Huntsman stays away from Capitol; Buttars circulates a statement
Thank you Governor Huntsman. You are a great inspiration for all!
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.
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.
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?
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.
Good call Governor. It took intelligence and guts and morality to make the
call. You are a wise man really.
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?
Congratulations to Gov Huntsman for supporting Equality of Human Rights.He is
following the tradition of Utah governors being true leaders, far ahead of
A rational, honest, CHRISTIAN man. Governor HUNTSMAN FOR PRESIDENT.
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.
Jon Huntsman Jr. is a liar! If he said so BEFORE the election, 95% of the voter
will not support him. He knew it!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 governor
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.
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
Thank you Governor Huntsman for recognizing that CIVIL RIGHTS should be
available to ALL citizens of Utah.
RE:Shifty ButtarsOf 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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!!!
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
Should have a GAY marry into your familyYou son or DaughterNow what
are you protesting about?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@ 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.
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
"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?
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
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.
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.
And to think Huntsman could ever make me wish I had voted for Super Dale!
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.
I am disappointed.
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.
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.
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"
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.
I admire his willingness to listen to the current tide of harmony withing
society. He can balance a motorcyle, too.
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.
As far as I know, my family tree doesn't have any gay branches.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
@xscribeYou 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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...
@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.
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.
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.
I think it's time the the Eagle Forum change it's name to "The Evil Forum."
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
---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.
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.
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
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.
-----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.
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.
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?
"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.
"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 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.
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
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
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 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.
@ to Michaelitos 12:31pPerhaps 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?
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.
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.
"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
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.
Note to conservatives: YOU ARE BIGOTS! And, in time, it will be proven that you
are on the wrong side of history.
---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.
Anonymous:"Note to conservatives: YOU ARE BIGOTS! And, in time, it
will be proven that you are on the wrong side of history."Zzzzzzzzzzzz...........
@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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@DonovanAssuming 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.@InterestingYou 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.
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.
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
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
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!
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.
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.
" 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?
"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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
I know who I'll be supporting and voting for in the next primary - anyone but
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.
"I think every PROTESTER | 8:48 a.m. Feb. 12, 2009 Should have a GAY marry
into your familyYou son or DaughterNow 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...
"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?
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 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.
I guess he doesn't plan on running for re-election.
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!
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.
Boooo Gov. Huntsman. I am happy that you did not get my vote. This is a step
down a bad road. Boo,
"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
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.
This show us what happens when you have an arrogant stuffed shirt running
things. The Governor is a fool!
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
I will never, not ever vote for this governor for anything whatsoever ever
"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.
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.
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.
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 HouseRepublic: 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.
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?
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.
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.
@ LDS Proc 12:43pNow 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.
Um, a lot ANGRY people in Utah--and rightfully so.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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!
Keep GAY activism out of ZION!!!
I just love the Governor. He can come to my party anytime.
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
To Laura 6:59 amSorry 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.
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.
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.)
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
Some in Mass. have been punished for holding to their religious beliefs.
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.
one consolation is that this Huntsman won't have any credibility to lead in the
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."
Just want to add my voice and say I agree with the Govenor.
Which propaganda? That video is hilariously bad.
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?
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.
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.
Governor, are you not aware that promiscuous homosexuality is dangerous? You
should be ashamed for promoting this deadly behaviour!
I always though Governor Huntsman seemed like a very reasonable man free from
typical Utah prejudices. Thanks, Governor.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
To Joe Watts,Maybe not, but I'm sure it's full of gay roots.
Bravo Governor Huntsman!
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....
Governor. Finally, you got it right. Just ignore the insults of small-minded
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?
Re: The Voice of the Peoplewhen 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."
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 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?
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: msnbcHe 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
@Reality CheckI 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."
Thank you Mr. Huntsman.....I have a dream.....
How embarrassing. I hit the wrong key. George Washington's Farewell Address was
delivered in 1796. Please pardon the correction.
to: Reality Check Thank you, my thoughts exactly. You rock!
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).
Let's hope that Governor Huntsman represents the new face of the Republican
Party. The national party should learn a lesson from him.
As a young man preparing to go on an LDS mission I am proud of Huntsman on his
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
"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.
"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.
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.
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!!!"
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?
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.
Governor Huntsman: How is the damage control working? Next time, choose those
who are not afraid of identifing themselves.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.