You are here: Home » News » Analysis » GOP Candidate Jon Huntsman Does Not Support Marriage Equality

GOP Candidate Jon Huntsman Does Not Support Marriage Equality

06/22/11-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire

Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman does not appear to understand that the definition of marriage has been tweaked and redefined over the millennia, nor does he seem to grasp that different cultures have different views on marriage. Huntsman, in this clip via ThinkProgress, states that he feels that “redefining marriage” is an impossibility. He also does not believe in marriage equality for lesbians and gays. While this makes Huntsman the most progressive of the Republican candidates, it still means that he is buying into the usual line of anti-LGBT thinking common among the supporters of the Republican Party.

Here is the clip:

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.

Now, Huntsman has signed in to law legislation that expanded domestic partner benefits for Utah’s unmarried couples back in 2008, and he has endorsed civil unions as well. Unfortunately, neither provide true equality when it comes to civil and social marriage.

This notion that marriage cannot be altered or changed is based upon a perception that marriage is a religious rite and not a civil right. People do not need a priest, a minister or a rabbi to get married in this country, and ceremonies performed by a religious figure have no standing unless there is a marriage contract that has been signed. So, marriage is a contract entered into by two people and backed by the government.

Marriage has also been redefined several times over just the last two centuries. Interracial and interfaith marriages use to be taboo in the US, and interracial marriages were even illegal. Thus, the definition of marriage that Huntsman relies upon dates back only to 1969 when the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Lovings in Loving v. Virginia. Women use to be seen as subordinate in any marriage, and that has been redefined in a purely social manner. Men use to be allowed to rape, beat and even kill their own wives if they wanted to without any dire consequences if he could get away with the right defense.

Another form of marriage that is slowly dying away is common law marriage. Those can be entered into in ten states and DC. Specifically, Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, and Texas all allow for common law marriages that have neither the blessing of a religious establishment nor a contract. Simply, if two people live together for long enough, they are considered married by those states.

Thus, we are left with the reality that marriage can and has been redefined and does not need any religious backing whatsoever. Huntsman is trying to justify his own position when it comes to this issue without having a rational backing to go with it.