Tweet
Sensing a fundamentalist uprising because of his statement yesterday that he would respect states that have marriage equality in place, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman “clarifies” his view on marriage in a way that makes him appear to be a dumb@ss:
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.
Of course this statement makes no sense since the institution of marriage has changed myriad times…
- At one point blacks couldn’t marry one another.
- Interracial couples couldn’t marry.
- Women were the property of men.
So this latest PHB 2012 Clown Car occupant would prefer to be seen as clueless rather than walking his beliefs back to coddle the far right fringe professional bigots. Too bad for Obama’s former Ambassador to China that he’s off to such a stellar start.
12 Comments
Indeed, marriage should never be redefinedIt must remain as it says so in the Bible: between one man and as many women as he can afford, not to mention his concubines and “priviledges” with his wives’ maidservants.
I am REALLY tired of hearing this inept argument.Expanding civil rights does NOT redefine those rights for those that already have them. Straight couples that get married in Massachusetts know EXACTLY what marriage is, even though gay couples can also marry.
When the Supreme Court forced interracial marriage on the country, it did NOT redefine marriage for same-race couples. Their marriages were exactly the same as before.
…and when women were given the right to vote, a man’s right to vote didn’t change.
The President Has The Same Position The problem is the president shares the same position as Huntsman. In fact he has taken it is a step further with the God in the mix statement he has never walked back on.
Pam: Don’t forget they also practiced polygamy in the Bible.
Huntsman = ObamaObama = Huntsman
Looks like Huntsman is following his old boss’s playbook to the letter.
Well, that’s an outright lie right there.The definition of [the parties entitled to enter into] marriage has already changed quite convincingly in five states and the District of Columbia, with no negative effects that anyone can point to and no imminent threat that it will change back anytime soon. To say it is impossible is false and ignorant of the facts. It perpetuates the notion, popular among our opponents, that gay marriage can still somehow be “prevented” and shows that Huntsman is just as interested in pandering to the far right base as the rest of the Republican candidates.
Dumbass?Calling a Republican presidential candidate–and for that matter calling virtually any American politician–a dumbass is like taking pains to point out that pie has crust.
H.L. Mencken wrote, nearly a century ago:
There was a time, not too long ago, when I thought that applied to George W. Bush. But folks, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Huntsman has no sense of history, even of his own religionThe Mormon Church was dealt a slap in the face many years ago when marriage was legally redefined to exclude polygamy. Does he now support this imposition of the state on his religion?
I have to admit, Huntsman appears to be the least clownlike of the clown car occupants. Still, he just showed us that the clowns are not the issue, the CAR is the problem.
When you think of Huntsmanis this the first thing that comes to mind for anyone else?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H…
It’s not as “bad” of an association (he deserved that) as Santorum but it’s not a good association.
As far as the “redefining marriage” meme, if they would only think about what they are saying before reciting it verbatim they might realize that it makes absolutely no sense. Oh to dream the impossible dream though, they wouldn’t think first. Thinking is hard and only elitists who go to universities do that.
In other news, Canada has ceased to exist.
In accordance with the new public-discourse policy on history, under which history is retroactively amended to fit the claims of conservative politicians (a.k.a. the “Palin policy”), we of the GOP thought police must now inform you all that Canada does not now, and never has existed — because this theoretical “Canada” entity is said to allow same-sex marriages, which John Huntsman has informed us is impossible. Also, there are no such places as the Netherlands, South Africa, Argentina, Sweden, Belgium, Iceland, Norway, Spain, or Portugal.
Claims to the existence of countries of the same name but without any doctrinally-impossible redefinition of words which may be translated into English as “marriage” may be submitted to the GOP for further historical revision correction.
Will the new FDL PHB have a “like” button?I need it for this one…
If there was one…I’d click it for this. Oh, irony.