When a man turns his back on his religious convictions before God, what trust do
the rest of us hold in any of his words? My vote is now lost to this man
"Jon Huntsman would make a great Democrat," he said.That's what a lot of Republicans have been saying for a long time...
I have long suspected that Huntsman is a liberal. He needs to quit being
disingenuous and switch to the party his values agree with; democrat. His views
do not seem to be in line with either his religion or the republican party. It
won't surprise me if we see him disown the republican party and switch
parties before his next presidential campaign.
My feelings exactly. The only person I will even think about voting for is Ben
Carson if he decides to run. I will never vote for Christie and absolutely NOT
HUNTSMAN. The political system has about done me in as far as voting in the
Huntsman is man of principle and sound reason. The Republican Party will
eventually see the light; many of them are seeing it already.
Very nice job, Mr. Huntsman. A little late, but not bad all the same. For those claiming that he's not abiding by his religion - I
wasn't aware that your religion felt entitled to obligate everyone to live
by your values. I'd like my elected officials to live their
personal lives as per their conscience and their religious values, and allow
others the freedom and equality to do so as well - subject to it not harming
anyone else. I'm sorry that you all seem to find that an unreasonable
expectation, but you're not being persecuted here.. unless you define
persecution as not being allowed to force your beliefs on the rest of us.
He was a good Democrat under the Obama administration. Congressman Matheson has
been able to walk that line and get elected in Utah. That would add another
dimension to the future for this person from the sidelines from this last
election. He could run with Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and others that may run
in 2016 which would start in about a year from now.
funny how so many are so quick to condemn huntsman for what they believe is
going against his religion when that same religion recently counseled its
members against openly questioning other faithfulness.
My dear, loving, wonderful son is gay. I'm so grateful we live now instead
of even a few of decades ago. We still have a long way to go as a society, but
thankfully, good men and women everywhere are realizing gay people are just as
human as straight people. They should have the same opportunities to live and
love as anyone else. Thank you, Mr. Huntsman! Thank you.
Many comments about the homosexual issue ignore the wrench in their argument
that causes us who believe in traditional marriage to oppose gay marriage. The
"wrench" is two-fold: the nature of gender confusion and what actually
can cause it is ignored and pushed aside, and how that confusion will affect the
adopted children of same-sex couples. The whole issue is not a civil rights
issue, as gay rights supporters would have us all believe. It is a civil, and
social, acceptance issue. It isn't about whether homosexuals should or
should not have certain RIGHTS, it's about whether we as a society decide
to ACCEPT homosexuality as moral or immoral, and whether the laws should be
changed, or retained, to match that determination. Those who write people off
that think like me, people who feel that gender confusion is a factor in the
disintegration of the family as a basic unit of society and the overall moral
fabric of the nation, as uncompromising bigots are grossly oversimplifying this
issue and are taking part in an uncompromising attempt to marginalize the
opinions of those who disagree with them.
The belief of discrimination has spread its covetous venom to all facets of
American life.Like the spread of cancer, it's destroying our
@dont tread interesting attempt but yet you provide no proof to your
claims, why is that? maybe because the science does not support such a claim and
the only reason to discriminate have nothing to do with preventing a social
harm? the research is very clear and it does not support your claims of a harm.
I am in favor of granting the same basic "rights" to everyone, regarding
visitation, wills, assets, etc, but don't call it "marriage"
because it isn't. Marriage is between two adults of opposite genders and
involves the opportunity to reproduce and perpetuate the race. Gays and
lesbians cannot do that biologically. While they are committed to their
relationships with each other, that in itself is not "marriage."So since they are biologically different than a married couple, why do
they insist they be together in a "marriage" when it is really a civil
union? Do they feel nature has somehow discriminated against them, and changed
their will and outlook into being someone or something they would rather not be?
Let them be together and let them have all the same legal
protections and rights as others who happen to be married, fully vetted as such,
but don't say they are "married." Aside from the legal rights
(assuming they will now enjoy those same rights and benefits) what's the
need to say they are "married" anyway? Why is marriage
between a man and a woman a stigma? Seriously, just how were they born if not
@tooso the same two things that have been pointed out to you before. One
no where in an state law does it say that a couple must be capable of having
children on their own or otherwise. secondly you can define marriage how ever
you want it does not make THE definition of marriage "biologically" or
@tooThere is one major flaw to your logic, state laws pretty much
universally talk about marriage in terms of the contractual right and
obligations that you say gay people deserve but not one of them says anything
about the need to be able to procreate. what is your need to prevent
them from saying they are married and why is your need any more legitimate then
theirs. I would say they have more of a claim since we already know separate is
not equal and the very fact you want to deny them the right to call it marriage
proves it is not equal or there would be no reason to deny them the right.
@ KalindraHistory (and nature itself) would seem to support my
definition. Not everything a person knows or experiences is
contained in state law. With regard to that, remember what Paul Harvey said:
"Anyone who loves law or hamburger should not watch either being made."
How disappointing. His moral compass has obviously failed.
There are lots of conservatives who already support gay marriage. There was
recently a state senator in Colorado who did a rant about people with religious
convictions or cultural beliefs who support traditional marriage should live in
a nunnery as an example of conservative support for gay marriage.There are lots of conservatives who support gay marriage because it gives them
an opportunity to suppress freedom of conscience, human rights and to promote
their belief on freedom of speech is "You have the right to express your
views, but not the right to keep your job after you've said it."I think that he means mainstream, normal conservatives rather than the
scary law-and-order fringe types.
@Kalindra: While it is correct that no state law says that the couple needs to
be able to have children on their own for it be a marriage, with real marriage,
(between a man and a woman) it is obvious that the couple is capable of
consummating their marriage in a biological meaningful way. Otherwise, you
could marry your golf game or you could marry a duck.(In fact, the
late 1970's, in response to a comment about our state law on marriage,
someone did actually marry a duck as part of a publicity stunt.)
toosmartforyou:So is a marriage between a man and a woman who are
infertile or too old to have children not valid in your eyes?
There are many things that anyone LDS has to live with that we are taught is not
in compliance with the word of God. Alcohol, tobacco, abortion, adultery,
pornography, children out of wedlock, sexual promiscuity, drugs etc. Gay
marriage is similar. I agree that marriage and family is a man and a women.
However this too is going to change whether we like it or not. Does not make it
right just like the other things that we are taught that are not in harmony with
God's teachings. I am not a supporter of Gay marriage but I do agree they
do have rights. As do all. We can not treat them or any others any different.
This like the other things I listed we have to somehow live with it yet know to
not agree. I teach my children to not do these things. I think the world would
be a much better place if we could live these commandments. Not all are willing
to do so. Abortion & Gay Marriage will be debated forever. Till the Savior
comes again we may have to live with worldly things that are not what is best
All the problems our country is facing and this is the one he wants Republicans
to rally around?Really? The reason I will not ever vote
for him is his inability to put the most important and pressing problems at the
top of the list.
Why are we stumbling over ourselves to protect the homosexual lifestyle? Why is
there such a fever to demonize the traditional family and celebrate two people
of the same gender having sexual relations? Does this not strike you as
concerning? This is what's going to save the Republican Party?We need to stand by our basic principles! If we don't stand up for the
traditional family, who will? It seems a mother and father is out of vogue.
It's not trendy to have a mother and father. No. In fact you're a
bigot if you have a mother and a father.I've lost total respect
of Huntsman. He knows what is right. He was brought up by 'goodly
parents' who taught him correct principles, true principles. He
doesn't represent traditional values. As was said in the article, 'he
would make a great Democrat."
Jon Jr's back in the news? Shock me!The most irrelevant
Republican from the last election just can't stay out of the limelight.
Thanks, DesNews for the non-stop, weekly stories. What's in it for you?
I support what Jon Huntsman is saying. His sentiment that his marriage has been
one of the top joys of his life is exactly right and needs to be afforded to
all. He is also exactly right when he talks about gay marriage today
as the equal to Lincoln's issue against slavery. Even though Lincoln
himself felt very ambivalent "towards the black man", "wondered if
the black man could ever be equal with the white man", Lincoln knew it was
wrong to support slavery. All people, black and white, in his mind, deserved
equality. He said it best, in his debates with Douglas, that just because the
"will of the people decide they want slavery does not make it right."
Lincoln was for what was, is, right. Same thing with Jon Huntsman. He will have
my vote every time. He knows what is right.I get a little tired, no,
very tired, of people always bringing religion in to things. Why does it have to
be? I love my religion. But, I do not use it as a crux not to do the right
thing. No religion should ever keep us from doing the right thing.
Are you kidding - I like Huntsman even more now. Too many people (especially
Mormons, as I am one) are too tunnel vision. Let people be true to themselves.
Let God judge them later on. Accept the differences of others. Let them be
happy. Look in our own back yards. Leave the other backyards to the others!
Huntsman wants the gop to change for him rather than him wanting to embrace
there party platform.
Sad to see everyone is a politician. You can't count on anyone to stand
behind their own convictions. Huntsman should come out of the closet now and
say he's a Democrat. No real Republican would ever vote for him.
@taka Once again the fact that a duck or a golf court can neithe rprovide
consent nor legally enter into contracts (which is what marriage is) your
argument is nothing other then another rroneous (and unoriginal) distraction
from the fact there is no ligitimate arguments against gay marriage.
Gov Herbert says he supports traditional marriage. Well, who doesn't?!!!
Bigger minds, secure minds, support marriage without bias.
@tooHow exactly does history or nature back you position? Homosexuality
has existed and continues to exisit throughout nature and at the definitions of
marriage have changed freqently over history and from one culture to another.
Sentinel-You say 'no religion should keep us from doing the
right thing'. Do you know how absurd that sounds?A
religion's purpose is to develop a solid foundation based on truth and
right. Here's something from the scriptures, "...a foolish man, which
built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and
the winds blew, and beat upon the house; and it fell'. Religion,
specifically Christianity, teaches us that when we follow worldly views, like
gay marriage, we have a weak foundation, or, in other words, we've built
our house on the sand. Instead Christianity teaches us to have a solid
foundation, one built on solid principles like traditional marriage.Here's another. '...men are free according to the flesh...and they
are free to choose liberty and eternal life,...or to choose captivity and
death.' In other words, choose right or choose wrong.Now lets
look at what's right and wrong. Traditional Marriage? Is that right? Or to
support the gay lifestyle by allowing them this sacred right? How solid is your
foundation? We as a society must decide what is truly right.My vote
is for traditional marriage.
@ KJB1No, if they are a man and a woman certainly they may be
married. Not every hetrosexual couple is fertile or capable of reproduction.
Often one doesn't know until after marriage. But they are together in such
a fashion that allows it in normal relationships.The gay couple, on
the other hand, are never capable. Children need, according to the reasearch
I've read, both a father and a mother. Broken homes are not the answer,
either, just like cohabiting consenting adults of the ssame gender are not
generally the best choice for parenting a child. There are exceptions
certainly, and I understand that, like I understand the need to allow persons to
live with whomever they choose, love whomever they will, and have the same legal
protections as anyone and everyone else. But that isn't a
"marriage." Marriage is between a man and a woman and centuries of
history in countless cultures says that.Link up however, but
don't label it "marriage." If you get the legal benefits, why do
you need to call it marriage? What about "civil unions?" Significant
Other seems to be OK for most folks- why the stigma to it?
Too many spoiled Americans whining, and feeling sorry for themselves. As a
nation, we don't know what suffering is We haven't seen
toosmartforyou, "Link up however, but don't label it
"marriage." If you get the legal benefits, why do you need to call it
marriage? What about "civil unions?" Significant Other seems to be OK
for most folks- why the stigma to it?" Good grief. Why not call
It's about time a conservative stood up for what's right. This man has
the courage to speak the truth. May God bless him.
@toosmartforyou. if your assertions are true, then society should now allow
divorce and any man that fathers a child should be forced to marry the mother of
that child. That's what is best for us, right? Does anyone reading the DN
know what equal protection under the law means? Separate is not equal.
@jasonlivy"Why is there such a fever to demonize the traditional
family and celebrate two people of the same gender having sexual relations?
"Not at all. Heck I want to get married to a woman someday and
have kids. I want to have a traditional family. Nobody is demonizing traditional
families. What they are opposing... is the demeaning of those who aren't in
a traditional family. They oppose the idea that only a traditional family is
acceptable." In fact you're a bigot if you have a mother
and a father."That... I have never seen or heard anyone make
that claim before. ""He was brought up by 'goodly
parents' who taught him correct principles, true principles. "People don't take issue with this kind of talk because of any hate for
traditional families... they hate that you're demeaning their families.
This guy belongs to the wrong party.
Does anyone read history? Has any civilization that departed from the norms that
BUILD society ever lasted more than a few measely generations after adopting the
variance?Pick the reason you WANT but stick with it. Think LONGER -
what are you trying to accomplish with the change, comment, or stance?"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it",
Why should or would any conservative, against carved-in-stone religious dictates
and conscience, take the lead on fast-forwarding gay marriage?
Given how unstable male-male marriages are going to be, our divorce rate should
"It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". Is there a
higher power as acknowledged by Alcoholics Anonymous or has man (or woman)
become God? The various religions look to Scripture for guidance. I am not so
sure that the tv media counts as a type of scripture. We all have to believe in
respect for the rights of all. However, a society will not survive without
standards of conduct which are woven into our legal system. This is all about
world socialism and one rule of conduct which will be accepted by all and the
obliteration of separate religions into one based on democratic belief. Mr.
Huntsman was Ambassador to China. This means that he "swam" in the
"Big Boys Pool" with those who wish to instigate this world government
and world religion. His opinions should be seen and evaluated within that
Huntsman is someone definitely who I don't ever want to vote for. Marriage
is between a man and woman. I think Huntsman will bend to any wind that comes
With Republicans like Pete Domenici, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford,
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Larry Craig, and many others providing the model of
traditional marriage, why would anyone worry about whether John Huntsman
supports Gay Marriage? Don't you have enough publicity regarding the
GOP's real vision of traditional marriage?
Huntsman waa soundly rejected in the primaries. He is a Democrat at heart and
many saw through his charade. He is carrying a grudge and wants to do as much
damage to the republican party as he can before he defects to the Dems. He needs
a jumping off point and this just may be it. Whenever that happens I say Bon
Favoring the Government to define "Marriage" makes as much sense as
favoring the Government to define "Baptism". We need to strip the
religious term "marriage" from the laws. The proper role of
governments, as described in the Declaration of Independence, does not contain
any explicit provisions for domestic partnerships.
My biggest problem with gay marriage is that as soon as it passes some will seek
to force churches and other groups to perform or recognize marriages against
their principles.A better solution is to allow civil partnerships.
Society benefits from people living together and forming an economic unit.
However, there should be no requirement that those people are sleeping together.
Two straight single women who chose to live together or a single mother, her
child and her mother acting as a single economic unit provide the same societal
benefit. If they care for each other and provide economic support, they should
have the same protections. If grandma has lived with helped raise a child, she
should have rights to visitation just like a gay man who has helped raise his
partner's children. While civil partnerships would help
prevent people from enforcing their views on individuals, it would also prevent
individuals from forcing their views on groups. My church and your church can
marry whoever they want and will not have the government being used to push
someone's agenda on either side. The great thing about freedom is that it
works both ways.
He's jumped the shark.Political life has become more important than
Is it any wonder that God fearing Constitutional fiscal conservative liberty
loving patriots have left the Republican party? Of course, ask someone in
either party what the above mentioned terms mean and you will get a melange of
answers that leaves you in tears of laughter! It is the only way to start the
I think saame sex marriages or civil unions will be approved by the courts in
the near future. If the courts decide, their interpretaions will be narrow in
scope, but broad in application. They will create precedents. If these
marriages or unions are defined by legislation, then protections can and should
also be created at the same time for those who do not support same sex marriages
or unions. Huntsman has it partially right. Allow the same sex unions, but
more importantly legislate protections for those who do not approve of
homosexuality. If not, soon those who oppose homosexuality will be the ones
fighting for their rights, and will only have legal precedents that will work
against them, and no legislative rights for protections. Shortly we will be on
the other side of this issue, and not be in a good position for legal recourse.
Sorry John. I am going to support traditional marriage between a man and woman
because that is what God wants marriage to be (as stated in the proclamation on
Is a Mormon's responsibility to fight against federal and state laws
allowing gay marriage? Or just to believe that people can't return to live
with God if they break the law of chastity?
Huntsman's comments are very disappointing and if he runs for President
again, he will definately not have my vote!
I have not supported the Republican party for Years and also not supported the
Dem party for even LONGER. May they both go away.
@Big Bubba"Sorry John. I am going to support traditional
marriage between a man and woman because that is what God wants marriage to be
(as stated in the proclamation on the family)."Go ahead, tie
yourself to books that are shoved down your throat. Can you make this
dissertation yourself without someone's words or book?John's doing a good thing. It doesn't matter what you believe or
what I believe. What matters is that everyone gets equal rights and freedoms in
this country. Nobody will agree with everything and they never have. But the
principle of freedom and equality should stand.
Is there anyone of us on this site who wasn't required to secure a
"Marriage Licence," from our respective states prior to getting married?
First of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the parties and
the State. The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract. The
husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties. The Secular Contract is a
three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as
the other. The state's marriage license is "strictly secular." The
State regards any mention of God as irrelevant, even meaningless. Marriage is a
covenant between the husband and wife and God with husband and wife joined as
one. Marriage is a strictly secular relationship so far as theState is
concerned and because it is looked upon as a "privileged business
enterprise" So, when it comes to Same Sex Marriages, it is
pointless to argue about gospel standards, they don't apply, as far as
Satan is concerned. If we have a contract with the state, then we cannot
refuse, or in other words, we have no legal or moral argument against Same Sex
re:MugabeNot sure what your point is but the reason prop 8 came
about in California is because The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
felt it was an important enough issue to fight for. Of course marriage is a
state thing but it is also - and more importantly - a spiritual thing which is
the foundation of the family unit in society and eternity.
I thought that there were no reasonable republicans remaining in this country.
It's good to know that at least one man is willing to stand up to the know
nothing GOP/Tea Party. A republican that believes in science and equality just
may get my vote. Thanks Jon Huntsman, you have restored my faith in humanity, at
least for today.
I hope society evolves to a position where government removes itself from
defining and/or regulating relationships between consenting adults altogether.
It's not the proper role of government.
Is it too hopeful to believe the Huntsmans of the GOP will eventually displace
all the professed "true conservatives" pandering to an aging,
ever-shrinking base? I had a sort of affection for Mitt, but it was almost like
affection for a puppy. He was a pleaser, or, to put more of a point on it, a
panderer. I want to elect someone who's not afraid to defy the more staunch
members of his party and take a stand he knows will alienate a lot of people who
may otherwise support him. Don't say what you think will maxmiize your
votes . . tell me what you really think.All of you moaning about
faith, God, and moral compasses are losing. You'll soon be in the ol'
folks' home, and able to complain to each other all day about today's
wicked generation and reminisce about the good ol' days. Bye bye.
@ sovereign joeSo prostitution should be legal?
Here is a question for all to answer: What are your reasons for wanting
governments to continue regulating marriage?
BRAVO for you, Mr. Huntsman! You were the only one in the Republican field of
candidates who I could ever have considered voting for in the last Presidential
election. This is an issue that the Republicans will need to come around on, if
they want to win a national election again.
The GOP may not “Go Gay” anytime soon … but eventually
they’ll have to come to grips with the fact that vilifying Gay Americans
is no longer a vote-getter for them. Back in 2009 a CBS News survey found that
while only 18% of Americans over the age of 65 supported marriage equality for
Gay couples, 41% of American under the age of 45 supported it. That was FOUR
YEARS AGO, and the generational shift in attitudes among young people toward
their Gay friends and family members is accelerating.30 years ago
most Americans were not aware of any Gay friends, family members, or co-workers.
Today most Americans ARE aware, and they have become dramatically more accepting
and supportive of the Gay people and Gay couples in their lives. And social
networking sites like Facebook have made the proverbial "closet"
virtually obsolete. The Republican Party ignores this growing acceptance at
their own peril. The economy is important, yes... but your friends are PERSONAL.
The rights of a child should always be our highest priority. Interesting
article from the Witherspoon Institute on how the French feel about a
child's right vs. the right to a child. And the fight for a child's
right to both a mother and father is coming from both gay and straight citizens.
"Lessons from France on defending Marriage," written by
Robert Oscar Lopez at www.thepublicdiscoure.com is very interesting. (January 14, 2013.)
Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman that has existed since man and
a woman was created. If any other type of marriage is created it defies all the
morals of our society and will face certain rejection by our living God. Our
nation is at a turning point in its future. Will it remain a nation of
established moral and sustaining values or will become a nation of anything and
everything goes. A nation that would be living in a shattered and fractionized
society with ever-changing values that at best would be confusing and
unsustainable for our children. How can we cure discrimination by
discriminating? How can we support a United States by a Divided States? How can
we leave a legacy by destroying a legacy? There are some in this nation that
believes that it is acceptable to change society even though it goes against the
foundation of the founding fathers and more important God himself. It will
simply not work. God and time will prove this out. Mr.Huntsman has proved that
even rightous men can enfluenced by political correctness. Sincerely, Trenton
@Valfre,"Go ahead, tie yourself to books that are shoved down
your throat. Can you make this dissertation yourself without someone's
words or book?"I don't tie myself to anything religious
unless I have a strong spiritual conviction of its truth. In fact, I have
written a dissertation and have a PhD. I am educated, have published several
articles in peer reviewed journals, and have written a science book, yet I also
have spiritual convictions which tell me John's position is contrary to
gospel truth. You don't have to accept my viewpoint, you only
need to acknowledge it and realize that, among those who support traditional
marriage, there are independent thinking and educated persons.
I don't claim to know what the law says we can and can not do in regards to
marriage, but I am one who does oppose gay and lesbian marriage. This is not
because I am prejudice or am trying to discriminate because I'm not, it is
because I believe in a higher law. In the scriptures God joined Adam and Eve
together as husband and wife and commanded them to multiply and replenish the
earth. He never any where joined a man to a man or women to a women. Nor did He
make it possible for them to procreate together. I know their are many of you
out there that don't believe in God or maybe just choose not to follow his
commands, but for me it is important that I do so. And until He changes those 2
things in my mind marriage will always be between a man and a women.
Political chameleon.Will basically do or say whatever it takes to
gain power and authority over others.I guess we know where a man
stands when he stands in direct opposition to his God he supposedly believes
in.These days you don't even have to bother mingling it with
scripture. People are so blatantly lost you can just overtly say without
needing to obscure it.
@twspears6007"Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman
that has existed since man and a woman was created."Really? So
caveman were practicing marriage and following commandments given by God? They
knew the definition of marriage?
Thank you, Mr. Huntsman. A wise and courageous standpoint. Some countries have
had gay marriage now for ten years. None has collapsed. These gay couples (all
by all a small minority) now enjoy the rights and obligations of any two persons
who love each other and are committed to each other. None of us has the right to
deny them this.
@Anti Government"I guess we know where a man stands when he
stands in direct opposition to his God he supposedly believes in."How do we know where a man stands when he follows a God who is consistently
changing revelations and policies?
It takes a truly nimble mind to convince oneself that allowing two adults to
marry if they wish is somehow discriminatory. The term "backwards"
doesn't do that kind of thinking justice.Just because something
has traditionally been a certain way is a lousy reason to fight against change.
In debates about pretty much everything, just strike "well, that's
always the way it's been done" from your vocab. Any social change is
and always has been accompanied by howls from sour-faced traditionalists who
think the sky is falling. They seem to frequently cite God's will as their
beacon. You're a cliche scared of things that seem odd to you, and
you're becoming more and more irrelevant every day.
Fine for the Governor to express his opinion. But wasn't he the one that
prosecuted the poor polygamists in Southern Utah? If he's for "marriage
equality," why not fight for the polygamists instead of prosecuting them?
Why is it that only homosexuals are interested in marriage anymore? More and
more heterosexuals are opting for live-in relationships and quick
"hook-ups" I am against gay marriage, but what group of people is
actively defending and promoting marriage? That would be the homosexuals.
There are two issues involved in this discussion.1. The legal status
and definition of marriage.2. The religious status and definition of
marriage.Most of the commentators about this article seem to be
focusing on the second issue, the religious aspect, and many of the comments
imply that their religious definition of marriage should become the legal
definition. If we had a theocracy government, that viewpoint would be proper.
But we don't have a theocracy government. Legal definitions of what ever
should not be based on religious teachings. Legal definitions should be based on
the role of government as defined by our Constitution. And, as far as I know,
the Constitution does not authorize government to define what marriage is and
what it isn't. Government should be concerned about civil relationships
between people, not about defining what marriage is and isn't. So, to all you who give religious reasons for defining marriage, do you really
want government to say what marriage is and isn't? Do you really want
government to institute laws enforcing your particular religious views? If so,
then you really want a theocratic government not a Constitutional government!
Republicans who consider Huntsman "not one of us" because of this are
exactly the reason why their party lost so badly last November.Huntsman is still the same on fiscal responsibility. He simply wants to
include more Americans in his position. Is his approval of gay marriage in
opposition to his religion's teachings? Absolutely.But if
he's going to be a leader in America, he needs to step outside those
teachings when they conflict--as polls show--with what the growing majority of
Americans feel. That's what's required of a leader, and if you want
to live a full Mormon life to the letter, then don't expect the rest of
America to automatically approve.As a lifelong Democrat, Huntsman
was the one Republican I would seriously have considered voting for. That
he's seen as a pariah by many Republicans shows what little chance (again,
based on last November's election) they have to win in our evolving
America.And as for Wright's statement that it's the
"over-50's who vote"--excuse me? Wasn't it the young
people's vote that turned things around for Obama on Nov. 6?
We'll stand for the sanctity of marriage, Jon. If you want to join with us,
great. If not, adios to you and the horse you rode in on. You've become
increasingly shrill and annoying, except to the media.
All this fuss about whose relationship the government can require you to file
paperwork for.If a state or local entity wants to recognize any
number of relationships, that's up to that entity and the people within.
But I am still not convinced that recognizing some relationships have the
potential to produce offspring without the assistance of a third party
(marriages, traditionally defined), and some do not, is an act of bigotry.
Civil marriages do not exist to declare mutual affection. They exist for the
state to keep track of where the next generation MIGHT be produced. (To see if
offspring actually will be produced is overly intrusive.) Outside of this fact,
there is no compelling interest for a governmental entity to be in the business
of registering relationships. Calling another relationship marriage both
ignores this point and also ignores basic biology.Any number of
relationships could be recognized as equal under the law. This does not make
them identical, nor does it mean they should use the same name.
The timing of his announcement is interesting.The Utah Legislature is
gathering all sorts of input on this issue at the moment, even from churches.Was there some ulterior motive here?
"Fiscally conservative and socially libertarian", um, that would just
make him libertarian, but I don't believe he's fiscally conservative.
Never seen anything from him that disproves that he's just another
big-government RINO. "Fiscally responsible" for liberals just means
raising taxes when you want more money to spend on the takers that voted you in.
The marriage license bestows the State with the legal right to decide the fate
of the husband, wife and the possessions they procured during their marriage,
should the marriage fail. Their divorce must now be decided by and through the
States Corporate Court by a Corporate Judge, and the Judges first and foremost
concern is the “interest of the State.” The interest of the bride
and groom is now secondary. [See: VanKosten v. VanKosten, 154 N.E. 146]. A
comment by the Judge deciding this divorce says it all! “The ultimate
ownership of all property is the State: individual so called ownership is only
by virtue of government, [i.e.] laws amounting to mere use must be in accordance
with law and subordinate to the necessities of the state.” [Also See:
Senate Document No. 43 of the 73rd Congress, 1st Session] and [Brown v. Welch,
U.S. Superior Court].
@Meadow Lark Mark"I think Huntsman will bend to any wind that comes
through."Says the guy who probably voted for Mitt Romney...@RBB"My biggest problem with gay marriage is that as soon as
it passes some will seek to force churches and other groups to perform or
recognize marriages against their principles."Not an issue,
it's unconstitutional to do that and most gay marriage supporters including
myself would stand by your church's right to limit marriage however it
wants (after all, we have religious protections in this nation but you
don't see the LDS church being sued to marry mixed-faith marriages in their
temples).@Big Bubba"I am going to support traditional
marriage between a man and woman because that is what God wants marriage to
be"We're not a theocracy. Find a secular reason (and when
you do send it to the pro-Prop 8 side, they need one if they're going to
win the case).
@patriot"Not sure what your point is but the reason prop 8 came about
in California is because The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints felt it
was an important enough issue to fight for."Elder Whitney
Clayton of the Seventy was the GA in charge of that effort. He himself stated
that members should feel free to disagree on the issue without the fear of
sanction.@Clear Eyes"And the fight for a child's
right to both a mother and father is coming from both gay and straight citizens.
"So since my parents divorced would you have wanted my sister
and I to be placed in foster homes?
@itstime --You said: "Does anyone read history? Has any
civilization that departed from the norms that BUILD society ever lasted more
than a few measely generations after adopting the variance?"Actually, Roman civilization -- in which homosexual relations were common --
lasted for roughly 1000 years. Similarly, in Greek civilization homosexual
relations were common, and often encouraged. And, again, that civilization was
around for something like 1000 years.Have you read YOUR history??
I want to know if all those who want gay marraige to be legal, will stand up for
polygamy or any other form of 'marraige' that someone comes up with?
If not, you are hypocrites?
I'm Arlen Specter and I approve this message.
Huntsman has always ridden the coattails of his father. Without his last name,
he never would have been Governor or CEO of a major corporation. I didn't
like him as Governor. When I met him in person he seemed fake.
It's quite obvious that he recognizes that if you don't back gay
marriage you will never have the backing of 95% of the media. Therefore, no
candidate will ever get a win, unless you buy into the master plan. This is
precisely why media outlets, such as MSNBC, CNN, etc, have given him very
favorable press all these years. They knew he would "come out".
What is the worth of a man's soul? Apparently the hope for a presidential
LVALFRE Chicago ILL. I know more about God than I know about caveman. I wonder
if any cavemen were homosexual. There seems to more evidence that they were
heterosexual than homosexual. They did a good job on procreation. I give credit
to their great wisdom and the absence of political correctness that may have
saved the future of man. Sincerely, Trenton
I am so glad Mr. Huntsman has declared his support and I do hope he switches
party affiliation. He is so right that it is Un-American to oppose the dreams
of our friends, family members and fellow Americans. If he runs in 2016 as a
Democrat, this straight man will be supporting him. The Party Of Lincoln can
change again as it did at other times in our history.
@bandersenI will. As long as everyone is said relationship is a
consenting adult, it's really none of my business. If someone were to
challenge polygamy laws, I would support them.
Jon Huntsman's is correct. It is a conservative principle to limit
government control and intrusion on peoples lives. Keep the Government out of
relationships. Telling people what they can or cannot do is a liberal view not a
I'm so happy to read all of the comments resisting Huntsman's position
here. We can be assured we will have Democrat leadership in this nation as long
as the Republicans continue supporting backwards positions on gay marriage,
immigration and gun control. Really, the Jon Huntsman Jr. types are the only
threat there is to many more years of Democrat leadership.
@twspears6007,So you're sticking to your statement that
marriage has existed since man and woman was created? When we're they
created? What years? What years were caveman around? First humans? Something
just doesn't add up with what we know today and what you're saying.
Cavemen? Huh? Now we're admittedly modeling our moral code on that of
neanderthals. I can't say I don't see the similarities, but I
wasn't expecting someone to come right out and say it. I do view the far
right as hopelessly old-fashioned and unsophisticated, but even I wasn't
literally thinking Stone Age. Apparently I overestimate some of you.The question about supporting polygamy is interesting and requires some
thought. If we were living as LDS folk 100 years ago, we would be fighting for
it, wouldn't we? Social norms shifted . . or more accurately, since
polygamy wasn't the norm in the first place, focus shifted to polygamy.
Something that really should have been private became illegal. Why? US society
overwheilmingly wanted it that way. We face the same situation now, and those
that would've likely been railing against the government for banning the
Godly institution of plural marriage are now dead-set against SSM. Polygamy
isn't immoral in and of itself.
Didn't most of the nay-sayers vote for Mitt Romney?You know,
THE Mitt Romney who said basically the same thing - supporting gay rights -
while Governor of Massachusetts?
The hate and judgement that consumes many of you makes me wonder about your
interpretation of your faith. If you are really who you think you are, or ever
hope to be, you must love and forgive unconditionally. Wasn't Christ
liberal? The conservative narrative that drives parts of this nation is nothing
different than prior to world war two in Nazi Germany.
Let's assume a Mormon became President and he ordered that coffee would
never be served at White House functions. Wouldn't even the most devout
Mormon find that ridiculous, since the White House plays host to people of all
different persuasions?Then why would a Mormon Presidential candidate
not be in favor of gay marriage, even though his religion dictates against it,
when America is home to people of all different persuasions? (And most
Americans enjoy coffee, just as more and more Americans approve gay
marriage.)The principle of right or wrong in a diverse society is
whether or not a victim results. There are no victims in gays being allowed to
marry. Equating it to, say, marrying a child or a dog is a false comparison
since in the latter two situations, a victim *is* involved: neither a child nor
a dog is equipped by age or faculty to make a reasoned decision on marriage.
Two adult gays are.Anyone who feels victimized by gay marriage is
self-imposing that victimhood. It doesn’t exist in law.
And what does God say? Man has lots of opinions. I am disappointed in Huntsman
but I was before this.
to alt134: "....after all, we have religious protections in this nation but
you don't see the LDS church being sued to marry mixed-faith marriages in
their temples)."Not yet.
Interesting that so many people on this forum who call those who oppose gay
marriage bigots and discriminatory are attacking my religion.
As an American citizen, I declare my full support for the right of heterosexual
men and women to get married if they so desire. I will oppose anyone who
threatens the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage.As an American
citizen who believes in equality under the law, I fully support the right of
consenting adults to marry "the one" he/she loves regardless his/her
gender.Mr. Huntsman is being vilified for expressing the most
conservative of tenet, "keep your government away from my private life".
As a citizen you are required to obey the law, pay taxes, and hopefully
contribute to the well being of society. Our love life should not be promoted
nor restricted by governments. Much less, government shouldn't pass laws
based on religious doctrines that represent "a bias" segment of society
and that does not represent the well being of all members of society. Mr. Huntsman, Thank you for the audacity of expressing your believes.
Especially knowing how your fellow citizens of Utah would react.
To Free Agency: "Let's assume a Mormon became President and he ordered
that coffee would never be served at White House functions. Wouldn't even
the most devout Mormon find that ridiculous, since the White House plays host to
people of all different persuasions?"I don't know about
"ridiculous," but the White House belongs to the whole of the American
people. Legal behaviors should apply in those common areas. The family of the
president lives in certain parts of the House that are designated to them while
that president is in office; those areas probably ought to be the only places in
which that president, he or she, could determine stricter and specific ground
rules that apply to their core beliefs.
In this instance, I think Huntsman has a point. I'm becoming more and more
of a libertarian myself, because whenever Super Nanny gets involved in some
issue, they always compound the problem and make it more expensive than ever
imagined. Government needs to focus on the things it SHOULD be concerned with,
like the conflagration of runaway spending, the incalculable public debt, and
stopping the invasion of this homeland. They need to get out of our pockets,
get out of our bedrooms, quit trying to police the entire planet, and basically
get out of our lives as much as possible. Bad people will find ways to be bad
and even self-destruct, but it isn't up to the rest of us to coerce them
and save them from themselves. Churches can concern themselves with matters of
morals and salvation, and let government TRY to do governing right in the areas
where it's SUPPOSED to be involved.
Interesting comment, go tme to thinking --- Religion is all about
being Pro-Marriage - in the eyes of God, etc., etc., etc...What God
sanctions, man and Government can not dispose - OK I get it. BUT -Religion and the uber-religious commentors here remain strangely
silent, never even getting involved in the procedeing of a divorce of
marriage...instead, they leave that entirely 100% up to the Courts [i.e.,
Government] to decide.So which is it?Based on the
divorce example in reverse - If Government alone disolves the legality of a
marriage, then it is Government that establishes the "legality" of
marriage.Keep the religous rites and blessing were they belong, and keep them out of the court rooms.
Apparently speaking against all he knows in order to pander future votes. I
guess we all sell our souls at some point.
Jon Huntsman, Jr has long walked a thin and sometimes unpopular line in his
political life. He accepted the President's call to serve as ambassador,
and is now stating a truly inclusive and fair view on same-sex marriage. In
today's climate, this makes for a huge risk. Politicians who do not pander
to the extremes in their party (where the money is) don't last. Bob
Bennett is another example.Civil Unions allow for a solution to this
whole issue. Government provides a license for this, and religions perform
marriage ceremonies. Marriage is a religious covenant - it always has been.
Government took it over, and it is time to bring it back where it belongs. Too
bad that we don't have more Huntsmans who will stand up and offer solutions
instead of rhetoric.As an active LDS member, an American, and one
who has gay friends, I agree with Huntsman. And I have no trouble reconciling
that with my religious beliefs.
Huntsman has obviously recently been going through the mind altering
re-education camps given to all those who want to advance their careers in the
ranks of the elite politicians, educators, entertainers, corporate and
government leaders who want to be accepted by the mainstream media. It's
the only pathway to the White House.One of the most notable
re-education camps is the National Training Laboratories Institute of Applied
Behavioral Sciences. It has many subsidiaries notably The Stanford Research
Institute. In these laboratories individuals from varying
backgrounds and personalities are manipulated by a 'group leader' to
form a 'consensus' of opinion, achieving a new 'group
identity.' The key to the process is the creation of a controlled
environment in which stress is introduced (dissonance) to crack an
individual's belief structure. Using the peer pressure of other group
members, (other elite politicians), the individual is 'cracked' and a
new personality emerges with new values. The degrading experience causes the
person, in this case Huntsman, to deny that any change has taken place. In that
way, Huntsman was indoctrinated or as some would say, brainwashed without
Huntsman even knowing that it has taken place.
Shouldn't this headline read "Hunstman Finally Admits He's a
Huntsman has this wrong. He used to have it right, supporting civil unions. He
says gays should be able to have relationships - which of course they can - bu
they have no right to redefine a time honored institution (marriage) to suit
@ Gracie 12:24You wrote: "I don't know about
"ridiculous," but the White House belongs to the whole of the American
people. Legal behaviors should apply in those common areas. The family of the
president lives in certain parts of the House that are designated to them while
that president is in office; those areas probably ought to be the only places in
which that president, he or she, could determine stricter and specific ground
rules that apply to their core beliefs" Gracie, we agree 100%.
In the United States should be an area for the legal and secular and an area for
"core Beliefs". The core beliefs areas are: Home and Church The legal and secular areas are: The rest of the United States.And
about your.... "Not Yet". Fear when there is no evidence of harm,
shouldn't be a reason to restrict the civil rights of law abiding citizens.
@Red Wings,I admire your acceptance of gay unions, but I beg to
differ with your implied argument that marriage should be limited to straights
because it's a religious covenant and always has been.Certainly, religions (clergy) have traditionally formalized marriages--but
those marriages could vary widely between the religious concept of "male and
female cleaving to each other as ordained by God" and business transactions,
property transfers, polygamy, etc.And no one, to my knowledge, has
ever complained when two heterosexuals got married in a civil ceremony. It was
still reasonably called a "marriage."In short, marriage
throughout history has been molded to fit the needs and desires of straight
humans--again, with clergy merely officiating. (What better example than Henry
VIII?)Now gays want their opportunity to participate in this
institution. A "civil union" simply doesn't carry the same
symbolic significance.A sign carried by two lesbians at a pro-gay
marriage demonstration says it best: "Life feels different when you're
married."I doubt that statement would mean very much if the sign
had said: "Life feels different when you're civil-unioned."
Lvalfre Chicago Ill Sorry but you brought up the subject of cavemen my comments
on cavemen were to bring in a little humor in the conversation. I admit that I
know little about cavemen. I do know of and believe in the book of Genesis in
the King James Bible. The First Chapter supports that God created this world for
man to have dominion over all things in it including multiplying and filling the
earth through procreation with a woman. I do know that God says that
homosexuality is a sin and man will suffer the consequences of his choices.If
you don't believe in God then Gods Commandments are not of any use to
people who deny his existance. Sincerely, Trenton
@iron&clay:Golly. How many 'scare' quotes and
'alleged' conspiracy 'theories' can one person put in a
single supposed 'comment'? I'm always in favor of providing a
little 'evidence' to back up my 'crackpot'
'ideas.' Maybe I've been brainwashed.* Never been to
'Stanford,' though.Seriously, though, kudos to Gov.
Huntsman for finally coming around. This shouldn't be a big issue in the
2016 race. By then SCOTUS will have overturned DOMA and same-sex military
spouses will have full federal family benefits. Two or three more states will
have voted for marriage equality. Gay marriage will be yesterday's
issue.* But, of course, how would I know?
Gracie : "I don't know about "ridiculous," but the White House
belongs to the whole of the American people. "------------As do all the rights given to citizens by law, per our constitution. If
you are enjoying the privileges of marriage, why would you want to keep other
American citizens from enjoying that same right? Do you think your relationship
is better than theirs? Do you think you and your family deserve protections
that should not be afforded to gays and their families? If you were
to go to court to fight gays from marrying, what would you use for your legal
argument? Religious beliefs are fine for each individual, but facts can only be
used in a court of law. Can you give me a legal, logical reason to deny
citizens to marry the person that they choose?
I'm not sure what Huntsman is thinking (he sure has a liberal mind) but it
doesn't matter if it's fair or how the world looks on it--it's
all about our morals. We must never bend backwards to make the majority happy.
We must remember that this great country was founded upon Christian doctrine and
that this is a country that God prepared for us to be free. But this country
will surely fall apart if we ever stray away from those doctrines.
Jon Huntsman Jr is free to pursue his own new agenda for what ever reason he
chooses which appears to be aligned left unfortunately. I suspect he is floating
this political trial balloon with gay marriage in an attempt to sway some in the
GOP to follow nationally or at least see what response he gets. Look for Jon Jr
to leave the GOP sometime in the next two years (after the GOP rejects him
outright) and most likely register as a Democrat and then throw his hat in the
ring for the presidency once more. I think Jon is going to find himself in
no-mans-land politically speaking. The Democrat's nationally are bordering
on full fledged Communism and I think the GOP will be ruled by the conservative
senate stars such as Mike Lee, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. Huntsman will find
that his attempt to place a foot on both sides of the political fence is a
disaster I'm afraid. This USA is THE most divided and polarized ever since
the Civil War and I suspect that will only worsen thanks to the "great
divider" Barack Obama.
@ twspears6007 1:27You stated your belief in the King James Bible
you wrote:"I do know that God says that homosexuality is a sin and man
will suffer the consequences of his choices".I read the Bible,
the KJB, and other versions, with more or less books, i.e. Catholic, Agnostics
gospels, apocripha.In all my readings I have "Never" read
anything that indicates that "God" condemns homosexuality.Yes, I
have read the story of Sodom and Gomorra, Leviticus, and Romans. But nowhere
"God" says anything negative about homosexuality.Moses
received the 10 commandments from God. It doesn't say anything about
homosexuality. Moses and others added "the Law of Moses" in Leviticus.
Paul as a Jew was influenced by the law even after his conversion.Isaiah 56: 4,5 For this is what the Lord says:“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases
me and hold fast to my covenant—5 to them I will give
within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better
than sons and daughters;"Eunuchs was the term that was used
indistinguishable for castrated men and what we "now" call
homosexuals.I find this interesting.
" We must remember that this great country was founded upon Christian
doctrine "Would that be Christian doctrine that considered only
3/5 of the black population to count and denied voting rights to women as well?
Society advances in knowledge and understanding and so must our
If this is the inevitable, then it is time to discard the term
"marriage" from the legal lexicon altogether and reserve it for private
or religious ceremonies--if those pushing this agenda insist on having the same
legal terminology for any kind of union between consenting adults, then say I am
in a "civil union" for purposes of the law, along with anyone else. Let
the consequences follow. When we use the term "marriage" for
unions of any gender we lose a distinction, traditionally reserved for units
that are fundamental to society as they are where new members of society are
brought into the world. However well-meaning or equalizing we may try to be,
failing to recognize the unique nature and potential of a traditional marriage
will do damage over the long term--not because sociological studies say so, or
that any evidence is currently available to support it, but that changing
marriage's definition will weaken its status as a stabilizing social
structure; and just like removing nails from the supports of a house, we cannot
expect but that a weakened societal fabric will be the result.
Hey even the French have this one right as evidenced in the million person march
against gay marriage and adoption. There people from many different walks of
life came together to protest what is "evidently one thing to degrade
oneself through an unspeakable act against nature, another to institutionalize
that degradation as marriage". About gay adoption a group of French
philosophers asked "In the name of what modernity,they ask, would one
deprive a child of half of his identity construction?" These comments are
coming from as far left as you can go in France. The very term
matrimony derives from the Latin mater,meaning mother. Clearly, a mother is not
the proud owner of a human pet. Society has an obligation to provide children
with real parents and not just pleasure-seeking titleholders.Sometimes I wonder what planet those that espouse gay marriage and thus
adoption are from.
One way or another, the Constitution will either be supported or it will all
come down. It is interesting to watch both Democrats and Republicans to come to
terms with what it means to have 'unalienable rights' and why
States' Rights will return as it originally was intended, meaning this: If
one state wants to define marraige as between any consenting adult, they may do
so; If a state wants to legalize drugs, they may do so; If a state wants to put
everyone on welfare, make the minimum wage $100.00 an hour, they may do so,
etc., etc. Eventually, the real America will emerge in the states that offer
the most liberty and freedom. Both Republicans and Democrats have problems with
control and power, just different issues, and both want to compel each other to
live by their rules and make exuses as to why Gay marraige needs to be the same
for every state, or why every one needs to support standing armies everywhere in
the world, or any other issue. Neither party is concerned about spending, but
one way or another will have to face up to it.
Huntsman has evolved, just as his former boss (Obama). This evolution clearly
has a political motivation, and is not because he really sees this as a
solution.Despite what gay people would have us think, calling their
unions "marriage" doesn't improve the way that anyone sees them. It
won't do away with any discrimination and may actually increase
discrimination. It does affect younger people who have difficulty seeing past
the smoke and mirrors.
If Democrats, Republicans, or Libertarians will get rid of the welfare state,
then I'm more than happy to grant them those individual rights they want,
such as gay marraige, etc under states' rights. You can't have it
both ways, however. You can't ask for Gay marraige, or legalized drug use,
or any other social problem and then want me to pay for the rehabilitation of
drug offenders, psychological evaluations, public mental health counselors, etc.
You can't have freedom without also taking responsibility for the
consequences of the choices you made with your freedom.
Homosexuality is absolutely "unnatural" and against God. You can twist
any subject to make you feel better about what you want to do but doesn't
make it right..what is right is a man and woman being married and procreating
and not woman and woman or man and man.
This article brings out that Huntsman is involved in a "Think Tank".His statement about conservatives accepting gay marriage sounds like the
kind of mischief that one would expect to come out of a "think Tank".
The time has come brothers and sisters to more firmly stand for righteousness,
dignity, and respect without compromise of belief. That last part is kind-of
the most important. ;) This topic only makes me stronger because I know exactly
where I stand and who I follow.
It's only a matter of time before he declares himself a Dumobrat.
He's been a RINO for a long time now.
@ Observator, Patriot, and others who share the same anti SSM position.Guys, please help me out. I really want to understand what you are trying to
say and obviously I'm somewhat slow.When you are talking about
"Traditional Marriage", are you talking traditional marriage in the U.S.
after the European colonizers? or are you talking worldwide historical marriage?
You usually refer to your religious point of view, is that Jewish, Christian,
Budhist, Muslim, or other ?I am asking, because Traditional Marriage
really seems to vary according cultures and religious beliefs.Are
you talking about Monogamy? if it is so, is this Mathriarchy or Pathriarchy?Traditional also could be Polygamy which is condone in the Old Testament
and currently practiced in many Islamic Countries.In Tibet,
traditional marriage could be Polyandry, where a woman marries more than one
men. Usually brothers.There are also arranged marriages, people who
marry for money or social status,Some people are even forced into marriage. All
of them legal and common in our society.Please clarify for me and
may be for others who need to know what is "Traditional Marriage".If you clarify, you may convince me that you are right.
I will NEVER vote for this man. I don't mind civil unions..., but
don't be calling it marriage. Really? You are a member of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?How far off the beaten track we
have fallen. You scare me Huntsman...really, you do.
@suzyk#1Homosexuality is a naturally occurring human variation like left
handedness or blue eyes. Anything that happens in nature is by definition
natural. And how do you know that homosexuality is against god? Is it because a
book written by middle eastern tribesmen thousands of years ago says so? I
don't believe your book should dictate who I should love or be able to
Connect the dots: Obama openly favors gay marriage. Huntsman openly favors gay
marriage. Two socialist Democrats, sounds like to me. Huntsman left
my favor long before he left for China. I would never vote for him for even
dogcatcher! He has also left the values and principles that most Utahns hold
dear, the traditional family unit of a man and a woman as ordained by God in the
beginning of the world! Anything different is opposite to God's plan.
@KJB1:"So is a marriage between a man and a woman who are infertile or
too old to have children not valid in your eyes?"So is a
marriage between a grandfather and his sub-teen granddaughter not valid in your
eyes?How about a mother marrying her son or a father marrying his
daughter. Or a man marrying several women or several men and women? What about
a group marriage full of men and women marrying each other... Or a woman
marrying her pet cockatoo?If one aberration to traditional marriage
is allowed there should be no stopping as to what combinations should also be
allowed. We are better than that. And to keep us better and a civilized
society we need to draw the line somewhere. And that line must be one woman and
one man marriage.
@Tolstoy:"Once again the fact that a duck or a golf court can neither
provide consent nor legally enter into contracts (which is what marriage
is)..."No problem... change the law of contracts. Voila,
problem solved."Homosexuality has existed and continues to
exisit throughout nature..."So has sexuality... Take my pet dog
for example. He wants to mate with every other dog in town. But we humans are
better than animals. I would hope, anyway."...and at the
definitions of marriage have changed freqently over history and from one culture
to another."That's mostly likely why many cultures fail.@sovereign joe:"I hope society evolves to a position where
government removes itself from defining and/or regulating relationships between
consenting adults altogether. It's not the proper role of
government."As someone posted above, marriage is a contract
between three parties - the state, and the two that are marrying. The purpose
of the contract is to secure a family for children and to have a set of laws
that will govern separation on divorce and/or death. Without the contract there
would be chaos.
To Lane Myer: "Can you give me a legal, logical reason to deny citizens to
marry the person that they choose?"There's no point. Many
people here and elsewhere do that all the time. Apparently you weren't
listening. Yet one more "legal, logical reason" to redefine the ancient
family system would be added to the list, and then you could go on asking the
question of the next one with whom you disagree. It's a useless, silly
Mr. Huntsman and I may or may not share political ideas, but on this we agree.
Why? Perhaps what informs his feelings towards backing gay marriages is what
informs mine. His statement on the joy his own marriage has brought him and his
reluctance to see that denied to others, and to do so without judgment, tells me
that, one, he respects others' feelings and sensitivities, and two, he
respects their God-given agency to choose, as we are taught that we have freedom
to do. None here on this board has the right to judge him, either as to his
righteousness or his political purity or lack of either. But I would say, as far
as I can see, he has a good deal of courage.
@Gracie --You wrote: "the ancient family system "Which ancient family system would that be? Would that be the ancient Roman
system, which encouraged homosexual relations and which lasted for roughly 1000
years? Or the ancient Greek system, which did the same? Or perhaps the ancient
Tibetan system of polyandry? Or maybe even the ancient Biblical system of
polygamy -- which included having sex with your wife's servant if your wife
couldn't get pregnant? Plenty of those guys in the Old Testament had
multiple wives, ya know. In reality, there has never been just one
"ancient family system". There have been many family systems over time.
I am surprised that Mr. Huntsman has endorsed gay marriage. That stand is
somewhat left of center; at least he's brave enough to say what he thinks
and what will be an unpopular position with the local Republicans.Maybe he
should consider changing to the Dems party, only because the Republicans are so
very far to the right, he'll never be elected President by them. Or
he could change places with Jim Matheson, who claims to be a Democrat but is
really a moderate Republican.Or how about a moderate party - throw out
the extremists on both ends of the spectrum and get some work done, for
Pete's sake. You could call it "The Get'er Done Party."
In a world filled with extremism, being a conservative isn't cool.
My deepest condolences to his parents....
I read the comments on here and look to my right and see the link to an article
about a bullied teen who committed suicide. How can we as a society eliminate
bullying when we are so hateful on these comment boards?
Just a diversion to keep attention away from the real issues such as -
Removing the 2nd amendment , Granting Amnesty , Our out of control Debt , and
an Economy that is failing Something for the Sheep to think about ,
that really means nothing , now the other stuff , well that's another story
To Mayfair 7:36 a.m. Feb. 23, 2013My deepest condolences to his
to his arents are more in order. They raised a compassionate, courageous,
rational son. Good for them . . . and him too.
Mr. Huntsman is not relevant to this or any other discussion.He
holds no elected office.
Scoundrel: They do not have the God given right to marry the same sex
LValfre: Every one has equal rights. We also have rules and laws that all must
No one should drag religion into a social issue. The lord has made us equal to
one another regardless of life's beliefs. One is lucky in these day and
age to find someone to love and who loves them in return. To those that think
that it' s evil to love someone of the same sex, is listening to
Satan's voice and needs to turn their ears to the Holy Ghost. Our Heavenly
Father will never turn his back on his children, regardless who they are...
So, how about Huntsman coming out in support of polygamy? If you are talking
about marriage in terms of contracts or rights, seems no form of marriage can be
@just sayin 7 --You said: " If you are talking about marriage in
terms of contracts or rights, seems no form of marriage can be discriminated
against."Why not? Our society has no trouble making
or preserving laws against lots of things, **when those things are known to have
significantly bad consequences**. Notably, there are NO known
undesirable consequences to same sex marriages. Lots of hype and hysteria, sure,
but no actual bad consequences.
Carnak--here's a thought for some on the board to chew on: the reason so
many find these boards attractive places to put their comments is that so many
who do so have found that their unmovable and rather prejudicial and one-sided
comments have no other home where their owners are safe from physical and
psychological harm. Were they to be spoken aloud to family,neighbors, or
friends, even fellow worshipers, the speaker would find him/herself with few of
those left, and possibly not enjoying the process of losing them, either. Not a
happy prospect, compared with simply having the written word as a weapon thrown
by strangers on a comments board. And this is why Jon Huntsman and others in the
public eye, those who belong to groups that some love to hate, and others who
are just unlucky enough to belong to the Out Groups of the Decade are useful to
To Theeng2 6:19 a.m. Feb. 23, 2013In a world filled with extremism,
being a conservative isn't cool.--------------------Sadly you're right. In a world of radical far right extremism, being a
true conservative makes the extremists call you a RINO.
Scoundrel: Yes I talked to God. I do it everyday. and His words in the
scriptures tell us what we are supposed to be doing
Huntsman is the future of the Republican party...trying to move left but unable
to outflank the Democrats and losing the Republican base. 2016 is now hopeless,
so breaking up into multiple parties, like an exploding meteorite, becomes a
real possibility for Republicans.
@BaccusDemonstrate that relationships other than those between a
man/woman were referred to as "marriages" at any other time in history,
and then we may have a discussion. Otherwise, your question is a red
herring--and the discussion of "poly-" relationships is a smokescreen.
All of the "poly-" relationships you refer to still involve a man/woman
relationship somewhere...even if plural relationships between one man and more
than one woman (or vice versa), a man/woman relationship was still central.
I think it bears repeating, so I'll ask the question more directly:
Wouldn't we solve the whole supposed "inequality" problem if we
removed the term "marriage" completely from legal terminology? Simply
substitute the phrase "legal union" for the term "marriage"
wherever it shows up in state or federal law. Leave it to churches or
individuals to use "marriage" in the way they see fit.
@observator --You said: "Demonstrate that relationships other
than those between a man/woman were referred to as "marriages" at any
other time in history, and then we may have a discussion. "That's easy. Here's just a coupla quick examples --Same
sex marriages were first recorded during the early Roman Empire period. For more
details, check the book "Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe" by John
Boswell. Nero was the first (notice I say first, not only) Roman emperor to
marry a man. In fact, he had at least three different marriages to men, at least
one of which was celebrated in large public ceremonies in both Greece and
Rome.In somewhat more modern times, Pedro Díaz and Muño
Vandilaz were married by a priest in Spain in 1061, complete with church
documentation.Let the discussion begin!
I believe Jon Huntsman like Charlie Crist would say or be anything to get
elected. He's very dangerous in my opinion. Once again he's proving my
point with this story!
@Sophie 62While I agree with the sentiment of a moderate third party, I
would hope they can come up with a better name than using a catch phrase by a
comedian who created a character designed to be the epitome of white trash
redneck. Add to the fact that so many of his fans, who don't realize
he's making fun of them, also tend to be among the most extreme of the
right wingers, the name loses something. @Furry1993Kudos! Last
two posts were both spot on responses.
@ Gracie,In response to Lane Myer's question: "Can you give
me a legal, logical reason to deny citizens to marry the person that they
choose?", you replied:"There's no point. Many people
here and elsewhere do that all the time."No they haven't.
They've given religious 'reasons'. America promises freedom of
religion to ALL. Some religions are for equal marriage. Lane asked for
"legal, logical reasons", not religious ones.And, the only
other 'argument' I've ever seen (here and elsewhere) is all about
procreation. But procreation is not a requirement of marriage for anyone. So
again, not a "legal, logical reason to deny citizens to marry the person
that they choose".
The California political action taken by the LDS church was the biggest mistake
of their last one hundred years.
one vote: The Church took no action in California prop 8. It was some people
in the Church not the Church itself.
snowman,Nonsense. The Church itself was fined for violations of
non-profit tax codes because of its involvement in Prop 8.
snowman wrote:"Scoundrel: Yes I talked to God. I do it everyday.
and His words in the scriptures tell us what we are supposed to be doing"I talk to god multiple times a day, and frankly, he has never mentioned
you, your Church, or your scriptures.You must be talking to the
Marriage is NOT a civil right, but a religious ritual. Gay couples don't
need marriage any more than they need baptism, communion, or any other religious
ritual. Governments have been wise to promote the religious ritual of marriage
within society at large because of its tremendous advantages in stabilizing and
advancing our civilization from one generation to the next. Gays only want the
label of marriage for their relationships because they want the social stigma of
their relationship erased, and because they have resented their opponents'
view of their relationship as sinful or unnatural. To further remove the stigma
they want to use legal marriage to force agencies to allow them to adopt
children. Maybe Huntsman should adopt out his own children or grandchildren to
gay couples and experiment with his own offspring before subjecting other
children in this reckless social experiment, and he might consider the
ramifications a little more deeply.This Huntsman idiot has just
proven that he has no moral stability, but will change his positions in
whichever direction the political winds blow.
TwistedNerve wrote:"Marriage is NOT a civil right, but a
religious ritual."The laws of most civilized countries says
otherwise. The requirement to get a marriage license says otherwise. The fact
that even in the LDS Church you can't get married in the Temple unless and
until you also get a civil marriage says otherwise.At most you might
say marriage is BOTH a civil right and a religious ritual... but the one is
required by law, the other is optional.Why does that bother you so
How fortunate for us that his campaign went nowhere. Rights ok, but not