• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Jon Huntsman: Marriage Equality Is A Conservative Cause

Jon Huntsman

Former Utah Governor, and 2012 Republican Presidential candidate, Jon Huntsman has a piece up at The American Conservative in which he endorses same-sex marriage:

It’s difficult to get people even to consider your reform ideas if they think, with good reason, you don’t like or respect them. Building a winning coalition to tackle the looming fiscal and trust deficits will be impossible if we continue to alienate broad segments of the population. We must be happy warriors who refuse to tolerate those who want Hispanic votes but not Hispanic neighbors. We should applaud states that lead on reforming drug policy. And, consistent with the Republican Party’s origins, we must demand equality under the law for all Americans.

While serving as governor of Utah, I pushed for civil unions and expanded reciprocal benefits for gay citizens. I did so not because of political pressure—indeed, at the time 70 percent of Utahns were opposed—but because as governor my role was to work for everybody, even those who didn’t have access to a powerful lobby. Civil unions, I believed, were a practical step that would bring all citizens more fully into the fabric of a state they already were—and always had been—a part of.

That was four years ago. Today we have an opportunity to do more: conservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry. I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love.

All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall. This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience. Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience.

Marriage is not an issue that people rationalize through the abstract lens of the law; rather it is something understood emotionally through one’s own experience with family, neighbors, and friends. The party of Lincoln should stand with our best tradition of equality and support full civil marriage for all Americans.

Huntsman is absolutely right, of course. The arguments in favor of same-sex marriage have been stated here before and don’t really need to be restated again. The arguments against, which generally just boil down appeals to tradition and religion that become less persuasive as time goes on. There’s nothing necessarily remarkable about Huntsman joining the growing ranks of conservatives coming out in favor of marriage equality, of course, but I would suggest that it’s at least somewhat significant that the former Governor of what is arguably one of the most socially conservative states in the nation doing so is at least somewhat significant.

More importantly, though, I’d argue that Huntsman’s argument that support for marriage equality is a conservative cause is significant for reasons that don’t necessarily have anything to do with politics. As a cultural matter, there are mountains of social science studies that show that relationships involving committed couples, regardless of the gender pairings involved, are far more stable that “casual” relationships. Additionally, it’s fairly clear that established families are far better for children than single parent families, and the evolving practice of homosexuals either bearing children via artificial insemination or adoption has shown that such relationships are just as beneficial for children as heterosexual relationships. What all of this suggests is that allowing gays and lesbians to enter into a legal marriage tends to lead to exactly the kind of social stability that conservatives claim that they support.

Sadly, I’m fairly sure that most conservatives will reject Huntsman’s argument out of hand.

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Argon says:

    RINO. No true Republican accepts evolution, climate change, gays as committed couples or reality in general.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 3

  2. Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Check out the comments on TAC – evenly split between “About time” and “No f’ing way.” I left my own comment, saying I now haz a happy watching them fight each other. The sooner the intra-GOP civil war breaks out, the sooner we’ll have a winner (and a loser). I just hope the sane side wins. But if the freaks take over the circus, well, I’ll enjoy watching them get kicked in the teeth again and again.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2

  3. An Interested Party says:

    Actually, the comments over at TAC show just how pathetically cynical some people are…I mean it’s not like Huntsman genuinely believes what he is saying, right? It’s just has to be all about political benefits…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  4. CB says:

    Also of importance is that he’s an apostate republican. I like Huntsman and see no cause to quibble with this, but call me when actual republicans take up the cause, for the right reasons.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  5. David M says:

    The comment sections over there are comedy gold. TAC at least has some inclination that the current GOP isn’t really conservative, I wonder how that post would go over at RedState. (Assuming RedState even allowed a differing opinion to be aired.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  6. James Joyner says:

    @An Interested Party: Did you not read Huntsman, as quoted by Doug? This isn’t a new position:

    While serving as governor of Utah, I pushed for civil unions and expanded reciprocal benefits for gay citizens. I did so not because of political pressure—indeed, at the time 70 percent of Utahns were opposed

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  7. Tsar Nicholas says:

    That’s an interesting headline. Of course it depends upon what the meaning of the word “conservative” is.

    Actual conservatism is the belief in limited government and in self-determination. Well, thing is, to obtain “marriage equality” it means in most instances government action and the abrogation of self-determination.

    Take California, merely by way of example. For California to have “marriage equality” it would necessitate a judicial fiat overturning a law duly enacted via direct voter plebiscite. How exactly does disenfranchising California’s black demographic — which voted 70-30 to ban same-sex marriages in their state — amount to conservatism? Speaking of which, go to a church in Oakland and try selling the parishioners there your agenda. Good luck. You’ll need it.

    Agendas aside, one could make the argument that far more of a conservative approach to this issue is to allow it to be determined state-by-state, via legislation enacted either directly by voters or via duly-elected representatives who must stand for reelection. That’s a lot more conservative than pushing for a ruling from unelected judges and justices.

    Arguably the truest conservative approach to this issue would be on a state-by-state basis to advocate for the repeal of all marriage laws; again, by voter or legislature-approved statutes, not by judicial decisions. Get the government out of the marriage business entirely. Nobody gets “married.” Neither gay nor straight.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 31

  8. wr says:

    @Tsar Nicholas: “That’s an interesting headline. Of course it depends upon what the meaning of the word “conservative” is.”

    You mean the fact of whether or not Huntsman said marriage equality is a conservative cause depends on what you think the word conservative means?

    Does the existence of quotes now depend on whether or not you agree with their political philosophy?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  9. wr says:

    @Tsar Nicholas: “How exactly does disenfranchising California’s black demographic — which voted 70-30 to ban same-sex marriages in their state — amount to conservatism?”

    Of course, disenfranchising any state’s black demographic is the essence of “conservatism.” Where have you been for the last 150 years?

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 2

  10. Sejanus says:

    @Tsar Nicholas: If after Loving v. Virginia the people of Virginia would have held a referendum upholding anti-miscegenation laws, would you have supported their so called right to self determination?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

  11. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love.

    Absolutely goddamn right.

    Nothing “small government” or “freedom” about it either.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  12. steve s says:

    james, i think interested party was mocking some of the comments over there, not expressing his own beliefs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  13. An Interested Party says:

    @James Joyner: I’m well aware of Huntsman’s positions, both now and in the past…I was referring to how his position is being cynically characterized by commenters over at TAC…

    Actual conservatism is the belief in limited government…

    If that is truly the case, than there is no relevant conservative political party in this country…damn, maybe superdestroyer is actually right about something after all…

    How exactly does disenfranchising California’s black demographic…amount to conservatism?

    Ask that of Republicans who try to disenfranchise black voters in presidential election years…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  14. mantis says:

    Good on him.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  15. Pharoah Narim says:

    An ideologically consistent “Conservative” position would be to ask why in the hell the gov’t licenses relationships between consenting adults anyway. I have no problem between organically generated contracts between consenting adults constructed with the terms they agree to.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  16. Sejanus says:

    @James Joyner: I do believe that Huntsman is genuinely in favor of marriage equality, though the timing of his article shows that he was not willing to express support for it when it was inconvenient i.e during the primaries. Are we really supposed to believe that only now he came to the conclusion that granting equality to gay couples is the right thing to do? Come on.

    I think it’s a shame that he didn’t come out in favor of marriage equality earlier. If he had expressed support for it during one of the Republican presidential debates it would have had far more impact than what his recent article has. I don’t think it would have damaged his career either. He was not going to get his party’s nomination no matter what, supporting marriage equality during the primaries would have at least gotten him more attention.

    And yes, I’m aware that much of what I said about Huntsman can also be applied to Obama.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  17. David says:

    While the group is itself correctly billed as libertarian, billing “young, vibrant activists” who advocate a “free lifestyle” as conservatives is just silly and, frankly, incorrect. The traditional family is the bedrock of civilization, and true conservatives understand that. Once you abandon the most fundamental of institutions for a societal fad, then you only accelerate the downward spiral into societal, moral, and cultural collapse. Once you have surrendered the culture wars and start to embrace the mainstreaming of homosexuality, abortion on demand, and amnesty for illegal aliens I contend than you no longer can be accurately described as a conservative.

    Why so-called conservatives think we should adopt the policies of the Left, and their twisted and perverse societal values, is simply beyond me. The mainstreaming of homosexuality is one of the pillars of the progressive/liberal ideology and conservatives should not be a part of it, nor be enablers of their anti-traditional family agenda. By doing so one only plays into their hands. Civil unions is little more than gay marriage “lite” and in effect just a way of playing semantics to attain their ultimate goals.

    It is just another weapon in the arsenal of those seeking to undermine the traditional family structure and is an important part of the progressive agenda. All the talk of healthcare, mutual property, taxes and other legal aspects is a mere smokescreen for the agenda of societal acceptance and the mainstreaming of their lifestyle. Any two people, with the assistance of an attorney, regardless of sexual relationship, status, or title can address those concerns without trying to adopt the cloak of marriage or civil unions.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 20

  18. David M says:

    @David:

    Once you have surrendered the culture wars and start to embrace the mainstreaming of homosexuality, abortion on demand, and amnesty for illegal aliens I contend than you no longer can be accurately described as a conservative.

    That would seem to be the problem right there.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  19. superdestroyer says:

    This shows how stupid Huntsman is and that the reason that progressives like him so much is that he will do whatever progressives want while throwing conservatives under the bus while laughing at the sound of the crunch.

    At the least, Hunstman should state that the government should never ask anyone what their sexual orientation, that there should be no special benefits from the government for claiming to be homosexual, that no public accommodation should be allowed to discriminate for homosexuals, and that any law passed regarding homosexuals must permit citizen lawsuits to force the government to not give special privileges to homosexuals.

    That Huntsman cannot conceive of the idea that homosexuals will eventually push for quotas, set asides, and special treatment shows that he is too stupid to be involved in running the government.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 18

  20. Xenos says:

    @David:

    The traditional family is the bedrock of civilization, and true conservatives understand that.

    Define ‘traditional family’. Define ‘Civilization’. Define ‘Conser… oh screw it, this is hopeless.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2

  21. Argon says:

    @David:

    Any two people, with the assistance of an attorney, regardless of sexual relationship, status, or title can address those concerns without trying to adopt the cloak of marriage or civil unions.

    For starters, it’s simply not true as there are some policies and laws that supercede many contractual, civil constructs.

    Second, you flail against same-sex marriage, which affects a tiny portion of population, abortion and illegal aliens (WTF is the relationship with immigration and traditional mores?) as yet somehow fail to mention *divorce*, which is where over half of ‘traditional’ marriages go to die.

    On second thought – Maybe your post was great parody.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0

  22. JoshB says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Crap, did I leave my gay agenda out in the open? I’m going to get so much grief at the next meeting.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0

  23. superdestroyer says:

    @JoshB:

    There is nothing hidden about it. Homosexuals are one of the best organized and most powerful groups in government these days. The long term push is to apply “civil rights laws” to homosexuals and that means quotas, set asides, affirmative action and maybe the Holy Grail of law suits about past discrimination.

    It should be obvious that homosexuals support government run social engineering and would use to government to get their way.

    The idea that if Republicans and conservatives just give in on homosexual marriage that the organized homosexual groups will stop hating conservatives, stop hating Republicans, and will stop being 100% in the pocket of the Democrats is laughable. Huntsman should be able to realize that homosexuals are always going to hate conservatives and giving into them now will just embolden them to push for more later. If Huntsman wants to give in on homosexual marriage, then the conservatives should get some real reform that will back up the emply promises that homosexuals have made in the past.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

  24. JoshB says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Nice use of quotes for civil rights laws.

    I mean, it’s clearly laughable that we just want to be treated the same damn way, and not have to worry about getting fired from our jobs because the person we love has the same naughty bits. Heaven FORBID that my partner of 10-1/2 years have the same spousal rights as the latest (and surely not the last) Kardashian spouse.

    I suppose you cannot possibly fathom the idea that gays run the spectrum of liberalism/conservatism, but tend to skew left at the polls because that is the party that does not actively seek to keep us as second class citizens. Perhaps if you get the issue out of the way and let the inevitable happen (and be an agent of change instead of resisting it), more of us gay folk might start to give the Republican Party another look.

    Nope. Won’t ever happen. You’ll scream god guns and gays as you became as relevant as the Whigs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

  25. An Interested Party says:

    Once you abandon the most fundamental of institutions for a societal fad…

    I’m so sorry to have to inform you of this, but homosexuality most certainly isn’t a fad…therefore, SSM isn’t either…I understand your frustration though, with you being on the losing side of history and all of that…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  26. superdestroyer says:

    @JoshB:

    You are giving the progressive spin on why the Republicans should surrender. Anyone who believe that if the Republicans just embrace gay marriage that homosexuals will split their support between the two parties is an idiot. Homosexuals because they are affluent, educated, urban dwellers who congregate in a few career fields as very far from the average Republican voters. This is just like Lucy promising to not pull the football out of the way.

    Any Republican who proposes making a deal with homosexuals because that Republican thinks the homosexuals will support anything that he proposes in the future is a big enough fool that they should not be allowed any political power. Any conservative that makes a deal with progressives is just committing political suicide.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  27. David says:

    @superdestroyer: God forbid they do it because it is the right thing to do regardless of political benefit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  28. Mikey says:

    @David: I was about to say the same thing, but you got there first. Republicans shouldn’t support gay marriage because it might gain some political benefit thereby, they should support it because supporting it is the right thing to do.

    The arguments of bigots like SD are indistinguishable from those of the anti-mixed-race-marriage crowd of a generation ago–and they are just as wrong, and just as destined for history’s garbage heap.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  29. superdestroyer says:

    @Mikey:

    But it is a political loser for Republicans. How does giving more political power to a group that hates you help in politics. It could be a good thing if Republicans insist that the laws change to take political power away from the most militant and strident homosexuals and that the government does not come back later and ask for more.

    Any Republican who supports homosexual marriage and gets nothing in exchange is a fool. They are supporting their own political extinction and supporting for a government that will be hostile for everything that they support.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  30. superdestroyer says:

    @David:

    It is not the right thing to do if it leads to the extinction to conservative politics and strengthens a group that hates everything that Republicans stand for. At least the Republicans should trade something that everything says is a good thing marriage for an iron clad law that prevents special rights for homosexuals in the future.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  31. Mikey says:

    @superdestroyer:

    But it is a political loser for Republicans.

    So? It’s still the right thing to do.

    And if you think something that’s supported by more than half of Americans, as gay marriage now is, is a “political loser,” either in the short or long run, then you’re simply not seeing reality.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  32. JoshB says:

    @superdestroyer:

    How in the world does giving the right to marry give more political power? Do married couples get an extra vote? Does every time a gay man get married, a Republican lose a tax break? Not to mention, where is the demand for special rights? Equal rights are not special rights.

    I could go on and on, but there is no sense since you are clearly just a terrible bigot that views the world through a hyper-partisan lens.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  33. @An Interested Party: Damn you, haven’t you ever heard of “speak of the devil and he shall appear”?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  34. Argon says:

    @JoshB:
    Crap, did I leave my gay agenda out in the open? I’m going to get so much grief at the next meeting.

    I know this could derail the thread but the number of snappy comebacks are almost infinite and I’d enjoy reading the creative efforts of others adding to that setup line.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  35. Sejanus says:

    @superdestroyer: “Homosexuals because they are affluent, educated, urban dwellers who congregate in a few career fields as very far from the average Republican voters”

    LGBT people can be a found among every social group. They can be white, black, hispanic, rich, poor, democrat, and Republicans too. In regards to your claim that LGBT people would never support the GOP no matter what, a poll conducted a couple of months ago shows that a significant portion of LGBT people would have supported the GOP if the party was supportive of their rights.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  36. Argon says:

    Argh… Forgot to block wrote JoshB’s text.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  37. An Interested Party says:

    How does giving more political power to a group that hates you help in politics.

    Using that argument, Republicans should try to take away political power from blacks…oh wait…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  38. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @JoshB:

    How in the world does giving the right to marry give more political power?

    Because they will procreate, Josh. Can’t you see that?

    Wait a minute…..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  39. xgaygreg says:

    I used to be addicted to men, but over SEVEN years ago Jesus set me FREE! (YouTube) I am now free from the sin of homosexuality. Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman according to the King James Bible (Genesis 2:24) so I am now married and my wife is pregnant by me. My wife used to be a victim of domestic violence in her first marriage, but Jesus set her FREE. FREE AT LAST FREE AT LAST, THANK GOD ALMIGHTY I’M FREE AT LAST!!!!! ALL HAIL KING JESUS!!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

  40. Pharoah Narim says:

    I do believe the marriage issue is more of value to the affluent LGTB. That doesn’t mean it isn’t worth fighting from their perspective but my guess is that their less affluent peers have more of an interest in getting their daily bread buttered (or not being attacked). At the end of the day–even straight people are opting out of getting married. I believe this is because current marriage laws are a mismatch for the psyche of the current (and probably future generations). Marriage licensing is a relic from when it was deemed in the public interest to keep classes (and later races) seperate. Marriage has nothing to do with love–it had everything to do with property and wealth transfer, which is why it was controlled. Come on conservatives! You should be making a push to get the Gov’t (via licensing vehicles) out of “marriage”. More people would get married with contract vehicles on their own agreed upon terms

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  41. Pharoah Narim says:

    @xgaygrey:

    Dude this isn’t the 700 club forum. Sexual attraction occurs in levels of the psyche too deep to reach with “therapy”. You are still attracted to men and will always be. Whether you choose to pursue that attaction is up to you. I have no problem for people limiting their sexual inclinations as long as it for the right reasons, i.e. not hurting others–qualty of emotional health is somehow better abstaining than partaking. There is a difference between behavior and orientation and if I’ve read the bible correctly–”sin” occurs first in the mind. So by the philosophy you’ve chosen to live by–you haven’t dealt with the root cause and never can. Its unfortunate that some have deceived you into feeling your attraction to men is somehow more evil than their attraction to women they aren’t married to. You wouldn’t want a 5-year old to explain how a car works to you would you? Why would you allow mental 5-year olds to explain the Bible to you?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  42. rudderpedals says:

    @Pharoah Narim: Indeed folks can contract around the defaults but those are going to be the affluent. I represented (non-LGBT non-estate issue) an older lady married long term to her partner but for the paper that the lord says Florida cannot issue. Years later when she passed her partner discovered that in a moment of incoherence during her final hospitalization the decedent her wife met an “adviser” and then changed her will to leave everything including marital house and car to a local charitable foundation. (Adviser sits on the board of the foundation, naturally.) Not having that piece of paper meant no homestead rights in the marital home, no elective share in the estate, no warchest to take on the “adviser”. She’s now destitute and homeless.

    This might be the only appropriate time for two people to execute mutual wills.

    (File in the folder with other examples of the harm caused by intentionally-skimpy legal aid resources)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  43. Mikey says:

    @xgaygreg:

    Hey, how are you doing, Mr. Poe?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  44. grumpy realist says:

    Anyone who says that gays can get the same rights as married couples via contract(s) obviously has no knowledge of law….or taxes, for that matter.

    And I wonder about the existence of these wonderful hetrosexual marriages with 2.3 kids as being the only mechanism that used to exist, anyway. How many war brides ended up raising kids with the help of their families because Daddy didn’t come back from the war? Or kids getting raised by Mom only because Daddy just bunged out the door one day and didn’t come back for years (as is what happened with my father)? We’ve already had kids raised in all-female families quite often….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  45. Mikey says:

    @grumpy realist: Exactly. The “traditional marriage” as defined by religious conservatives is a myth, and has been for the entirety of human history.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  46. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @grumpy realist:

    Anyone who says that gays can get the same rights as married couples via contract(s) obviously has no knowledge of law….or taxes, for that matter.

    Ask my wife. She’ll tell you I only married her so she can get my pension when I die. It’s true. The way it is set up, if I die a single man, the pension absorbs it. My son’s don’t get a lump sum payout, nothing. The only way to insure that all those years of working would not be for nought if I die in the next decade or so, was to marry her.

    And hell, after putting up with me for 5 years (at that point) she had earned it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  47. Pharoah Narim says:

    @grumpy realist:

    “Anyone who says that gays can get the same rights as married couples via contract(s) obviously has no knowledge of law….or taxes, for that matter.”

    Im not making a statement about how things are nor can all the supporting legal issues be dealt with in a single internet post. Obviously we can wave a wand today and replace licenses with contracts because laws and policy are currently oriented towards licensing. The bottom line is we CAN build many of the same legal supports and protections into organic contracts that we have into licensing including minimum standards for how and what things should be addressed in the event the marriage dissolves. People make plans for the end of their lives therefore they should also plan for the end or their relationship whether timely or untimely; natural or mutual. Its all MANmade–therefore it can be MANundone and MANrebuilt to meet cultural realities of the 21st century.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  48. anjin-san says:

    @ David

    The traditional family is the bedrock of civilization, and true conservatives understand that.

    Groovy avatar you have there. Everyone loves Rodin.

    Auguste Rodin did not marry his longtime companion, Rose Beuret, until 1917, the year they both died. His son was born out of wedlock. He had a number of much younger mistresses during his life.

    Not really a “traditional family”, no? Yet Rodin’s contributions to civilization were considerable.

    You have to love the mix of certainty and ignorance trotted out by todays conservatives.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  49. SoWhat says:

    Once the barrier is broken that marrige is “one man,one woman”, why deny marriage to anyone over the age of consent? If it really is about “being with who you love”, there would be no legal reason to deny marriage between a mother and her son—or her daughter. Or between a man and multiple women/men. If it really is all about “love”, why have any barriers at all for those above legal age? If it isn’t about procreation, that opens a wide, wide world.

    Forget “marriage”. Make “marriage” a legal contract that may be entered into with various and sundry adults, and those wanting a religious ceremony will have to adhere to a higher standard.

    Marriage equality for all, not just two men or two women.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  50. David from KC says:

    @Pharoah Narim: Or we could just recognize that marriage (absent the religious overtones) is a civil contract sanctioned by the state and just open it up as opposed to making a completely new system. Seems that would not only be easier, but quicker and cheaper than taking the time to make something new.

    (btw, changed the name to avoid confusion with the David who has a somewhat different position on the issue than I do)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  51. swbarnes2 says:

    Before it goes down the memory hole, this is about a year old:

    http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Utah/Jon_Huntsman/Views/Gay_Marriage/

    “I think redefining marriage is something that would be impossible and it’s something I would not be in favor of.”

    Q. Would you order your Solicitor General to defend the constitutionality of every provision of the Defense of Marriage Act if you were elected President.

    A. Sure.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  52. grumpy realist says:

    @Pharoah Narim: Well, that’s why prenups are gaining ground and getting acknowledged more and more in law courts, but it’s taking time. And there’s a LOT of stuff between spouses that no matter how much you try to substitute via contract, you’re Just. Not. Going. To Get. What’s considered “confidential”, for instance. Or the standard spousal privilege keeping you from being forced to testify against your spouse. Or if you die intestate, who gets your property? (BTW, palimony doesn’t exist. It just doesn’t.)

    We need SSM in civil law, if only to clear up the legal mess.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  53. SoWhat says:

    Now if Huntsman can only resist the urge to bash and denigrate those who don’t agree with hijm—if he could only show some tolerance for The Other, he might have a chance to make his case to the larger electorate.

    If he’s only interested in pandering to the NYTimes crowd—fuggitaboutit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  54. swbarnes2 says:

    @SoWhat:

    Now if Huntsman can only resist the urge to bash and denigrate those who don’t agree with hijm—if he could only show some tolerance for The Other,

    Being “tolerant” of one set of people pointlessly hurting innocent people is no virtue.

    Republicans need to get over crying victim every time someone accurately labels their behavior as cruel and stupid. Really, their fee-fees are just not that precious, and people need to stop buying into the notion that they are.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  55. maggie says:

    You do realize that the “King James” bible was an interpretation written by the King to justify him divorcing his wife(s) and marrying another at a time when divorce was seen as as big a “sin” as homosexuality is now So if you believe that that version of the bible is not corrupt to the core, then you don’t know much.
    Homosexual feelings are not a “choice”, acting on them is a choice. So don’t declare a change in behavior some kind of miracle! Jesus was so unconcerned about homosexuality hat he did not even bother to address it in any of his recorded teachings………in fact he seemed to have said to “judge not” and to be kind to others, etc……..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  56. swbarnes2 says:

    @maggie:

    “You do realize that the “King James” bible was an interpretation written by the King to justify him divorcing his wife(s) and marrying another at a time when divorce was seen as as big a “sin” as homosexuality is now”

    Doug, James this person is defending Republican policies. Don’t you think she’s doing a cracker-jack job? Don’t you wish all the people defending Republican policies could be so knowledgeable?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  57. Pharoah Narim says:

    @SoWhat: Because sexual contact with relatives has been demonstrated to have detrimental effects on offspring and effects on the emotional health of at least one of the participants. Plural marriages—that’s a different kettle of fish. Look how tangled things get with one spouse per person–do we want to invite more problems in the legal system? If you need to get around—do the spouse and lovers on the side thing like respectable “playas” do. (Or move the rural Utah)

    Fair points by both David from KC and Grumpy Realist–the main takeaway from my comments are that the current system is in itself a discouraging factor for many young people getting married. Mostly young men–who (rightly or wrongly) feel the deck is stacked against them should the woman decide to bolt.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  58. James in LA says:

    @superdestroyer: You are being left behind. And when you finally keel over from your manufactured disgust, your ilk are not being replaced in near sufficient numbers to worry anyone even a teensy weensy little bit.

    I see this makes you most grumpy indeed. You are otherwise just making it up as you go along. The audience that cares is limited to at most one, and I don’t think you do, either.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  59. Tyrell says:

    @Argon: That is just the problem today: there is a big difference in being a conservative and being a Republican.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  60. Miguel Madeira says:

    @Tsar Nicholas: “Actual conservatism is the belief in limited government and in self-determination. (…)”

    “Arguably the truest conservative approach to this issue would be on a state-by-state basis to advocate for the repeal of all marriage laws; again, by voter or legislature-approved statutes, not by judicial decisions. Get the government out of the marriage business entirely.”

    I think you are confusing “conservatism” with “libertarianism”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  61. superdestroyer says:

    @James in LA:

    How does not giving a group of people who hate conservatives and their poltiics being left behind. Look at how Huntsman is willing to throw middle class married whites under the bus tho make the most progressive groups in the U.S. happy. The only reason homosexuals and progressives like Huntsman is because he is a fool that will give them whatever they want.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  62. anjin-san says:

    Look at how Huntsman is willing to throw middle class married whites under the bus

    I’m a middle class married white, and I applaud Huntsman.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  63. Mikey says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Look at how Huntsman is willing to throw middle class married whites under the bus

    And how, exactly, is that happening?

    I’m middle-class, married, and white, and it makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to my marriage if gay people are also allowed to be middle-class, married, and white. NONE. It has no impact whatsoever. It doesn’t “threaten” my marriage in any way. It doesn’t throw me, or anyone like me, under the bus because it has no bearing on the quality of my love for my wife, or her love for me, or that of our children. It is a complete non-issue.

    So, how exactly is Huntsman’s support for something that is right regardless of party throwing me, or anyone else, under the bus?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  64. al-Ameda says:

    @superdestroyer:

    That Huntsman cannot conceive of the idea that homosexuals will eventually push for quotas, set asides, and special treatment shows that he is too stupid to be involved in running the government.

    And exactly how is that related to equal protection under the Constitution?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  65. Mikey says:

    @al-Ameda:

    And exactly how is that related to equal protection under the Constitution?

    It’s not even related to reality.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  66. JoshB says:

    Superdestroyer exists in a world in which every single thing is a zero sum game. The only way someone can gain is if someone loses. This is a very stupid outlook, but I’m not certain that there are many that would defend his intellectual heft.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  67. superdestroyer says:

    @Mikey:

    He throws them under the bus by asking nothing in return. There should be legislation that says that homosexuals will never be eligible for quotas, set asides, or preferences. There should be legislation that says that the government should never ask anyone what their sexual orientation is. There should be legislation that allows citizen lawsuits to enforce any promises made

    That Huntsman does not ask anything in return and is not willing to set limits on the power of homosexuals means he wants to decrease the educational, occupational, and economic opportunities of middle class homosexual couples who are just trying to raise their children.

    Huntsman and his type are willing to spit in the faces of the core of the Republican Party just so the one of the most politically powerful, affluent group in the U.S. will not call him names.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  68. Mikey says:

    @superdestroyer:

    He throws them under the bus by asking nothing in return.

    There’s no need to ask for anything in return for simply doing the right thing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  69. superdestroyer says:

    @al-Ameda:

    Many core groups of the Democratic Party such as blacks and Hispanics are currently given special preferences by the government. Just look up the recent Supreme Court case on Fischer. It is no secret that homosexuals want the same preferences and would love to use civil rights laws to attack churches, private schools, and private organizations. That Huntsman is not asking for laws that protect churches and people in their own religious beliefs shows how stupid Huntsman is.

    Huntsman is listening to the idiotic idea of some really stupid Republican consultant that says” if we support homosexual marriage that it will take the issue off the table. They cannot be more wrong and homosexuals will soon be back asking for more. Of course, they know to ask for more because Huntsman and his type will always given them whatever they want no matter how much is harms to core groups of the Republican Party.

    The real question is why does the media keep referring to Huntsman as a Republican when he supports virtually every progressive cause and does nothing to support the core groups of the Republican Party?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  70. superdestroyer says:

    @Mikey:

    If Huntsman is not willing to limit the political power of the very liberal homosexual comunity, then he is a fool. The only way to support same sex marriage is not back it the end point on homosexual activist. Huntsman is not willing to do that and thus has no business being in politics.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  71. Mikey says:

    @superdestroyer:

    The only way to support same sex marriage is not back it the end point on homosexual activist.

    That makes no sense as written.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  72. wr says:

    @superdestroyer: “The real question is why does the media keep referring to Huntsman as a Republican when he supports virtually every progressive cause and does nothing to support the core groups of the Republican Party? ”

    Because he is a member of the Republican party and ran to be nominated as the Republican candidate for president.

    Hope that clears it up for you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0