Huntsman now supports same-sex marriage

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marriage-equality-is-a-conservative-cause485/

The party of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan has now lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. The marketplace of ideas will render us irrelevant, and soon, if we are not honest about our time and place in history. Unfortunately, much of the discussion has focused on cosmetic solutions to, say, our underperformance among ethnic and young voters. This is a mistake: we cannot cross this river by feeling for stones. Instead, we need to take a hard look at what today’s conservatism stands for.

Conservatives can start by examining how Republicans working with Democrats have governed in several successful states, including Utah; free-market-based healthcare reform, tax reform that eliminated deductions and closed loopholes to bring down rates, and practical education reforms that spoke to 21st-century realities.

Instead of using immigration reform as a wedge issue, like many leaders in Washington, Utah passed legislation to help manage immigration based on our real economic needs. If conservatives come to the table with solutions that put our communities first, it will go a long way toward winning elections.

But 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.

This is both the right thing to do and will better allow us to confront the real choice our country is facing: a choice between the Founders’ vision of a limited government that empowers free markets, with a level playing field giving opportunity to all, and a world of crony capitalism and rent-seeking by the most powerful economic interests.

Adam Smith was not only an architect of the modern world of extraordinary economic opportunity, he was a moralist whose first book was The Theory of Moral Sentiments. The foundation of his thought was his insight that free markets and open commerce strengthened our moral fiber by reinforcing the community of shared and reciprocal economic interests. Government, he thought, had to be limited lest it be captured and corrupted by special business interests who wanted protection from competition and the reciprocal requirements of community.

We are at a crossroads. I believe the American people will vote for free markets under equal rules of the game—because there is no opportunity or job growth any other way. But the American people will not hear us out if we stand against their friends, family, and individual liberty.

He makes a commonplace case for supporting same-sex marriage; the Republican party will continue to lose national elections if they remain so vocally and politically opposed to it. Getting this losing wedge issue out of the way will help the Republican party win so they can tackle the big problems: spending, debt, and the crushing size and cost of government.

Of course, Huntsman didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of making it through the Republican presidential primaries... and you all know who is responsible for that: the evangelical puppeteers at the base of the party.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Marriage "equality" is not a conservative cause. What Huntsman is really saying is he does not believe in marriage. Marriage is inherently between people of the opposite sex.

Treating unequal relationships unequally is not discrimination.

Abandoning principles to pander for votes does not win elections.
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,519
2
81
Marriage "equality" is not a conservative cause. What Huntsman is really saying is he does not believe in marriage. Marriage is inherently between people of the opposite sex.

Yeah!

biblical-marriage.jpg
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Marriage "equality" is not a conservative cause. What Huntsman is really saying is he does not believe in marriage. Marriage is inherently between people of the opposite sex.

Treating unequal relationships unequally is not discrimination.

Abandoning principles to pander for votes does not win elections.

Marriage is a social construct and is not 'inherently' anything. Traditionally, it has been lots of things that many previously would have deemed as an 'inherent' part of marriage that no longer applies.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Marriage is a social construct and is not 'inherently' anything. Traditionally, it has been lots of things that many previously would have deemed as an 'inherent' part of marriage that no longer applies.

Did you not see the helpful picture posted by Ryan? I don't know how it could be anymore clear?

Unless of course what you really want to do is start calling non-martial relationships marriage.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Abandoning principles to pander for votes does not win elections.

Historically wrong.

Abandoning large groups of people to adhere to unpopular principles loses elections.

A leader with no followers is just a guy taking a walk.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
Marriage "equality" is not a conservative cause. What Huntsman is really saying is he does not believe in marriage. Marriage is inherently between people of the opposite sex.

Treating unequal relationships unequally is not discrimination.

Abandoning principles to pander for votes does not win elections.

188379_572253086127145_210260122_n.jpg
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,519
2
81
In every case a man is married to a woman.

Thanks for proving my point!!!!!!


I like that you take no objection to all of these fucked up variations. With that said, your opinion on the definition of marriage means nothing because it is rooted in this perversion.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
I like that you take no objection to all of these fucked up variations. With that said, your opinion on the definition of marriage means nothing because it is rooted in this perversion.

It is perfectly within the definition of marriage for 40 year old men to marry 10 year old girls. That said it is also wrong.

Just because a Ford Pinto might be a sucky car does not make it not a car.

But no matter how much you trick out your 10 speed bike it won't be a car.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
A leader (nehalem and other SSM opponents) with no followers (a clear and growing majority of Americans support SSM) is just a guy taking a walk.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Did you not see the helpful picture posted by Ryan? I don't know how it could be anymore clear?

Unless of course what you really want to do is start calling non-martial relationships marriage.

The simply shows tradition, not an inherent characteristic.

Make the same caption in the 1800s (and apply the same logic), and you'll see that voting is inherently something handled by men.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Abandoning principles to pander for votes does not win elections.

And Republicans sticking to their outmoded, divisive ideas has done so well in the last several elections haven't they, losing 5 out of the last 6 popular votes. The Republican party is hamstrung by people like you, and it's going to be very entertaining to watch how the Republican party maneuvers to try and get your vote, while at the same time abandoning these principles you consider so sacred. This is just me giving the party leaders the benefit of the doubt and assuming they actually recognize what dire straights the party is in. It's entirely possible they might just believe that they lost because they weren't conservative enough, and then get beaten even worse by Clinton in '16.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Do you see the contradiction in what you just said?

It's not a contradiction. This "leader" is a shrinking minority. When your numbers are dwindling and you're already in the minority, in effect you have "no followers".
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
And Republicans sticking to their outmoded, divisive ideas has done so well in the last several elections haven't they, losing 5 out of the last 6 popular votes. The Republican party is hamstrung by people like you, and it's going to be very entertaining to watch how the Republican party maneuvers to try and get your vote, while at the same time abandoning these principles you consider so sacred. This is just me giving the party leaders the benefit of the doubt and assuming they actually recognize what dire straights the party is in. It's entirely possible they might just believe that they lost because they weren't conservative enough, and then get beaten even worse by Clinton in '16.

They lost by 4% running a candidate with zero personal charisma who flip-flopped at the drop of a hat. Maybe they can try running a candidate who doesn't suck?

Ignoring what the population wants doesn't either, nor does it adhere to the principles of democracy.

And a large % of the population doesn't want SSM. And I bet another fair amount doesnt give a damn.

The simply shows tradition, not an inherent characteristic.

Make the same caption in the 1800s (and apply the same logic), and you'll see that voting is inherently something handled by men.

Marriage exists because of procreation(which requires a man and a woman). Marriage being between a man and a woman is inherent to marriage.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
The key is the fact that the number is continuing to go down.

And you think abandoning 100 million+ people to try and pander to people who probably won't vote for you anyway is a good plan?

There are 3 groups of people more or less

(1) People who adamantly want SSM to be legal. Do you think many of these people are just going to suddenly start voting Republican?

(2) People who don't really care and will vote based on other issues. Many of which may show up in polls as supporting it because anyone who opposes SSM now gets called a bigot

(3) Those who adamantly oppose SSM.

As long as (2) and (3) is relatively large and the number of people in group (1) who will switch to voting Republican if they change there view is small it would be stupid for Republicans to change there views.
 

GreenMeters

Senior member
Nov 29, 2012
214
0
71
Marriage exists because of procreation(which requires a man and a woman). Marriage being between a man and a woman is inherent to marriage.

Marriage exists to formalize monogamy. Therefore the man/women combination is not inherent to marriage.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
And a large % of the population doesn't want SSM. And I bet another fair amount doesnt give a damn.

That's completely tangential to your original comment.

Marriage exists because of procreation(which requires a man and a woman). Marriage being between a man and a woman is inherent to marriage.

Marriage is not a requirement for procreation. Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Marriage does not exist 'because' of procreation.

Marriage exists because pair bonding positively impacts society (regardless of the presence of children) and also positively impacts raising children. Ability to procreate is not a prerequisite for raising children.