Of all the candidates in Saturday night’s ABC News /Yahoo!/WMUR-TV New Hampshire Republican primary debate, Jon Huntsman offered the best (and most coherent) statement on state recognition of same-sex relationships:

Well, personally, I think civil unions are fair. I support them. I think there’s such a thing as equality under the law.

I’m a married man. I’ve been married for 28 years. I have seven kids. Glad we’re off the contraception discussion.

(LAUGHTER)

Fifteen minutes’ worth, by the way. And I don’t feel that my relationship is at all threatened by civil unions. On — on marriage, I’m a traditionalist. I think that ought to be saved for one man and one woman, but I believe that civil unions are fair. And I think it brings a level of dignity to relationships. And I believe in reciprocal beneficiary rights. I think they should be part of civil unions, as well. And states ought to be able to talk about this. I think it’s very — I think it’s absolutely appropriate.

Even though he favors the traditional definition of marriage, he believes the state should recognize — and offer benefits to — same-sex civil unions.  Important for us to recognize that someone can oppose gay marriage while also supporting benefits for same-sex couples.

It would be nice if more Republicans could adopt Huntsman’s stand.  Kudos to the Utah Republican for clearly — unambiguously — articulating his support for civil unions.

This on the normally pro-Obama AOL. They even link through to the FoxNews report.

My brothers assumed that only Drudge would pick this up:

Now why would a presidential candidate who promised transparency when he was running for the White House want to keep a social at said residence under wraps? Why the cover up?

The story is not the crime, but the cover up.  Had they not tried to cover it up, a few people might have raised their eyebrows, but now they leave us wondering about their insecurity, their obsession about maintaining a certain image.  (If that image was so important, why even have the party?) (more…)

Sometimes in their commentary, our readers express points important enough to merit a post of their own.  Our loyal reader and regular commenter V the K did just that in a comment to my recent post on Newt Gingrich:

Why was so much time even put to the question of gay marriage last night? Really? Our economy is strangling in taxes and bureaucracy. Iran is nuking up as [President Obama] guts our military. EUrotopia is collapsing into bankruptcy. China’s economy is slowing. [Obama] has been shutting down domestic hydrocarbon production while loaning billions to Brazil for offshore drilling and running guns to Mexican drug gangs. The [president] is making unconstitutional appointments and just signed a law letting himself detain American citizens indefinitely for no reason… and they spend the first quarter of the debate talking about gay marriage? WTF?

I think we know why. Gay marriage is a tribal marker, and the inquisitors brought it up to establish affiliation with their liberal tribe and also in hopes of making the Republicans look whacky. We also know that liberals vote based on social issues, and that social issues trump economics and national security for the Democrat base. So, the MFM get a threefer, they get to ask Republicans potentially awkward questions, they get to smugly assert their membership in the liberal tribe, and they help Obama get his base motivated. Win. Win. Win.

Edited as indicated because I don’t feel it appropriate to use the term he used to describe the President of the United States.  Emphasis added.  George Stephanopoulos, Michael Barone wrote about the former Clinton White House official’s moderation of last night’s debate, “who otherwise has made an almost Russert-like transition from partisan operative to fair-minded journalist, seemed to be trying to get the Republican candidates in trouble“.

Seems that the folks in the legacy media would rather contrast the Republicans with the Democrats on social issues than acknowledge that (many of) the GOP presidential candidates are doing what the incumbent is not–putting forward real solutions to our nation’s pressing economic and fiscal problems, the top items on most voters mind as this year’s election approaches.

Folks, like Stephanopolous, in the legacy media want to make it appear that the Republican candidates are obsessed with social issues. (more…)

Our friends at GOProud were enthusiastic about Mitt Romney’s remarks on gay people in this morning’s debate.  In a release, they cited something the presidential candidate said beyond the commentary he offered on marriage last night:

After pointing out that while Massachusetts’s governor, a member of his cabinet was gay and he appointed judges regardless of sexual orientation, he said,

“If people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people — that have different sexual orientation don’t have full rights in this country, they won’t find that in me.”

This led the group’s Executive Director, Jimmy LaSalvia (who has himself endorsed Romney) to comment:

We thank Governor Romney for having the political courage to speak up for gay Americans. He made it crystal clear this morning that he will be the type of President that gay people, and those who care about gays and lesbians in this country, can trust and be proud of.

On issue after issue – whether it’s the economy, jobs, taxes, energy, healthcare or retirement security – Mitt Romney is offering common-sense conservative plans that will improve the lives of all Americans – gay or straight.

Smart strategy to praise the candidate for what he has said.  Should help them gain influence since the candidate win election to the White House.

My paying job and the GOP Presidential calendar are aligning to put me in Manchester, NH tonight through Tuesday AM.

I’m in Philly airport now with an hour layover.

I’ll be sure to let y’all know if I encounter anything politics related during my visit.

As always, follow me on Twitter!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Based on the commentary of some of my left-of-center gay friends on Facebook last night, the Republican presidential candidates engaged in a hatefest against gay people. I did not watch the debate. I am back in my hometown of Cincinnati and preferred to spend the evening with my brother.

Then, this morning, after spending time with my second youngest nephew and youngest niece, I had a brief break to check the blogs. Reading Jennifer Rubin’s commentary on the debate (in particular that the “ABC moderators. . . were, in a word, horrendous [fixating] on gay marriage and contraception for far too long“), I decided to go to the transcript. I thought Jon Huntsman gave the best answer on gay marriage (more on this anon).

But, although we may not agree with what Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney said, their words can hardly be described as “hateful.” Indeed, both men showed some sympathy for the concerns gay couples have when governments don’t recognize our unions, notably when one partner is hospitalized. I cite Newt first (since he spoke first and since Romney referenced him on hospital visitation rights):

Well, I think what I would say is that we want to make it possible to have those things that are most intimately human between friends occur. For example, you’re in a hospital. If there are visitation hours, should you be allowed to stay there? There ought to be ways to designate that.

You want to have somebody in your will. There ought to be ways to designate that. But it is a huge jump from being understanding and considerate and concerned, which we should be, to saying we therefore are going to institute the sacrament of marriage as though it has no basis.

The sacrament of marriage was based on a man and woman, has been for 3,000 years. Is at the core of our civilization. And it’s something worth protecting and upholding. And I think protecting and upholding that doesn’t mean you have to go out and make life miserable for others, but it does mean you make a distinction between a historic sacrament of enormous importance in our civilization and simply deciding it applies everywhere and it’s just a civil right.

Emphasis added.  In other words, he says pretty explicitly that we shouldn’t make life miserable for gays.  He also makes clear that he believes the institution of marriage is based on the union of a man and a woman and it’s been that way for thousands of years.  Now, let’s turn to Governor Romney:

Well, the answer is, is that’s a wonderful thing to do, and that there’s every right for people in this country to form long- term committed relationships with one another. That doesn’t mean that they have to call it marriage or they have to receive the — the approval of the state and a marriage license and so forth for that to occur.

There can be domestic partnership benefits or — or a contractual relationship between two people, which would include, as — as Speaker Gingrich indicated, hospital visitation rights and the like. We can decide what kinds of benefits we might associate with people who form those kind of relationships, state by state.

But — but to say that — that marriage is something other than the relationship between a man — a man and a woman, I think, is a mistake. And the reason for that is not that we want to discriminate against people or to suggest that — that gay couples are not just as loving and can’t also raise children well. (more…)

Many who criticize Newt Gingrich have faulted what they call his “discipline” problem.  Like many people with strong emotions, strong convictions, he tends to let you know what he feels when he is moved and what he thinks when a thought pops into his head.

More often than not leadership requires restraint.  Sometimes, it’s the things not said which determine our ability to gain respect.  We have all had those times when we would have done better to remain silent and not complain about some outrage we feel or some slight we have suffered.  And that expression frequently compromises our ability to accomplish the task at hand.  As we age, some of us learn to suffer some such slights in silence.  Newt Gingrich, it appears, has not.

That is why he, at least according to Byron York, he is tumbling in the polls.  It’s not much, York writes, the attack ads which have hurt the former Speaker, but his “reaction to the ads“:

Voters who once supported Gingrich but have now turned away from him say that his hot-tempered response to the ads, rather than the ads themselves, simply turned them off.  “He’s got a temper,” said one Tea Party member at a Nashua coffeehouse Saturday morning.  “I don’t want a guy with a temper with his finger on the button.”  Other voters said Gingrich’s ill-tempered complaints about the ads distracted them from the former speaker’s message about jobs, the economy, and American renewal.

. . . .

As a political tactic, the brilliance of the Paul and Romney ads was that they provoked Gingrich to anger — and into hurting himself.  That allowed Romney supporters to follow up by accusing Gingrich of being in a state of perpetual anger, and therefore unfit for the presidency.

(H/t Ed Driscoll on Instapundit.)  Read the whole thing.

That said, despite Newt’s, um, well, erratic behavior on the campaign trail, many rank-and-file Republicans who do not back the Georgian for President (including yours truly) do acknowledge his accomplishments: “Voters here and in South Carolina still have great respect for Gingrich and what he has accomplished in his career; no rival can match him.”

Sometimes silence (even when we suffer inside) can make us appear strong.   (more…)