10/16/2006
Mitt Romney, Gay Marriage Foes Rally in Boston
With pounding of fists and plenty of amens, a wingnut forum held by the anti-gay Family Research Council in Boston over the weekend broadcast anti-gay rhetoric to a crowd of 1,000 and to about 80-million people over Christian radio and TV networks.
The featured speaker at this forum was none other than Massachusetts governor and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, once again vocalizing his position against gay marriage, which has brought commerce to his state and equal rights to hundreds of gay couples who have chosen to tie the knot there since it became legal in 2004.
Said Romney: "Here in Massachusetts, activist judges struck a blow to the foundation of civilization -- the family. What (the judges) ignored is that marriage is not primarily about adults, marriage is about the nurturing and development of children ... every child deserves a mother and a father."
I don't see the sky falling, do you? But yes, the conservatives are once again pulling out their anti-gay marriage agenda to energize their constituents before the November elections.
Said Tony Perkins, president of the FRC: "When we look at what has happened with same-sex marriage, as it began in this state and threatens to spread across the country, we've seen in its wake the loss of religious freedoms and the ability to speak out based upon one's moral convictions."
But will the big wingnut scare work this time around? Kirk Johnson in the NYT writes that the issue doesn't have the same "punch" as it did in the last elections, citing other, more pressing issues like the war in Iraq, slick new campaigns from gay marriage supporters, and "middle-ground" solutions like civil partnerships that have sprung up since the last election.
Another factor involves what may happen in the courts before the election: "Conservatives like Mr. Paul of the Colorado marriage group say the low-key tenor of the same-sex marriage debate could change in a thunderclap if a court decision that appears to undermine traditional marriage boundaries is handed down before the election. The New Jersey Supreme Court has a case pending and could issue a decision before Election Day."
Posted 10:45 AM EST by Andy Towle in Boston, Gay Marriage, Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The faulty logic of Romney's argument is frustrating. The issue of marriage isn't primarily about adults? (Here we go)It's about...CHILDREN? That is ridiculous.
And inaccurate.
What an asshole.
Posted by: CF | Oct 16, 2006 10:56:37 AM
John Kerry, Hillary Clinton...wingnuts? inaccurate? assholes?
Posted by: Tom | Oct 16, 2006 11:04:03 AM
The scary part is that they are so well organized. A nation united under hate. Wonderful.
Posted by: xavier | Oct 16, 2006 11:19:47 AM
Where does that leave married couples who cant have kids?
And as for them being so well organized...sometimes I think the fact that we cant get it together and organize over politics occassionally...I was thinking that we havent given the Dems a good reason to really go to bat for us...we are concentrated in blue states and/or big cities, so we cant tip an election for them, we turn off so much of the electorate that we likely cost them more elections that we win them, we arent organized and dont put ourselves out there, we arent even that loyal to the Dems...and so on and so forth. Yeah, we have the moral right behind us, but is that enough? If we cant get it together and occassionally stop mooning over Cristiano Ronaldo or Jake Gyllenhaal, then maybe we *deserve* what's happening.
Sorry for the dark thoughts...it's Monday.
Posted by: Charles | Oct 16, 2006 11:31:24 AM
I went to high school with Tony Perkins and we were pretty good friends. It's really disappointing to see him behaving this way.
Posted by: Eddie | Oct 16, 2006 11:59:35 AM
Tom,
If you're comparing John Kerry to Tony Fucking Perkins, you're a complete and utter moron.
But I guess whatever it takes for you to keep sucking Nazi dick without feeling too bad about yourself.
Posted by: nuflux | Oct 16, 2006 12:08:51 PM
If Romney is so against -- er, rather, FOR kids having 2 different sex parents, why hasn't he filed legislation to overturn the court ruling that enabled same-sex adoption?
He rails against same-sex marriage while ignoring the fact that same-sex couples are raising tons of kids. Ending same-sex marriage won't give kids 2 different-sex parents. And neither will ending same-sex adoption.
But he knows all this. Any wingnut who parses the argument with logic knows this.
They don't care. They hope the people sitting at home who don't really feel strongly about marriage one way or the other will catch their soundbite on the news teaser and think, "huh, that seems reasonable" and then STOP thinking any further.
Their worst fear is what has happened in Massachusetts: people realized there is no threat to "the family" or "society" from same-sex marriage, and have moved on to more important things. If that attitude is exported to other states, their reign of terror will soon end.
Posted by: tjc | Oct 16, 2006 12:49:01 PM
Did this take place in a church ?
Politics at the pulpit means the should lose thier tax exempt status.
somebody call the IRS.....
Posted by: jt | Oct 16, 2006 12:55:49 PM
Tax exemptions are based on not endorsing particular candidates, not expressing opinions on issues. For example, if a church railed against poverty, do you think they would lose their exemption?
The rally was based on polling that shows most Americans are against gay marriage for the moment and so makes this a good populist hot button issue for social conservatives. If Romney can overturn gay marriage in Mass his star would rise nationwide among religious conservatives. Hot button issues also bring in $$$.
Posted by: Anon | Oct 16, 2006 1:06:07 PM
Yes JT, it did take place in church; a Baptist church in Boston.
Strangely enough though, (and you won’t hear this from the mainstream media) instead of using a picture of the church that actually hosted the rally, they used a picture of the historic Old North Church (of Paul Revere fame) to advertise their hate rally.
Only problem is, the Old North Church is a gay positive, "Open and Affirming" congregation of the gay positive Congregationalist (United Church of Christ) Church denomination. This particular church actually went to court against the city of Boston and won the right to hang a pro marriage equality banner from the façade of the church.
As a member of the United Church of Christ, I find their use of our church's image, for the promotion of their hate agenda, disgusting and shameful.
Recently the leaders of the UCC have publicly criticized this group for bashing gays in the media and asked them to avoid the use of images of our churches in their future anti-gay propaganda.
The UCC is also the church that produced “The Bouncer” and “The Ejection Seat” ads that major networks refused to air because they found the message that our church is open and welcoming to All people (including gays) to be “too controversial” and “political” for them to accept.
How interesting that these same networks covered this hate rally and showed clips from it on their stations. I guess they don’t consider them controversial or political.
Meantime an Episcopal church in California is being investigated by the IRS for a sermon where the pastor had the audacity to claim that the war in Iraq, and all wars, are unchristian.
Go figure.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 16, 2006 1:23:39 PM
Is Romney so blinded by his faith that he can't see the ridiculousness of (once again) trying to discredit judges by calling them "activists" while he's standing at the event of one of the most extreme right-wing groups in existence slamming his fists down like a preacher? I guess being an activist governor is OK in his book.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 16, 2006 1:29:40 PM
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/200/story_20002_1.html
Anon, you were saying?
This report is from Beliefnet.com. Not exactly a left wing, secular liberal site.
It kind of shoots your last comment in the foot.
The fact of the matter is the IRS has been very selective in their investigations of possible violations of tax exemption laws by churches.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 16, 2006 1:30:54 PM
Hey RB! Are you paying attention?
Posted by: peterparker | Oct 16, 2006 1:53:41 PM
Zeke:
I read your article and cannot find anything that counters what I said. Here is a quote:
Under federal tax law, church officials can legally discuss politics, but to retain tax-exempt status, they cannot endorse candidates or parties. Most who do so receive a warning.
Could you be more specific?
Conservatives oppose the IRS meddling in churches and McCain-Feingold, though the two political parties support both. Despite the first amendment, there are lots of regulatory schemes that affect free speech. The most obvious would be rules affecting the content of over-the-air broadcasting.
Posted by: Anon | Oct 16, 2006 2:14:09 PM
So Mitt, how many children in Mass. grow up in single family households?
Where is your amendment to ban divorce in Mass.???
Posted by: dc-20008 | Oct 16, 2006 2:29:04 PM
So Mitt, how many children in Mass. grow up in single parent households?
Where is your amendment to ban divorce in Mass.???
Posted by: dc-20008 | Oct 16, 2006 2:29:37 PM
Zeke, if they did show the Old North Church for the exterior shots (I haven't checked and its real name is actually Christ Church) for theiexterior shot, last time I checked, it was an Episcopal congregation.
Not as universally accepting of a religion as UCC, but there are pockets of hope and I share your indignation.
Posted by: Mike_in_Lancaster | Oct 16, 2006 2:37:13 PM
Don't you love how this is put in terms of "religious freedom". Their ability to restrict freedoms of others is their "right"?
How does someone like Romney keep getting re-elected in the bluest state in the union?
Posted by: davethetenor | Oct 16, 2006 2:48:09 PM
marriage is aout property. Nothing more, nothing less.
Chrilsrena are property.
Marriage is a contract between individuals recognized by the state. The church can perfomr marriages, and so can judges and justices of the peace, and Elvis impersonators -- provided they're registered to do so legally BY THE STATE!!!!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Oct 16, 2006 2:48:26 PM
Quote:
"Said Tony Perkins, president of the FRC: "When we look at what has happened with same-sex marriage, as it began in this state and threatens to spread across the country, we've seen in its wake the loss of religious freedoms and the ability to speak out based upon one's moral convictions."
LOSS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS!!!!! FROM SAME-SEX MARRIAGES!!! He must be kidding -----------
Massachusetts --- (as mentioned above) --- has only had a few hundred marriages! And these "FEW SAME SEX MARRIAGES" are THREATENING the "MORAL CONVICTIONS" i.e. "religious freedoms and the ability to speak out based upon one's moral convictions." of the United States!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Talk about pissing into the wind!!!!
Mr. Perkins needs to get a new life!!!
Posted by: Rocky | Oct 16, 2006 3:07:09 PM
Good point Charles.....
"I was thinking that we havent given the Dems a good reason to really go to bat for us...we are concentrated in blue states and/or big cities, so we cant tip an election for them, we turn off so much of the electorate that we likely cost them more elections that we win them, we arent organized and dont put ourselves out there, we arent even that loyal to the Dems...and so on and so forth"
I would like to add, that gay people are a part of all "hetereosexual families" and what we will really tip the scales during elections is when our STRAIGHT family memebers who live in those smaller cities etc vote for gay civil rights. For gays to make real progress we must implore each and every family member we have all over America to vote for gay rights. Gay people may live mainly in large urban centers BUT our families don't - let's get them active in the fight.
Posted by: Pandora | Oct 16, 2006 3:33:53 PM
Oops got the wrong church. My bad.
However, Christ Church of Boston is also an Affirming Episcopal congregation.
Anon, I was just pointing out that churches are being investigated and threatened by the IRS for preaching Christian values such as Peace even when they don’t endorse specific candidates or Parties. Strangely it seems that none of the churches that are being used to preach anti-gay hate and hosting exclusively Republican promotional rallies are being investigated. Make no mistake these rallies make no qualms about being Republican get out the vote pushes.
I would also be interested in finding out if everyone who registers to vote at these rallies actually has their registration turned in. I wonder if registrations with Democratic designations make it to the supervisor of election’s office.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 16, 2006 3:40:54 PM
Zeke: my take on the tax exempt issue is that it's ok to speak out on issues, just not to advocate voting in a certain way. It's a fine line, but it's there. A ECUSA church in Santa Barbara is having an IRS review as to whether its tax-exemption should be withdrawn because a guest preacher may have been too evangelical in his anti-Iraq war beliefs. The IRS feels that he might have been exhorting the congregation to vote against Republicans.
I think, personally, that churches should have the beejesus taxed out of them, but that's my own, sick, anti-religion opinion.
I missed you guys. I was in England for two weeks.
Posted by: JT - the real one | Oct 16, 2006 5:46:54 PM
Welcome back JT my friend. I've been wondering where in the heck you've been.
As for your opinion on taxing churches, I'm a Christian who goes to church three times a week (because I like to not because I feel I have to) and I TOTALLY agree with you.
I believe ALL churches should be taxed.
If "Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" is good for the Big
Guy, it's good enough for me.
Again, welcome back. You were missed.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 16, 2006 7:26:34 PM
To Davethetenor: Romney doesn't keep getting re-elected. This is his first (and thankfully only) term.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 16, 2006 11:20:24 PM