2012 Election | Gay Marriage | Jon Huntsman | News | Republican Party

Huntsman Says Redefining Marriage 'is Impossible': VIDEO


This morning on Morning Joe, Jon Huntsman was asked to clarify his thoughts about same-sex marriage and civil unions, which he discussed yesterday at the launch of his 2012 presidential campaign.

Said Huntsman: "I think redefining marriage is something that would be impossible and it’s something I would not be in favor of. But I believe, just subordinate to marriage we have not done an adequate job in the area of equality and reciprocal beneficiary rights. I’ve spoken out about that, my support of civil unions, some people like it, some people don’t."


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Impossible for a plain yellow pumpkin to become a golden carriage. Impossible for a plain country bumpkin and a prince to join in marriage. And four white mice will never be four white hourses. Such fol-de-rol and fiddle dee dee of courses. Impossible! But the world is full of zanies and fools who don't believe in sensible rules and won't believe what sensible people say and because these daft and dewey eyed dopes keep building up impossible hopes impossible things are happening every day!

    Posted by: Jere | Jun 22, 2011 11:23:34 AM

  2. Separate but equal is actually what is impossible. Courts at every level have shown that it is not possible to be separate and equal.

    Politicians that have no knowledge of history - especially recent history - have no business running for office.

    Posted by: MikeBoston | Jun 22, 2011 11:25:27 AM

  3. Jon Huntsman = LGBTQ fail! Are we really surprised?

    Posted by: HadenoughBS | Jun 22, 2011 11:26:55 AM

  4. "subordinate to marriage"? Screw him.

    Posted by: ChicagoRick | Jun 22, 2011 11:27:06 AM

  5. He's a smooth talker. "Reciprocal beneficiary benefits"..."subordinate to marriage"...
    He says a lot and mean so little.
    With that said, I still think this obsession with the word marriage from both the left and the right is unjustified.

    The solutions:
    The government should get out of the marriage business.
    Let all "marriages" be reclassified by the government as "civil unions or partnerships."
    Let the different religious denominations decide whether to allow religious ceremonies in their churches.
    IMHO, I would much rather focus on the substantial rights endowed to civil unions or partnerships that are THE SAME as marriage than BATTLE over one word. Again, IMHO.

    Posted by: Yanz | Jun 22, 2011 11:39:53 AM

  6. Hide and watch, honey. Hide and watch.

    Posted by: The Milkman | Jun 22, 2011 11:40:43 AM

  7. What do you expect? He's a mormon. Do any of you think him or Romney will support gay causes?

    Personally I don't think either Huntsman or Romney will have the support to win. In order to beat Obama they would have to carry the South religious rights people and they won't support a Mormon.

    Posted by: Mac McNeill | Jun 22, 2011 11:41:25 AM

  8. I wish for once - someone,anyone would tell these fools...EXCUSE ME BUT...1000's upon 1000's of TAX PAYING Gay/Lesbian Cpls ARE ALREADY MARRIED / Marriage...NOT Civil Unioned..BUT MARRIED.....and we aint given it back, nor are we going to except 2nd class citizenship!

    Posted by: Disgusted Gay American | Jun 22, 2011 11:41:58 AM

  9. Didn't his Mormon ancestors redefine marriage as polygamy and then redefine it as not-polygamy?

    He must think we are all idiots.

    Posted by: homer | Jun 22, 2011 11:43:18 AM

  10. I'd voting putting redefining in the headline in quotation marks... "redefining" since marriage equality does no such thing.

    Posted by: tc in nyc | Jun 22, 2011 11:48:36 AM

  11. Good grief! We don't want to "redefine" marriage; we just want to get married. This is an "add-to" situation, not a redefenition. Lord these people are snakey in the way they stoke the fake bonfires of fear.

    Posted by: greg | Jun 22, 2011 11:53:41 AM

  12. He should read some history. Marriage has been redefined many, many times. It used to be the transfer of property from one man, the father, to another man, the new husband, with said property being the woman. It's also been defined to include multiple wives, in his own religious history as well as the Bible.

    Posted by: scollingsworth | Jun 22, 2011 12:09:56 PM

  13. @Yanz
    Religion didn't really get into the marriage business until the 16th century. Before that a priest wasn't strictly required. Even the Puritan colonists - who otherwise had a theocracy in America - had secular marriages. Secular, contractual marriages existed in the late Roman Republic already.

    Marriage is a civil institution already and has been for a long time. What churches do isn't marriage. It's a wedding.

    Posted by: Steve | Jun 22, 2011 12:16:29 PM

  14. Exactly, Greg. Look at any word in the dictionary, and there will be a list of numbered entries as possible definitions. When a new definition comes along, it doesn't expunge the old, it is added to the list.

    Posted by: Dastius Krazitauc | Jun 22, 2011 12:38:04 PM

  15. GAAAA! The smug stupidity of these self-righteous zealots is infuriating. They fail to understand either the progression of changes of any relationship over time (including marriage) OR to understand that the one word covers secular/legal/contractual marriage, personal commitment marriage & their precious sacred "Holy Marriage". Religion needs to be removed from the discussion of marriage as a CIVIL RIGHT. "Subordinate" - not a chance.

    Posted by: Rob | Jun 22, 2011 12:53:29 PM

  16. Ok, already he's distinguishing himself as not quite as pro-gay as he seemed on the surface. Marriage equality is not "redefining marriage," but if he thinks it is and says it's "impossible," then he is denying the existence of several US states and all of Canada. I imagine as the Republican primary season continues, and he receives more pressure from the right and keeps using words like "subordinate" to describe gay couples, his moderation on social issues will only be great relative to other Republican candidates.

    @Yanz: Getting government out of marriage, as you suggest, is not a solution. It's not a battle over "the word"; it's a battle over equality. For most straight couples--even non-religious ones--giving up the word "marriage" is a non-starter. And there is no reason why gay couples should demand less than straight couples. Churches need to get out of civil marriage (the only kind of marriage with legal rights attached) because it is not their business who marries any more than it is our business to tell them which marriages they must sanction in a religious ceremony.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jun 22, 2011 1:07:36 PM

  17. I'm sure all the GoProud and Log Cabinites will now line up to suck this mormon's cock. To a gay Republican anything that is not outright hatred is a sign that Republicans are the way to go in 2012!

    Posted by: LAX/JFK | Jun 22, 2011 1:27:08 PM

  18. @Disgusted Gay American: Exactly!! Yet no journalist or pundit EVER challenges our opponents when they make demonstrably false statements like this. It has not been impossible in the U.S. since same-sex couples started marrying in 2004. Yet such statements fit the conservative narrative that gay marriage can somehow be prevented or turned back, so the lie is never challenged or corrected.

    Posted by: Gianpiero | Jun 22, 2011 1:40:56 PM

  19. If it's impossible than there's no justification for fearing it, is there?

    Posted by: Bryan | Jun 22, 2011 2:50:05 PM

  20. Is Huntsman's position really much different than the Gay Left's darling, Pres. Obama?

    Obama's not for Gay Marriage either....

    Posted by: Ted B. (Charging Rhino) | Jun 22, 2011 4:08:19 PM

  21. Wow. I expected the whole "I would respect that" meme to last at least 24 hours.

    Posted by: BobN | Jun 22, 2011 4:09:51 PM

  22. Child I thought these white folks was so in favor of the Gay Community? I guess not..HUH?

    Posted by: Chris DaChocolatebearcub | Jun 23, 2011 1:08:01 AM

Post a comment


« «Sean Avery Wikipedia Entry Edited to Call Him 'Fag Boy'« «