NOM BLOG

In New Hampshire, Jon Huntsman Says He's Okay With States Redefining Marriage

 

Wrong answer:

[GOP Presidential Candidate Jon Huntsman] answered about a half-dozen questions from students, including one about his position on gay marriage. Huntsman said states should be able to "determine what they think is right," and he supports civil unions for same-sex couples.

"I am in favor of civil unions, and not everybody agrees with me on that," he said. "But I think there's such a thing as equality under the law." -- Concord Monitor

Meanwhile, Huntsman risks being upstaged by his daughters, who recently created this satirical music video in support of their father's bid for the nomination:

18 Comments

  1. ResistSSA
    Posted December 2, 2011 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    Boy, there must be a lot of homosexual money out there that these guys are so afraid to take a stance on this issue. Unbelievable that saying that marriage IS the union between a man and woman and that it should remain defined that way is a risky statement.

    1. Proclaiming that states should be allowed to do what they want is a cop out.
    2. A candidate's personal opinion that he supports civil unions is just that, a personal opinion; it is a non-commitment. Whether he will act in accordance with his opinion or not is not clear.
    3. "There is such a thing as equality" is a statement of fact, nothing more.

    Eff this guy; typical politician. If he's going to campaign with this sort of crap, then I'm going to vote on the way he looks: like a big wussie Liberal. No wonder he's at the bottom of the heap.

    I'm back on board with Michele Bachmann.

  2. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted December 2, 2011 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    Regarding the video: the best way for Republicans to lose this election is to start taking shots at each other, as this video does. I hope the other candidates don't follow suit. They can distinguish themselves from the other candidates without making fun of them. Reagan's so-called "11th Commandment" is never attack another Republican.

  3. Juan
    Posted December 2, 2011 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    "Proclaiming that states should be allowed to do what they want is a cop out."

    Well mate the 10 amendment of constitution states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

  4. Louis E.
    Posted December 2, 2011 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    That there is "equality under the law" doesn't mean it applies in any way to the claims made to justify treating the formation and maintenance of same-sex and opposite-sex relationships equally under the law.Only the existence of the latter serve the public interest and only they are usefully granted legal recognition or protection.

  5. DAVIDE
    Posted December 2, 2011 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    i agree that civil unions should not be given to same-sex couples regardless of sexual orientation. However wasnt MOM a supporter of the civil unions bill in NH? Have you seen the light and recognized you error? I am confused

  6. ResistSSA
    Posted December 2, 2011 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    Civil unions = stepping stone to same-sex marriage. Using civil unions as a stepping stone to marriage was "Plan A" until homosexual activists achieved success on full-blown marriage. But make no mistake that civil unions are still "Plan B."

  7. M. Jones
    Posted December 2, 2011 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    This is/was a man of a great faith, has Mr Huntsman now turned his back on God?

  8. Posted December 2, 2011 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    We must have one national definition of marriage. Huntsman is willing to sacrifice western civilization. No qualification to lead its 1st nation.

  9. Louis E.
    Posted December 2, 2011 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    ResistSSA,the current civil union bill in NH is a step away from their current same-sex marriage law.It takes same-sex relationships into a profoundly different category from marriage and is thus a step forward.

  10. Little man
    Posted December 2, 2011 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    Huntman's opinion is ambiguous. The 10th US Constitutional Amendment provides for the powers of the States, but only what's left over from the Federal powers. This means Congress can pass a law, per Federal benefits and responsibilities of marriage. And Congress can also pass a US Constitutional Amendment defining marriage for all states (that is, deciding which types of couples are to be left out of marriage). This is the system of government. We don't have another choice. Otherwise, we could say that each State can decide to go back to accepting slavery, this time not per the color of the skin, but some other characteristic, such as lack of education (measured by the Dept. of 'Education'). If a person travels 2 hours R/T to go/return from work at minimum wage, isn't that a form of 'slavery'. If an illegal alien works for 1/3 of minimum wage, and sleeps in a hut by the field, and pays taxes, hired by a US citizen (traitor); isn't that a form of condoned slavery? Well, States are already deciding how to treat this modern form of slavery. Slavery it is. When these aliens run from the Border Patrol, carrying $3000 cash in their pockets, they sometimes run from robbers. Can States make their own laws? Yes, but which.

  11. Claude
    Posted December 2, 2011 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    Bravo Huntsman! You are the only decent Republican Presidential candidate.

    A personal story on Same-Sex Marriage. I had a nasty fall on black ice, had a cerebral haemorrhage, a brain operation, temporary lost speech and understanding of what was being said. My husband was the living proof that marriage, same-sex or otherwise, is "for better or for worse, in sickness and in health". He was recognized and respected by the hospital staff as any husband would be.

    Any of you who would deny me to be married to him is working against the teachings of Christ. Don't quote Leviticus, since Leviticus is a bunch of outdated edicts. (Wearing clothes of mixed fabrics is an abomination? Come on)

    Our marriages are perfectly equal where recognized by the law.

  12. Zack
    Posted December 2, 2011 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    @Claude

    So since we shouldn't quote the bible, then would it be appropriate that we should stop quoting the Constitution whenever government sticks its hand where it doesn't belong? I mean show some consistency here, both documents were written centuries ago and were written by people who are long dead.

    I guess since religion is no longer relevant in todays society then why don't we make incest, murder and theft legal? After all these all violate the 10 commandments but are also engraved into our law books.

    I'm all for legal recognition of same-sex unions, but marriage is going to far. It undermines the traditional holy institution, and sends a negative message to children and takes society down a self destructive path.

  13. Zack
    Posted December 2, 2011 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    My whole problem with same-sex marriage is children. The left, the self-proclaimed "champions" of this crusade say that children have the right to be raised in a nurturing home by two living parents and I agree that a two parent home is better than a single parent home. But where I agree with them is also where their argument falls apart the most.

    https://same-sex.web.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf

    Homosexual couples are 50% more likely to divorce than heterosexuals. The source provided shows that same-sex male couples are 1.5 times more likely to file for divorce and female couples twice that. The study also says that younger couples are less likely to be monogamous with male participants reporting to have several sexual encounters aside from their spouse in a given week.

    When children are taken into account, the relationship lasts longer but the end result is still the same. Plus the study also reported that only a small portion within the gay community took advantage of the same-sex marriage laws and tied the knot.

    Now I'm getting ahead of myself here, I'm going to pull back to the point I was trying to make. My point is that there will be a huge displacement of children. 50% more likely to divorce means that the children involved will be emotionally and psychologically damaged. So if this "crusade" is all about couples providing loving homes for children, why do they overlook these facts?

  14. Louis E.
    Posted December 2, 2011 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

    Claude,how horrible that the hospital staff treated your accomplice as if he were a "husband".You were free to give him medical proxy or power of attorney,of course,but any treatment of your relationship as tantamount to marriage is a crime against humanity!
    Anyplace that recognized same-sex marriages as legal must stop doing so.

  15. Publius
    Posted December 2, 2011 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

    Huntsman's position is to the right of President Obama's position. As I understand it, Huntsman would not refuse to defend or try to overturn the federal DOMA, but would leave the remaining issues to the states, including the option of civil unions as each state sees fit. If it is Obama vs. Huntsman, I would vote for Huntsman. If Nate Silver is correct, Governor Huntsman has the best chance of beating President Obama in the general election, but is unlikely to win the nomination. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-03/politics/30353841_1_popular-vote-mitt-romney-approval-rating

  16. Daughter of Eve
    Posted December 3, 2011 at 12:04 am | Permalink

    Claude, with all due respect, you are not a husband unless you have a wife. A wife makes a man a husband, and vice versa.

    But congratulations on your return to good health. That must've been a very trying time for you.

  17. Little man
    Posted December 3, 2011 at 1:36 am | Permalink

    Huntsman is Nobama's puppet runner, to take away votes from the other GOP possible candidates, and someone Obama knows he can beat at the ballot box. Huntsman is not a leader. He's a follower. That's my view.

  18. Little man
    Posted December 5, 2011 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    No, Zack: If same-sex civil marriage is not passed by a State or US Congress, then neither should civil unions for same-sex couples be passed. It has nothing to do with hospital procedures - those can be handled, and anything related to hospitals and so-called 'health' services is under scrutiny, nowadays. There are other ways to handle the privileges and benefits given to friendships - like Domestic Partnership laws. Same-sex civil unions only sets the stage for same-sex civil marriage in any State, and per that State, is marriage under a different name...