Governor Huntsman states that he supports the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. In 2004, he supported an amendment to the Utah constitution which defined marriage as one man and one woman. He has stated that he has always supported the traditional definition of marriage and that you open a pandora's box when you try to redefine it.
After the passage of the amendment, Governor Huntsman stated that rights could be granted to civil unions which were legally equivalent to marriage in reciprical beneficiary rights and many other regards. He has continued this support for civil unions throughout the 2012 presidential campaign.
Amendment 3
In 2004, the people in Utah voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to the Utah constitution known as Amendment 3. The amendment defined marriage and is shown below.
Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
In response to the amendment, Governor Huntsman stated in an Associated Press interview that he would support civil unions in the state of Utah and legal rights somewhat equal to marriage.
I had many discussions about Amendment 3 with many legal experts who informed me that individual rights, equal rights, could be taken up to the level of civil unions without compromising traditional marriage, which is something I believe in. I believe in the traditional definition of marriage, but I also believe that we can do a better job in enhancing equal rights for more of our citizens.
Politico Interview
In February of 2009, Governor Huntsman was interviewed by Politico and discussed his efforts to obtain greater equality for civil unions.
Q: You’ve changed your position on gay rights. What prompted that?
A: Well, I’ve always been in favor of greater equality. My first year in office I ran a…reciprocal beneficiary rights piece of legislation. It failed, but my first year in office I wanted to see if we could do more in the name of individual rights. And I’ve always thought that we were a little bit behind in terms of equality for people born under the same constitution.
Q: In December you talked about people 40 and under having a very different view on the environment. Is there a similar generational gap on gay rights?
A: You hit on the two issues that I think carry more of a generational component than anything else. And I would liken it a bit to the transformation of the Tory Party in the UK…They went two or three election cycles without recognizing the issues that the younger citizens in the UK really felt strongly about. They were a very narrow party of angry people. And they started branching out through, maybe, taking a second look at the issues of the day, much like we’re going to have to do for the Republican Party, to reconnect with the youth, to reconnect with people of color, to reconnect with different geographies that we have lost.
Time - Swampland Interview
In May of 2011 Governor Huntsman was interviewed by Time Magazine for their Swampland edition. He is asked about his stance on gay marriage and civil unions.
Can you talk a little bit about how you came to favor civil unions for gay couples?
I’ve always been in favor of traditional marriage and thinking that you open Pandora’s Box when you start to redefine it. But we’ve had friends who are gay and we’ve heard horror stories [about hospital visitation and legal rights], and I thought it was an appropriate time.
George Stephanopoulis Interview
In May of 2011, Governor Huntsman was interviewed by George Stephanopoulis. He is asked about his previous support for civil unions.
George Stephanopoulos: You invited the voters at that first event to look at your record. And by (UNINTEL) record, we see someone who supported civil unions for gay couples, supported having the children of illegal immigrants be able to pay in-state tuition in your state, supported cap and trade in the past as an energy policy. Every single one of those could be a big problem in the Republican primary. How do you deal with it?
Jon Huntsman: Well, first of all, I don't change on my positions. The circumstances change, like on cap and trade, for example. You know, today our focus -- although we all care about the environment, today our number one priority's the economy -- and we should not be doing anything that stands in the way of economic growth. And that which is going to move us forward in terms of expanding our economic base and creating jobs, period. That's not to say that all the while, you won't have people who are creating and innovating new approaches to dealing with emissions. That's going to continue.
George Stephanopoulos: But back in 2008, November of 2008, the beginning of the emissions, you said that dealing with those emissions was either going to take cap and trade or a carbon tax. Is that still true?
Jon Huntsman: And that was exactly what CEOs were saying, and that's exactly what all the experts were saying, and that's exactly what a whole lot of governors are saying at that point. The economy collapsed. We can no longer focus on that debate as aggressively as we did in years past. But that debate will continue because people care about the environment. But I suspect that the end point it's going to look a lot different than that original proposal. And we also have to remember, George, that this is an international challenge.
If we come up with our own approach, and if the Chinese who are now the largest emitters in the world don't go up with their own, if the Indians don't come up with their own, we're all downstream. And if we unilaterally disarmed, we're disadvantaged economically. That point comes home loud and clear when you're living in Beijing, the most polluted city in the world. And you step outside and say this is a huge challenge. And all of this gunk, all of these emissions, they're going somewhere. And everyone's downstream these days. It's got to be an international fix.
George Stephanopoulos: On civil unions and on immigration, no walking away from your past positions?
Jon Huntsman: No. No. I think, in the case of civil unions, I think it's a fairness issue. I believe in traditional marriage. But subordinate to that, I think we probably can do a better job when it comes to fairness and equality. And I don't believe in penalizing the younger generation coming across our borders who have no say whatsoever over their journey and destiny.
They want to integrate into the American system. If they're willing what needs to do be done and work hard, then I think if we're giving them an in-house tuition break, that integrates them into the system, and makes them part of ultimately contributing to our country.
Mark Larson Show
In June of 2011, Governor Huntsman was interviewed on the Mark Larson show and discussed his support for traditional marriage and civil union legal protections.
Mark Larson: What about the civil unions issue, because you ever get to the sanctity of marriage ... marriage is between a man and a woman. Obviously, you're demonstrating things at home again here, but you have been for the civil union issue, correct?
Governor Huntsman: On marriage? Yea, I am a traditionalist. I think that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman ... one man and one woman. I think that below that however, we have not done an adequate job in recognizing the issue of equality. Particularly as it relates to reciprocal beneficiary rights ... hospital visits and insurance. I think that there's more that we can do in this particular area. So I spoke out about it. I know that some people will like it, some people won't. I'm where I am on traditional marriage, but I've also been bothered by our lack of being able to find some sense of equality as it relates to those beyond marriage.
State's Rights and Marriage
In June of 2011, Governor Huntsman was interviewed by reporters after launching his campaign. He states that he would support New York's right to determine marriage and extend the definition to same-sex couples.
I would respect the state's decision on that
Morning Joe Appearance
In June of 2011, Governor Huntsman appeared on the Morning Joe show and discussed his support for civil unions and his views on marriage.
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.
Iowa Debate
In August of 2011, Governor Huntsman participated in the Republican Presidential debate in Ames, Iowa. He stated that he supported civil unions.
YORK: All right. Thank you, governor. Next we'll go to Governor Huntsman.
Recently, a Des Moines Register poll found that 58 percent of likely caucus goers, Republican caucus goers here in Iowa, consider support of civilian unions a deal killer for a candidate. You support civil unions. Why are you right and most other candidates along with most GOP caucus goers, why are they wrong?
HUNTSMAN: I'm running on my record. I'm proud to run on my record. Some people run from their record, I'm running on my record. I believe in traditional marriage first and foremost. I've been married 28 years. I have seven terrific kids to show for it.
But I also believe in civil unions. Because I think this nation can do a better job when it comes to equality. And I think this nation can do a better job when it comes to reciprocal beneficiary rights. And I believe that this is something that ought to be discussed among the various states.
I don't have any problem with states having this discussion. But as for me, I support civil unions. (APPLAUSE)
RedState Interview
In December of 2011, Governor Huntsman was inteviewed by RedState.com and discussed his record and stance on gay marriage.
Q. You as Governor were broadly supportive of gay marriage, is that correct?
A. I was supportive of civil unions.
Q. Okay. Do you support the Defense of Marriage Act on the federal level?
A. Yes, I am for the Defense of Marriage Act, I think that it’s an important safeguard for states if they choose to go in a direction that is different from another state that chooses gay marriage.
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.
Q. Would you veto any legislative attempt to overturn any portion of the Defense of Marriage Act?
