Republican Governor supports Civil Unions

Road Dawg · Feb 14, 2009

2012 And Huntsman's Surprise

[FONT=&quot](with reporting from Justin Miller)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. (R) stunned his state when his spokesperson announced the governor's support for civil unions. 70 percent of Utahns oppose civil unions, but their objections won't count against Huntsman who said he won't run for a third term as governor - but they could weigh heavily on a 2012 White House run. <o

></o

> Huntsman is presidential-quality timber. One of the most popular governors in the country, he's smart, has deep pockets that could fund a campaign and he's had a conservative record earned by cutting taxes and slimming government. He is pro-life and calls himself a social conservative. In fact, the Weekly Standard calls him as "impressive as [Bobby] Jindal, though far more moderate." After this week's development Huntsman will live up to the "far more moderate" label. Huntsman was one of the first governors to endorse John McCain in 2008 and stayed with McCain through The Troubles.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]<o

></o

>[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Should he run for president, Huntsman would take heat, just as ex-Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney The Republican base, by and large, is suspicious of candidates who support any legal recognition of same-sex couples. A large plurality -- maybe a majority -- of early Republican primary voters are viscerally uncomfortable with homosexuality and view it as a threat.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mr. Romney was blasted as a false convert to the "pro-marriage" side for appearing to switch his position from favoring civil unions to opposing them. Romney said he supported neither arrangement for gays but preferred civil unions if he had to choose; he was pushed into weighing in on the issue because of his state's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage during his term.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Huntsman might have it worse: he is choosing to take a position on the issue without being pressured to. "Pro family" groups have accused him of betraying conservatives by embracing civil unions after campaigning against them in 2004 when he ran for governor and said he supported Utah's constitutional amendment outlawing unions and marriage for gays. Huntsman hasn't yet explained his mind-change in detail.<o

></o

>[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The bill Huntsman endorsed has little chance of passing the conservative Utah legislature.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Beyond civil unions, Huntsman also threw his support behind a bill to allow two unmarried, co-habiting adults to sign a "joint-support declaration" to gain inheritance rights and medical-decision making decisions for one another, as well as a bill to outlaw employment and housing discrimination for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]<o

></o

>[/FONT]
If the Republican Party has a civil war in 2012, Huntsman may be laying down a marker. Permalink :: Comments (3) :: TrackBacks (0) :: <script type="text/javascript">var et602 = "2012 And Huntsman\'s Surprise - The Atlantic Politics Channel";</script> Share This

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://politics.theatlantic.com/mt-42/mt-tb.cgi/597

BCTTWR · Feb 14, 2009

Re: Republican Governor supports Civil Unions

Another fucking phony politician. It never stops. He just announced he is running in 2012 with his finger up the ass of the homos.

Road Dawg · Feb 14, 2009

Re: Republican Governor supports Civil Unions

The embrasure of supporting the rights of citizens is not a Conservative or Liberal issue. It's an issue of civil liberties and religious freedom.

You support religious freedom, then you should support churches that decide to perform same sex marriages. Plain and simple. You should likewise support churches that decide to NOT perform same sex marriages. Otherwise, keep the government out of the issue, save to be sure that all parties are consenting, and that they have equal protection under the law.

That the idea of the government getting involved one way or another on the issue shows how screwed up the party system has gotten.

As a Libertarian, I don't care who gets married to who. It's none of my business--you don't want a gay marriage? Don't have one then. But never mind if your neighbors or their congregation want to perform the ceremony--and never mind if they don't either. None of your damn business.

So long as the parties are consenting, and have equal protection, drive on. None of my business either way. You want to get a quicky divorce? Drive on, so long as there are equal protections. You want a fast track marriage? Drive on, so long as there are equal protections.

Will it mean that some folks get married who maybe shouldn't? Probably, but that hasn't stopped folks in the past, and it won't stop folks in the future. Freedom is about letting people make their own damn mistakes, and maybe even learn from them.

In the end though, what your neighbors do with their genitalia doesn't affect you. Unless you've been invited to their house, why does it matter what they do behind closed doors, or in their back yard?

This isn't a Conservative issue--or rather, it's a no brainer if you support the Constitution, state's rights, and civil liberties in any way. And that there are some who like to poke their nose into other peoples' business, and call it "Conservative" is not just a misnomer, it's anathema to being a good citizen.

Life. Liberty. Pursuit of happiness. Not, "pursuit of happiness, except for them queers."

If you like personal liberty, and you like states' rights, then gay marriage should be an easy sell--unless of course, you've got a separate agenda that includes being a gottverdammit Nosey Nellie...

Road Dawg · Feb 14, 2009