Comments

  1. says

    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!

  2. MikeBoston says

    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.

  3. Yanz says

    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.

  4. Mac McNeill says

    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.

  5. Disgusted Gay American says

    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!

  6. greg says

    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.

  7. scollingsworth says

    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.

  8. Steve says

    @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.

  9. Dastius Krazitauc says

    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.

  10. Rob says

    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.

  11. says

    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.

  12. LAX/JFK says

    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!

  13. Gianpiero says

    @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.

  14. Ted B. (Charging Rhino) says

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

    Obama’s not for Gay Marriage either….

Leave A Reply