Good for Huntsman. RichB -- you got a lot of facts mixed up, by mistake or not. If you are to offer Civil Unions, they need to be designed to duplicate the benefits of "traditional marriage". That means having the federal laws in place to support the Civil Unions as well.

I am very proud of what our governor has said about his support of same-sex rights. He has demonstrated again that he has courage to express genuine ideals and is a leader, not simply holding a party line. For a change, I am happy (and not embarrassed) to see what a Republican politician from Utah is saying. Because he is able to explain a thoughtful position that takes personal beliefs into account along with public policy, I am more willing to hear his ideas about possible future policy - policy that I would be less inclined to support without his demonstration of leadership, thoughfulness, and fairness.

I am very disappointed that the governor of Utah is supporting same-sex civil unions. When the California legislature supported same-sex unions called "domestic partnerships", it gave the California court the excuse they needed to decide that since such "domestic partnerships" had essentially the same "legal rights" as marriage, they might as well call "domestic partnerships" the same thing as "marriages" and make same-sex marriage a legally supported relationship in California. I am now regretting that I ever voted for him. We need more principled conservatives to come out in support of the same natural law and moral standards held by the founders of America and the signers of the US Constitution. The vast majority of the founders were moral and honest men who believed in God's Law and in the Holy Bible. They called God's Law the "natural law" and "the law of nature and of nature's God." There is no written constitutional right (in either the Federal or Utah Constitution) to have government setup and support same-sex civil unions. In Utah, all people already have equal protection under the law. Those who want privileges can already make legal contracts, wills, power of attorney, and advance directives (etc.) to make their wishes known. God has given man the basic moral laws and allows men to govern themselves to follow such laws by setting up self-governments. God said "thou shalt not kill". But God leaves it up to human governments to declare murder morally wrong and illegal ant to catch and punish killers of people. God does not immediately force men to obey the moral laws, such as "thou shalt not steal". But his justice requires that sooner or latter the consequences of violating the moral laws will be felt, whether visibly seen by "darkmuzik" or invisibly felt after death in the life to come. On the other hand, obedience to God's law gives real, but sometimes invisible, blessings to the upholders of morality. - on President's Day

We need more principled conservatives to come out in support of equal rights under the law for all people, including gays. You don't need to condone someone's personal lifestyle to understand the equal protection clause of the constitution. For too long republicans have used the gay marriage issue to drive a wedge between this country. Hopefully this indicates that the wedge is being broken and sanity is starting to return.

I think this is a bogas poll. It doesn't even work when you vote. Most Utahn's do not support this but ABC4 is making it look like we do. BOGAS

Dearest "riezhy": perhaps you have never heard of the following phenomena which ill-fit your notion of Divine Law: pregnancy out of wedlock accidental pregnancy within wedlock spontaneous miscarriage regardless of wedlock re-marriage after divorce re-marriage after death of a spouse children of blended/re-married parents adoption of new-spouse's children adoption of non-blood children adoption of non-blood adults I don't know about YOU, but if I believed a law was "Divine" I would expect something "Divine" to enforce it. I see no evidence that this is happening. Perhaps you can set me straight on the facts to back up your notion? Last (nearly) about "selfish" motivations...I will ask my gay-and-married friends at church why they adopted kids. They will probably tell me something selfish. I have no idea what you mean by "conjugal contract" or "extortion of rights" but perhaps you would like to illuminate the rest of the world about those phrases.

Amusing that ABC4 "asked Ruzicka why Huntsman had made the statement". Why did ABC4 not just ask the governor? Is is possible that the TV News is trying to CREATE some news? Perhaps they will then do a special on the Eagle Forum's miraculous gift for reading the Governor's mind. Huntsman already implied that there was thought behind his choice to make the statement. Call me crazy, but a responsible journalist might actually ask Huntsman to explain the logic. But of course, that would not sell as much advertising, or stimulate as much conservative grousing about Obama. This is why I tend NOT to watch local TV news, anywhere, about anything. Producers and ad sales people, I hope you are listening. But likely not.

Lot's of emotional reaction to this news I see. I don't believe that the Governor's annoucement was meant to be the end of the story. If it has sparked dialogue on the topic, then the purpose was served. But we need to continue the dialogue, and it should be mediated until we arrive at some common understandings and then plans to continue the discussions. Now, for my personal opinion on the topic. Anyone who would stand in the way of, restrict or remove the rights of another person is immoral. As adults we have free agency to act and believe what we feel to be the right path. You don't want me to tell you how to live your life, and I don't expect you to tell me either. Nobody here has the right to judge anyone else on behalf of God. If you feel you must do so, then you need to ask yourself if you really trust God. As for marriage, the debate needs to shift a little. We should be comparing Holy Matrimony to Civil Unions. We like to lump them together and call them marriage, but that doesn't serve the debate we are trying to have. What rights are bestowed upon a couple by their church in Holy Matrimony and then what rights are added upon the registration of the union with the State? If there are couples who wish to register a union with the State and not have a religious ceremony, are those relationships to be banned now? And if we do that then, what rights do all couples lose if we do away with civil unions/marriage by the State? From a government standpoint, we have to avoid discrimination, as our Governor is well aware. Therefore if their is value to our citizens to maintain a State registration of union/marriage and the rights inherited with that act, then we need to remove the discrimination aspect and allow same-sex couples to register their marriage with the State. A religious act has never been a requirement for a union/marriage with the State. It is Holy Matrimony that entails a conjugal relationship and State unions do not.

I can agree with the Huntsman quote above but not to the point of placing same sex unions on an equal footing with marriage. Like Little Richard, a famous homosexual singer, said when he applied to ministerial school that he realized, "The Lord didn't create Adam and Jack."

Cherilyn - I have always wondered why ANY COUPLE whether gay or straight any tax exemption at all? Why should any couple be eligible to receive tax exemptions/reductions just for having declared their intent to have monogomous sexual relations with each other? If Marriage is a term, in your opinion (and is most certainly that of the majority as well) that means a religious commitment to one another then why should that allow a tax favor to you? I understand "CIVIL UNIONS" to really only allow the same legal rights such as Tax breaks, Death Benefits and Hospital Visitation rights etc. Marriage is really only a term used to imply the RELIGIOUS RECOGNITION of two opposite sex couples is it not? If that is the case tehn two same sex couples would not be able to do that in any religion that I am aware of (at least one that you would recognize). As Far as your comments pertaining to the party in control of the White House and the Senate destroying our economy...Who do you think was in control of BOTH when the economy went south. Maybe you should think of doing your own thinking and stop leaving that to your church and political party. I am a Democrat who was very certain of my vote when I cast it for Governor Huntsman (who you may or may not know is a Repulican)! I do not vote based on political affiliations, rather, I vote based upon a persons character and integrity. I am more confident now that I was then that I voted for someone of the best moral character and ability to seperate religious affiliations from what best represents the values and desires of his constituents. Maybe you could learn a lesson from our esteemed Governor!