Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney charges it's "disingenuous" of Sen. John McCain to think (1) gay marriage is a bad idea and (2) the issue should be left to the states (not a federal constitutional amendment). This, says Romney, is "having it both ways." Morality trumps federalism. I disagree, but it's a coherent position.
But wait. Mitt Romney opposes abortion. "I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother," he wrote in 2005. So does he call for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion? Umm...actually, abortion should be left to the states. From the same article:
The federal system left to us by the Constitution allows people of different states to make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus avoiding the bitter battles engendered by ''one size fits all" judicial pronouncements. A federalist approach would allow such disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance.
So there's room for moral variance on whether to slaughter unborn children, but not on whether to marry gay couples.
Romney isn't the only social conservative whose inconsistency on gay marriage and abortion is glaring, but he isn't just anyone. He's a leading contender for president and, apparently, the leading bidder for the "values vote."
So here's the question John McCain needs to put to Mitt Romney:
"Mitt, if I'm wrong on gay marriage, how can you be right on
abortion?" When Romney ducks, here's the follow-up: "Would you like
to see the Constitution amended to ban abortion throughout the
country, and will you fight for that if elected president? Yes or
no." We're waiting, Governor.
Corvino, John
{ 63 comments }
← Previous Comments
Incidentally, John McCain is also on the record as not supporting civil unions, which he apparently considers identical to gay marriage. In reality, whichever Republican wins the Republican nomination won’t matter — we will be delivered another arrogant, unaccountable, big-government, anti-gay candidate.
From the Arizona Star:
“So you’re for civil unions?” Stephanopoulos asked.
“No,” he said. “I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. I do not believe gay marriage should be legal,” he repeated. “But I do believe that people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people have relationships can enter into.”
A vote for a Republican candidate is a wasted vote. Any gay man voting for a Republican candidate is voting against lower taxes, lower spending, and equal rights under the law for gays and lesbians — whether he’s voting for McCain or Romney. There’s no difference, whatsoever, in their positions.
Bill from FL | November 26, 2006, 2:54am |
However, …the FMA does not abrogate the right of the states to regulate marriage…
This is demonstrably incorrect, as has been pointed out above. What part of Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman–the first sentence of the FMA–do you apparently not understand?
More to the point of the post, from this morning’s (Sun 26 Nov 2006) Boston Globe:
Romney’s dance to the right
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | November 26, 2006
IT’S LIKE turning a ballerina into a right-leaning elephant.
For more than a decade, Mitt Romney has been dancing around some hot-button social issues. Now, he is running hard to the right to position himself for the 2008 presidential contest.
But his tutu catches on some inconvenient realities: He ran for office twice in Massachusetts as a moderate, pro choice Republican. All the political theatrics in the world can’t change the record.
Take Romney’s war on gay marriage in Massachusetts….
Much more here.
Aside from the liability of his Mormon religion, I wonder how much Romney will be able to survive his obvious flip-flops on social issues.
All….
In my tiredness and juggling of 5 things when I posted this be advised that I did not make note or bold when I copied and pasted what someone else said. Raj, I hope I didn’t confuse you or anyone else.
This is what I meant to say when addressing Ed Holstonand NDT at 2:54am. My words below:
Funny how Romney is so passionate about these 2 issues. Aren’t the courts the 3rd branch of government? If the states wanted to pass a law that said Alabama should criminalize saying “Bush is dumb” shouldn’t the courts be able to stop it? Read the FMA a bit closer. You have been speaking about it enough. And does common sense not tell you that a law REQUIRES sometime to happen? What part of “Marriage in the US Shall only be between a man and a woman” don’t you understand about the FMA?
What kind of Republican Activist judges would have fun with this one? Haven’t you ever heard of right wing political correctness and republican activist judges too? (Stop down your local fundi church in perfectly blue SF. You’ll get an idea of right wing political correctness and what it’s like here in FL!”
I do not like the whole judicial strategy, but are courts not where “The little guy” has to go to make sure he gets a fair shake? What about all the other countless court decisions that go one way or the other on various issues?
Your remark about (not exact words) gays not being socialogically, biologically the same, etc as straight couples need I remind you that is only true for NON BARREN straight couples? Should we have to be inferior and wait for big mommy uncle sam to get around and decide what it thinks we should get at the discount government rights and benefits store?
Why do I feel like a Jew in the Weimar Republic?
A vote for a third party candidate is also a wasted vote 99% of the time. If you dont like that then I suggest you change the law.
Funny how Romney is so passionate about these 2 issues. Aren’t the courts the 3rd branch of government? If the states wanted to pass a law that said Alabama should criminalize saying “Bush is dumb” shouldn’t the courts be able to stop it?
Under the current Constitutional guidelines of freedom of speech, yes.
However, that hardly means that voters can’t amend the Federal Constitution to allow (or disallow) such laws as these, which would take the courts neatly out of the equation.
The judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government, and for good reason; it’s the only one in which those in power are not elected by voters and serve life terms. Therefore, it is limited only to interpreting existing fundamental law, and as such, can be with perfect right checked, reversed, and bound by voters’ will as expressed in the constitutional referendum and amendment process.
I do not like the whole judicial strategy, but are courts not where “The little guy” has to go to make sure he gets a fair shake?
A “fair shake”, of course, being the courts ruling in your favor — which is why, despite countless existing decisions against you and your fellow leftists, you continue to file lawsuit after lawsuit, shopping for judges, trying to find one who will rule in your favor.
That is why you and your fellow gay leftists like Raj have succeeded in nothing other than getting more amendments that explicitly prevent such behavior from getting passed — and why your cowardice and fear is such that you refuse to allow a vote even in Massachusetts on whether the people want gay marriage or not.
Your remark about (not exact words) gays not being socialogically, biologically the same, etc as straight couples need I remind you that is only true for NON BARREN straight couples?
Contrary to popular leftist belief, an inability to have children does not turn a woman into a man or vice versa. Even in the absence of children, there are significant biological, sociological, and psychological differences between couples of the same sex and couples of the opposite sex. Gay leftists may wish to deny the obvious, but that doesn’t mean it ceases to exist.
Should we have to be inferior and wait for big mommy uncle sam to get around and decide what it thinks we should get at the discount government rights and benefits store?
Whenever this cry of “inferior” comes up, I always think of a trip to Filene’s Basement. I can buy a lovely pair of Gucci loafers that don’t fit, or I can buy a pair of less-tony shoes that do fit and work with my wardrobe. Yes, the less-tony shoes are “inferior” in terms of brand, but they are superior in terms of usefulness.
Ask yourself the question, Bill: do you want marriage for benefits and protections, or do you just want it because you want to stick it to straight people? Given that leftist gays turned down a reciprocal-benefits arrangement in Colorado that was a shoo-in to pass, instead trying a typical leftist hate campaign that resulted in gay marriage being banned AND civil unions being rejected, one wonders.
Why do I feel like a Jew in the Weimar Republic?
Because the one thing the gay leftist community does well is to brainwash gays into believing they’re helpless victims. It works better for getting them to support antireligious bigotry, mindless socialism, envy and jealousy of heterosexuals, contempt for their parents’ lifestyles, and all the other things that gay leftists try to cloak in the form of “gay rights”.
Funny how Romney is so passionate about these 2 issues. Aren’t the courts the 3rd branch of government? If the states wanted to pass a law that said Alabama should criminalize saying “Bush is dumb” shouldn’t the courts be able to stop it?
Under the current Constitutional guidelines of freedom of speech, yes. However, that hardly means that voters can’t amend the Federal Constitution to allow (or disallow) such laws as these, which would take the courts neatly out of the equation.
RESPONSE: Of course they can do that. But it isn’t the VOTERS that do so, it’s state and federal politicians who may or may not care what their constituents (who may not be voters) think! Yes, of course this is representative government. But remember-it’s not the voters!
The judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government, and for good reason; it’s the only one in which those in power are not elected by voters and serve life terms. Therefore, it is limited only to interpreting existing fundamental law, and as such, can be with perfect right checked, reversed, and bound by voters’ will as expressed in the constitutional referendum and amendment process.
RESPONSE: True at the federal level but as you know it varies at the state level! Some states have recall, retention, or partisan/non partisan political campaiging. The founders/framers knew that it probably wasn’t wise for judges to be totally subject to political pressure as would a congressman, etc. All of this is per the chosen representatives to the ConCon for the federal cons. And then for each state constitution that was designed by the state’s lawmakers/people!
I do not like the whole judicial strategy, but are courts not where “The little guy” has to go to make sure he gets a fair shake?
A “fair shake”, of course, being the courts ruling in your favor — which is why, despite countless existing decisions against you and your fellow leftists, you continue to file lawsuit after lawsuit, shopping for judges, trying to find one who will rule in your favor.
That is why you and your fellow gay leftists like Raj have succeeded in nothing other than getting more amendments that explicitly prevent such behavior from getting passed — and why your cowardice and fear is such that you refuse to allow a vote even in Massachusetts on whether the people want gay marriage or not.
RESPONSE: NOT TRUE! No, think about it for a second: A fair shake meaning the little old lady in Atlantic City that faces losing her home from Eminent Domain from casinos or the city, etc etc. Majoritarian State power squashing dissidents, like communists, non-violent seperatists in Montana, the list goes on and on. And when do the courts always rule in my favor? No, fair is fair (which is subjective of course!) Why are you assuming that I am some flaming liberal which is NOT the case! We got stuck with the “Judicial Strategy” I suppose, because gays do not have the grassroots “don’t mind being told what to do” power that the opposition does. At the same time, we have been lazy, complacent, apathetic, and uninformed. We are not a monolithic group and frankly we are like herding cats! Also, I have this little issue called being employed, family responsibilities, and a relationship. God I hope he doesn’t get sick! (My company won’t/can’t offer DP’s family leave or Health Insurance because of FL law!)
And who are the “you and your fellow leftists”? Since when am I a leftist? And it is not ME and my fellow leftists. Again, I am not a leftist and if I have to tell you my positions I will do so. My cowadice and fear that won’t allow a vote? Not mine specifically, as I am a resident of FL.
I do not like issues like this or many others being submitted for a vote, because any similar issue would NEVER have been submitted for a vote! In many ways, I think direct democracy is not a good thing. And the process that MA went thru for this issue alone was frankly kind of weird and the process has been very ugly and divisive. When the marriage ban gets defeated in MA, if it gets to the voters, lets see what you have to say then!
Your remark about (not exact words) gays not being socialogically, biologically the same, etc as straight couples need I remind you that is only true for NON BARREN straight couples?
Contrary to popular leftist belief, an inability to have children does not turn a woman into a man or vice versa. Even in the absence of children, there are significant biological, sociological, and psychological differences between couples of the same sex and couples of the opposite sex. Gay leftists may wish to deny the obvious, but that doesn’t mean it ceases to exist.
RESPONSE: Fair Enough. Yes there are differences between men and women but that is not the point and it is blatantly obvious that sexes don’t change. You however haven’t seen the denying lefties try to ban “men are from mars and women are from venus” from school/public libraries: have you though?
You and your right wing friends keep puking out the crap about “marriage is about having children” which you KNOW is crap. It is not entirely the truth at all times, or even most of the time in this day and age with people being married 3 and 4 times. Marriage today does not have the same things in common with marriage 150 years ago, except that it’s a male/female thing. Do I have to list examples?
I know that the psychology and dynamics are different in hetero relationships and that we are still an “alternate lifestyle” which I have no problem being. I know I will never have a traditional marriage, which is fine also. I have always said and always believed that heterosexuality IS the dominant Norm. And that’s fine, but because I am different does not make me less of a man, person, or citizen.
Should we have to be inferior and wait for big mommy uncle sam to get around and decide what it thinks we should get at the discount government rights and benefits store?
Whenever this cry of “inferior” comes up, I always think of a trip to Filene’s Basement. I can buy a lovely pair of Gucci loafers that don’t fit, or I can buy a pair of less-tony shoes that do fit and work with my wardrobe. Yes, the less-tony shoes are “inferior” in terms of brand, but they are superior in terms of usefulness.
RESPONSE: I take it Filene’s basement is a thrift shop? It is not a “cry” of inferior. It is a shout in anger. It is very obvious to me from my experience that this is how people feel about us and as couples. You being a hetero probably don’t see it?.but it is very much there. Not to mention you live in or near San Francisco or probably a very “Blue Area”. (My condolences that you live in SF!) For the most part I do like and agree with the shoe analogy and “superior in terms of usefulness” but we are not talking about something as simple of shoes. When my home state of NJ began recently to consider Civil Unions I thought to myself “For God’s sake take it and lobby for marriage later!” I would be comfortable with Civil Unions until the end of time, but I think by now you should know that if you ask for $100 you get $90. If you ask for $85 you get $70.
What I don’t want to see if a bunch of Cafeteria Style government bureaucrats hemming and hawing about “oh no they deserve 6 rights, oh no it’s 50, oh no it’s 175″ etc. I don’t like government doing that.
Ask yourself the question, Bill: do you want marriage for benefits and protections, or do you just want it because you want to stick it to straight people? Given that leftist gays turned down a reciprocal-benefits arrangement in Colorado that was a shoo-in to pass, instead trying a typical leftist hate campaign that resulted in gay marriage being banned AND civil unions being rejected, one wonders.
RESPONSE: I have always been an assimilationist. Have you been living in the SF area so long that you forgot we exist? Of COURSE I don’t want to “stick it to straight people”. My parents are straight as are most of my friends.
But, would it hurt all of you that bad if we did get Marriage/CU? Regarding the Reciprocal Benefits thing, I think it was a good start and the “leftist gays” in CO are probably nice and full with the crow they are eating on that one. At the same time, the religious right would have filed a case in court saying it flies in the face of the marriage ban or somet other argument. (Think of the temper tantrum they have over the federal ENDA bill which is pretty watered down.) Sadly, The gays took a big gamble for a big prize and lost badly. My guess is, they sat in their quintessential urban-blue area-ivory tower and said “we are all knowing and if we say it, they will all follow”.
Why do I feel like a Jew in the Weimar Republic?
Because the one thing the gay leftist community does well is to brainwash gays into believing they’re helpless victims. It works better for getting them to support antireligious bigotry, mindless socialism, envy and jealousy of heterosexuals, contempt for their parents’ lifestyles, and all the other things that gay leftists try to cloak in the form of “gay rights”.
RESPONSE: True to a point, but in practice gays like myself know I am not a helpless victim. If these people are dumb enough to believe it, that is their problem. How many gay welfare queens do you know that natter on and on about “the straight man keeping me down”? Haven’t you heard the latest news from the religious right that we have more money than the average straight people, etc?
I know life will be harder and I will have a lot more enemies, but I know that what does not kill me makes me stronger. I do not hate my parents lifestyles and the like. I do not hate the traditional nuclear family or religion. But I will not sit passively by and keep my mouth shut while religion-which DOES get special rights in our society, the family, etc are used against me and my kind.
My “Jew in the Weimar Republic” comment is like this: I am waiting for the other shoe to drop against gays. It always has throughout history?.think you are accepted today? Guess again in 40 years!
I have studied the gay and anti-gay movements (I have watched their shows, saw their sites, etc) too long to think otherwise!
Bill from FL | November 28, 2006, 1:16am |
I take it Filene’s basement is a thrift shop?
Filene’s Basement is a store–actually originally in the basement of the Filene’s Department Store in downtown Boston–that bought end-of-season clothing items that did not sell in the original retail outlets, and sold them at off-price. More than a few of the items still had their original labels in them–and a lot of them were from very up-scale retailers from Boston and New York. If that’s a “thrift shop,” I guess it is.
BTW, I didn’t bother trying to find the origin of the “leftist” comment that you were referring to in your comment, but you really should understand that “left” and “leftist” as used on websites such as this one are merely epithets meaning “I don’t like.” They’re noise words, meaning nothing other than “I don’t like,” and, as such, they are to be ignored.
Thanks Raj! I didn’t know that. I have never been to boston actually….so it’s an off price retail store like TJ MAxx or Marshalls.No a thrift shop meaning a store like “Sally’s Boutique” (Salvation Army) or Goodwill, or a Church run thrift shop even. Maybe it was a blond moment when I goofed.
Regarding the “leftist” thing. I see what you mean on all account…like how Limbaugh uses “liberal” and vice versa. I just don’t want people to think that because I am unabashedly pro-gay and defend most of our causes that my positions are that of “progressive” “Center Left” or Liberal.
Bill, you and I do hold similar perspectives on several things — and FYI, I am gay.
Where we differ is very simply this; you don’t trust voters, and I do.
I will be the first to admit that gays have done a piss-poor job in appealing to the electorate. But what that means to me is that we should take our lumps and start working harder at the voter level, rather than trying to use the judiciary in lieu of our failings.
Bill, you and I do hold similar perspectives on several things — and FYI, I am gay.
-My apologies. I thought I read that you weren’t. Blond moment I guess. I saw your blog a couple days later and clarified it. (How many heteros are into bears? hehehe)
Where we differ is very simply this; you don’t trust voters, and I do.
Fair. I don’t think it’s that simple but I do not trust the voters. I think as did many founders that factions of all kinds are bad sometimes. Popular Sovereignty is one thing, but this is out of control. Plus noone else actually votes anymore anyway on any issue unless they have strong feelings!
I will be the first to admit that gays have done a piss-poor job in appealing to the electorate. But what that means to me is that we should take our lumps and start working harder at the voter level, rather than trying to use the judiciary in lieu of our failings.
-We have, and in every state in the union. For me most of it is time constraints and it makes my blood boil I cannot do more. Please though remember you are in very very blue SF….it’s different for those who aren’t these days.
The problem with just appealing to the Electorate is that most straight Americans generally dont vote for candidates based on their viewes on gay rights.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.