure I wasn't mistaken. How refreshing to see the governor stand up for equality regardless of his party or religious affiliations.

  • Anon the Mighty
    Feb. 16, 2009 7:18 a.m.

    To Joe Watts,

    Maybe not, but I'm sure it's full of gay roots.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 16, 2009 12:43 p.m.

    Bravo Governor Huntsman!

  • realitycheck
    Feb. 16, 2009 12:51 p.m.

    so all you "yes on 8" folks are now saying you don't want civil unions either?

    is it just another name for marriage? yes, of course. You don't want gays to "marry" so the gay community is trying to appease you.

    So none of this prop 8 stuff actually had to do with marriage at all. You just want gays to stop being gay.

    At least now everyone can see your true colors - it's called "forcing your religious values onto others". In some other places, it's called Al Qieda or Taliban.

    How proud you must be to be in such company....

  • Good job!
    Feb. 16, 2009 1:13 p.m.

    Governor. Finally, you got it right. Just ignore the insults of small-minded people.

  • @TJ Gilliman | 4:54
    Feb. 16, 2009 2:02 p.m.

    You said: "Governor, are you not aware that promiscuous homosexuality is dangerous? You should be ashamed for promoting this deadly behaviour!"

    What about promiscuous HETEROsexuality? United Nations Health statistics show that the highest rates of STD and AIDS transmissions are among HETEROSEXUALS. What about the AIDS pandemic in Africa - it is amongst HETEROSEXUALS.

    Unprotected sex can spread disease - period. Your effort to point a boney finger at homosexuals whithers when actual health statistics are considered. So, what was your point, again?

  • Vince
    Feb. 16, 2009 2:16 p.m.

    Re: The Voice of the People

    when I keep seeing comments that the voice of the people is sovereign --- I have to take a look back and put it in perspective.

    Is it the voice of the people only in regards to Prop. 8? Only in regards to civil unions in Utah? Only in regards to (fill in the blank) agenda to limit the rights of gays?

    So as to put it in perspective --- how does the voice of the people look like in retrospect?

    * The voice of the people did not allow women the right to vote for 150 years.

    * The voice of the people did not give Blacks full civil rights for more than two centuries.

    * The voice of the people was overturned with Proposition 187.

    * The voice of the people was overturned with making segregation a law of the past. In fact, more than than, a U.S. Supreme Court overruled its own ruling --- "separate but equal" was overturned with, after trial and error, with the new legislation that "separate, in and of itself does not constitute equal."

  • Decide What You Want
    Feb. 16, 2009 4:31 p.m.

    Promiscuous homosexuality? Wouldn't legal recognition of domestic partnerships (and preferably MARRIAGE) tend to discourage promiscuous behaviour that you are condemning? Isn't that one of the legitimate purposes of marriage vows?

  • I agree "Reality Check"
    Feb. 16, 2009 4:47 p.m.

    I was talking similar to you on here last week and had someone say I was like "Al Qieda"...when I think what he was saying was like "Al Qieda". It's interesting sometimes that the very people that are the accusers are actually the guilty ones. The Taliban and Al Qieda don't want anybody to think like themselves. They want people to conform to their agenda. Sound familiar?

  • Vince
    Feb. 16, 2009 5:35 p.m.


    I'm just doing a double take ---

    Back in November, Elder L. Whitney Clayton stated the LDS Church does not oppose civil union or domestic partnerships.

    Source: msnbc

    He said the church "does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships," that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights.

    In fact, I remember, back in the day before Prop 22 was taken to the polls, spokespeople on behalf of defining marriage "between a man and a woman" standing in cultural hall meetings and emphatically emphasizing that "the policy was they were not against same-sex unions, as long as they do not call it marriage."

    Seems like sometimes some of the very followers who follow the guidelines of policy and take the pulpit to the voting booth want to backtrack on previous statements.

    People, if you will steadfastly follow every principle and vote "your independent conscience" as you claim you will, why do we pick and choose which statements of general policy we take to the booth and which we want to backtrack?

  • Michaelitos
    Feb. 16, 2009 5:42 p.m.

    @Reality Check
    I cannot believe that you compared a simple moral value to "Al Qieda or Taliban". That is an unfair, blatant LIE. There have been no threats, no acts of menace. No one posting here has espoused a violent agenda. In fact, the person who seems the most angry is YOU! So stop hurling shameless accusations and join the debate ethically.

    The opposite of "forcing values on others" is moral relativism, which I reject as bad for society. When you ask yourself "how would you like it if someone did that to you?" You are appealing to some kind of standard of behavior that you expect the other person to know about. Where do you think that standard originates?

    George Washington, in his 1786 Farewell Address said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars."

  • Chrissy
    Feb. 16, 2009 5:55 p.m.

    Thank you Mr. Huntsman.....I have a dream.....

  • Michaelitos
    Feb. 16, 2009 5:57 p.m.

    How embarrassing. I hit the wrong key. George Washington's Farewell Address was delivered in 1796. Please pardon the correction.

  • Chrissy
    Feb. 16, 2009 6:00 p.m.

    to: Reality Check Thank you, my thoughts exactly. You rock!

  • It was someone previously
    Feb. 16, 2009 6:02 p.m.

    that compared the moral value to me! They had it the opposite way (in my opinion)...they were saying that because we feel that gay people should have equal rights that we are like the Taliban! How does that figure? We are using just the idea that because some religions think people should "conform" to them as being like the Taliban (because the Taliban wants everybody to conform to their way of life )...not saying that religion is violent like them! (Well, not usually, but there are a few notable exceptions to that too).

  • Go Guv!
    Feb. 16, 2009 6:11 p.m.

    Let's hope that Governor Huntsman represents the new face of the Republican Party. The national party should learn a lesson from him.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 16, 2009 7:48 p.m.

    As a young man preparing to go on an LDS mission I am proud of Huntsman on his stance.

  • TJ Gilliman
    Feb. 16, 2009 8:57 p.m.

    Decide What You Want wrote: "Wouldn't legal recognition of domestic partnerships (and preferably MARRIAGE) tend to discourage promiscuous behaviour that you are condemning?" (You know very well it wouldn't.)"Isn't that one of the legitimate purposes of marriage vows?" (Since marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN, you are intelligent enough to know the answer to this aren't you?)

    No Name previously wrote: "Your effort to point a boney finger at homosexuals whithers when actual health statistics are considered. So, what was your point, again?"(I respectfully ask that you read my previous comment again for your answer.)

  • Republicans are so Backwards
    Feb. 17, 2009 2:00 a.m.

    "would threaten marriage and religious freedom."

    How? Religion has the right not to accept gay marriages but the State does not. This is not a Taliban government who chooses what is socially correct or not.

    The civil rights movement is not threatening religion it is asking the State for equal rights for ALL.

  • RE: Lost my support
    Feb. 17, 2009 2:12 a.m.

    "If we allow homosexual marriage, how long before extremists start demanding incestuous marriage? Plural marriage? Marriage to children? Marriage to farm animals? It never ends....."

    Gay rigths are extremists? lol Well, except for FLDS marrying under age girls I haven't seen any news of marraying farm animals or children... where did you read that from the Mormon Times?

    BTW don't get yourself plural marriage is alive and kicking in Utah.

  • @TJ Gilliman | 8:57
    Feb. 17, 2009 7:12 a.m.

    And you conveniently cut off the first sentence of that comment: "Unprotected sex can spread disease - period."

    You tried to vilify homosexuals for spreading disease when ALL unprotected sex can spread disease, regardless of the participants gender. Your original post was an effort to spread fear and hate when facts and data show that it is an argument built on sand.

  • wer
    Feb. 17, 2009 11:58 a.m.

    Those who think the governor's stance is somehow is good for marriage doesn't understand what's going on in other state legislatures in the US.

    Recent court decisions in CA, Connecticut, and Massachusetts have made clear that providing benefits to same-sex couples, no matter how minor and even if accompanied by statement of intent meant to protect marriage, will be treated as evidence that the legislature does not object to redefining marriage.

    This effort just masks the "Utah Equality" groups real goals. Much their name. It would be more accurately called, "We want any behavior, any time, and it we don't like the democratic process, we will intimidate and threaten until we get it!!!"

  • TJ Gilliman
    Feb. 17, 2009 4:44 p.m.

    To the unnamed person who responded to my comments this morning: I am so sorry to learn of your distorted logic. Are you Governor Huntsman?

  • to Gilli-dude
    Feb. 17, 2009 6:29 p.m.

    in reading your comments and the posts responding to you - it seems pretty clear that you are the one with the distorted logic.

    In the response to your post(s) he/she points out that all unprotected sex can spread disease. They also pointed out that when health statistics are taken into account that the majority of STD's are contracted through un-protected heterosexual contact. This has been presented as a direct result of the importance of using safe-sex practices among the homosexual community. To further their case/logic they also cite the AIDS epidemic in Africa where the overwhelming majority of cases are among heterosexuals.

    Their logic is clear in stating that disease can be transmitted by all sexual contact and that homosexual contact is not the lone vehicle for transmission of disease which is what your original post appears to suggest.

  • TJ Gilliman
    Feb. 18, 2009 5:33 p.m.

    Governor Huntsman: How is the damage control working? Next time, choose those who are not afraid of identifing themselves.

  • To TJ Gilliman
    Feb. 21, 2009 2:26 p.m.

    I have been reading through the comments posted here and I don't understand your posts.

    Others have posted information that clearly shows your original post to be your personal opinion. You never respond to the information put forth in those responses, but instead insinuate that the responses are from Governor Huntsman.

    So, instead of a response to the information put forth by others, you deflect without ever backing up your original claim and try to attack an individual (Huntsman). This is a typical tactic and modality used by those that try to put forth individual opinion as somehow being fact.

  • TJ Gilliman
    Feb. 21, 2009 4:04 p.m.

    Although you did not identify yourself, I do thank you for taking the time to respond. Please understand, however, that I am not the issue here. Governor Huntsman's stance on "civil-unions" is.

  • Validated My Comments
    Feb. 22, 2009 1:37 p.m.

    Your response has validated my comments. You still have not responded to the information provided by others in relation to your original post. If I were to identify myself - your actions have shown that you would again deflect and attack me as you have Governor Huntsman.

    As quoted in the article, "He said, 'I've always felt that way. I've stated my position before and this is the first time it's been publicized,' " Waddoups said, adding he told the governor he knew that was true.

    Huntsman has not changed his position regarding Civil Unions and Senator Waddoups confirmed that with his statement. If you are just now realizing that, don't blame the Governor for your lack of research and due diligence.

    Contrary to the comment in your latest post, yes - you are in fact the issue. Your attempt to villanize a group of individuals by trying to pass off your personal opinion as fact is in reality slander: "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report."

    It is impossible to have a dialogue with someone that refuses to discuss facts and data, but spouts false and defamatory comments based on nothing but their own opinion.

  • Arlene Gordon
    Feb. 23, 2009 7:44 a.m.

    I can't help but wonder who or what financially supports Gayle Ruzicka, her family, and all her followers who fill up the legislative meetings in order to keep out people who don't agree with her. Do they have jobs? Please tell me my taxes don't support them.
    Why does she have so much power? Why are people afraid of her? She is nothing more than a modern day Madam Defarge.

  • FREE TO CHOOSE
    Feb. 27, 2009 11:44 a.m.

    Way to go, Gov. Huntsman. People should be free to do what they want as long as they aren't infringing upon the rights of others. Some religions might see it as a sin, but it's all relative. Drinking is a commandment in some religions and a sin in another. I'm glad Huntsman has decided not to impose his personal religious beliefs on his constituents.

    All people need protection. This is a complicated subject. People on both sides have made good points, but in the end freedom and protection must prevail.

  • Beasleysbrother
    April 18, 2009 9:38 p.m.

    This governor seems to get it! There is not a threat to your marriage if Tim and Jim commit to a monogamous marriage. For crying out loud, he is being a man of principle. Not Karl Rove.