News for Mormons

From MercuryNews.com:

Though widely anticipated, the California Supreme Court’s decision today to uphold the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage induced anger, tears and vows to intensify the fight for equal rights for same-sex couples to marry.

Those who supported Proposition 8 at the ballot box hailed the ruling as a defense of traditional values, as did conservative politicians gearing up for next year’s battle to succeed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The justices seemed to signal consternation over the ruling, making it clear that it was a judgment on the narrow question of whether the ballot initiative legally amended the state Constitution and setting aside federal constitutional issues of equality under the law. They ruled that the 18,000 gay marriages conducted in the state last year during the six-month period that they were legal remained valid, but failed to make clear the status of gay couples legally married in other states and countries who make their home in California.

Bill Walker, 52, and Kelly Ziegler, 41, were married last June 17 in Los Angeles and stayed home from work in Hollywood today so they could be together when the ruling was announced.

“We grabbed each other’s hands when they said we were still married,” said Walker, a television writer. “We’re obviously happy that our marriage was upheld and that that can’t be taken away from us, but it’s a very compromised feeling because we have friends who can’t get married now.”

Chris Clarke, 39, of Fountain Valley voted for Proposition 8 in November because it stood for the “ideals of what I think raising a family should be in this country.”

Clarke, a lifeguard who was spending his day off with his wife and son at the Bella Terra mall, said the ruling reaffirmed that belief.

“It’s about raising kids, and ideally it’s about a kid being surrounded by a mom and a dad, and I say that recognizing that there are good gay parents and bad straight parents,” he said while his 1-year-old son played near a fountain.

Schwarzenegger said this morning that he would abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling backing Proposition 8 but that he believes gay couples should have the right to marry and would obtain it someday through an initiative or the courts.

“He voted no on Prop. 8. He supports the idea of giving same-sex couples the right to marry. I think he was hoping it would go the other way,” said spokesman Aaron McLear.

California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown said he was surprised as well as disappointed, given the state Supreme Court’s ardent defense of equal rights for same-sex couples expressed a year ago.

“They’re saying it’s only a name . . . they said last time, it’s not just a name,” Brown said of the justices’ pronouncement on marriage. “I do think that is a retreat from their strong defense of the right of marriage that they found to exist within the California constitutional framework.”

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom urged Californians to “reach out to those who still disagree with our position” to persuade them to understand the importance of equal treatment.

“Across the nation, states like Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts are recognizing that separate can never be equal under the eyes of the law,” Newsom said.

But his Republican opponent in the race for governor next year, retired EBay chief Meg Whitman, hailed the high court ruling as a validation of voters’ rights to decide the law.

“I believe the California State Supreme Court made the right decision. Last November, the people of California passed Proposition 8, and today the court upheld their decision,” Whitman said. “This simple yet powerful fact is the foundation of our democracy. Regardless of one’s position on the measure, this ruling gives people confidence that their vote matters and can make a difference.”

At a news conference in Sacramento, leaders of the Yes on 8 campaign, ProtectMarriage.com, applauded the ruling but said they would continue with multimillion-dollar public education and political action efforts in anticipation of a new campaign by the measure’s opponents to overturn it with another initiative.

From National Journal Online:

Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman calls himself a “traditional Republican” and presides over the reddest state in the country. But he doesn’t shy away from criticizing his own party. He wants the GOP to “broaden its base” to regain its national standing and says he thinks the country is ready for a Mormon president. NationalJournal.com’s Amy Harder recently spoke with Huntsman to find out his take on the presidential hype and the GOP’s path forward. Edited excerpts follow. Visit the archives page for more Insider Interviews.

NJ: How would you grade the Republicans’ first 100 days?

Huntsman: It would be incomplete in the sense that they’ve got — we as a party — we’ve got about 50 percent of being the loyal opposition down well, while the other half, which is presenting viable policy proposals and real ideas, we have failed at. I would give it an incomplete, and say we’re about halfway home.

NJ: What kind of policy changes or alternatives could Republicans present but haven’t yet?

Huntsman: We as a party — unlike the [Newt] Gingrich revolution of the early ’90s, where there was a good, solid set of policy recommendations that the party could rally around — we don’t have that right now. And because we don’t have that, we’re trading at an all-time low in terms of public opinion, probably lower than any other time since Watergate.

NJ: You recently said the GOP “isn’t moving anywhere right now.” How do you think Republicans should move forward?

Huntsman: There is a course, and it’s the same course the Democrats had to take 10 years ago. Things go in cycles, historically speaking, and we’ll be back in action over time; it’s just the pathway that we choose at this point and whether or not that’s a short-term comeback or a long-term comeback.

It must begin with a meritocracy of ideas. You’ve got to have ideas competing in the marketplace under the Republican banner that are playing out in the incubators of democracy called the states.

NJ: Would you consider yourself more moderate than other Republicans when it comes to social issues?

Huntsman: I don’t do well with tags. I’m a traditional Republican. People hired me to balance budgets, to make the economy work and to find fixes for health care and energy and transportation, and that’s what I spend every waking hour doing. They didn’t hire me to be a moralizer.

NJ: Why have you chosen to speak out in favor of civil unions?

Huntsman: Well, I didn’t speak out on them, I was asked. And that’s typically how journalism works. You’re asked a question, you answer it and then it becomes a story. I have long been in favor of fairness and equality as long as I’ve been in office, and as long as I am in office that’s exactly what I’ll stand for.

I’m a traditionalist when it comes to gay marriage. I believe [marriage] should be between a man and a woman. I believe marriage ceremonies are sacred and they draw strongly on all sorts of traditions. But subordinate to that, we’ve not done a very good job in providing others who are in nontraditional relationships equal treatment. And I think there’s probably room for improvement there.

NJ: There has been movement in states around the country toward gay marriage, and McCain campaign director Steve Schmidt recently called for the party to support such marriages. What’s your reaction to Schmidt’s comments?

Huntsman: We have a real need to broaden our base as a party. When you look at the demographics of the Republican Party, we’ve lost a good many voters and a good many voters have gone independent. And you have to ask yourself a question: Why is the independent “party” larger than either the Republican or Democratic Party?…

The Republican Party is going to have to make some strides to win independents back into the fold, and that’s not going to be an easy thing to do. But if we do something about showing a sense of fairness and equality toward all citizens, that might be a good first step.

NJ: What do you mean by “something”?

Huntsman: In our case — at least in my case — I do think that civil unions is one approach that does speak to equality and fairness. A lot of people — and I would put myself in that category — are traditionalists when it comes to traditional marriages between a man and a woman, but I think there is more that we can do to prove the point that we are a party that does believe in fairness.

NJ: After calling out Republicans for their “gratuitous political carping,” you said the party needs to make bold moves on issues like health care and energy. How should the federal government go about passing energy legislation that will help Western states?

Huntsman: The most important thing we can do is to embrace a meaningful incentive that actually attracts the manufacturers of capital equipment, and then allow the producers of energy the opportunity to build new, world-class facilities. That takes land, and that takes an updated and enhanced grid system in order to deliver the energy. And it’s something that is very difficult to do on your own, state by state. It’s something that really does require federal assistance and support because it crosses borders.

NJ: Some Republicans do not believe that carbon is a contributing factor to global warming. What is your stance on that?

Huntsman: Every physics department in the country, every meteorology department in the country, every academy of sciences in the Western world, has pretty much weighed in on this as an issue. There is a substantial body of science that would lead to: This is an emerging problem and the fact that humans do contribute to the problem. Therefore, it’s up to us as policymakers to figure out what to do about it.

There are a lot of different approaches that we can take. You have to see it in free-market terms. You have to deal with it realistically, knowing that you can’t put a burden on consumers who are already carrying the load of high energy costs. But you do have to deal realistically with emissions.

NJ: How do you see religion and its role in politics evolving over the next four years?

Huntsman: I think, as we’ve seen in elections in recent history, people want their president to humbly serve the voters who put him in office, to maintain a viable and competitive economy, to manage a strong and confident foreign policy and, above all, prepare the way for the next generation of Americans. That is first and foremost what voters want out of their elected officials.

NJ: So are you saying that religion as an issue has become less important?

Huntsman: I think religion for most people is a highly personal thing. That will play out as it will.

NJ: Do you think the country is ready for a Mormon president?

Huntsman: I think ultimately that is a real possibility — just as it was for a Catholic in 1960. Barriers are broken all the time.

NJ: Your name has surfaced as a possible 2012 presidential candidate. In fact, John McCain recently mentioned your name first as a contender on “Meet The Press.” Why do you think your name is coming up as a possibility?

Huntsman: Could be the total depths of despair of the party. [Laughs]. Hey, listen, I think we really are at a point in time where a lot of names are going to be thrown out, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re being thrown out in a meaningful fashion. It’s just — we’re looking for ideas and people associated with ideas that might be able to take us forward in a successful way. And it’s hard to know where that’s going to go.

It’s presumptuous for me or anybody else to say they’re lining up or they’re going to be a serious contender in the future, because it must be tied to real ideas and real solutions, to preeminence and not just partisans.

From NJ.com:

I found Kathleen Parker’s March 4 column (”Limbaugh is a showman, not a shaman”) interesting, but more interesting than her comments about Rush Limbaugh were what she had to say about former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Romney was at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and won the presidential preference straw poll for the third straight year. So why did the Republicans put Bobby Jindal out front and center after President Obama’s address to Congress on Feb. 24? Jindal’s speech was almost as bad as former President George W. Bush’s attempts to offer our nation an inspirational speech or speak in a coherent sentence.
And how can the GOP still consider Sarah Palin a possible candidate for 2012?

As Parker rightly states, Romney’s speeches show who the real GOP leader is. Romney is an “optimistic leader with a business record of red-to-black successes.” So why isn’t the Republican party putting forth Romney since he is currently the party’s brightest individual? He is intelligent, thoughtful, speaks clearly and concisely, understands the world of business and finance, as well as the world in which we live. How sad to consider the possibility that a Mormon is not the minority the Republicans are looking for.

From KSL.com:
Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. may not exactly have been a crowd favorite at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), considering some of his centrist views, like gay rights.

He said the GOP needs to be more intellectually rigorous. He told Politico.com Republicans need to take up the middle on issues like gay rights, immigration and the environment.

While that may not ignite the conservative core, analysts say those views could appeal to a wider base. It might pit him squarely against Utah’s other favorite son, Mitt Romney, who was the straw poll winner at CPAC.

University of Utah political science professor Tim Chambless says some of the governor’s views could hurt him in primaries.

“The candidates that emerge are usually supported by the left-wing, right-wing elements of the parties. The moderate candidates have a tough time,” he said.

Chambless says it’s too early to tell how Huntsman will stack up against Romney.