04/05/2007
Mitt Romney Still Hunting for a Federal Marriage Amendment
Campaigning in New Hampshire, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney reacted to his successor Deval Patrick's decision to record 26 marriages that Romney had declared invalid on the basis of a 1913 law that forbids out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if those marriages wouldn't be recognized in their home state.
Romney told the New Hampshire Union Leader: "As the governor of Massachusetts having seen the advent of same-sex marriage in my state, and recognizing that with the new governor, people are going to be coming to Massachusetts, getting married in Massachusetts and then going home to their home states, it strikes me that you have to have a national standard."
Romney said that Patrick acted "in contravention of the law" by ordering the Department of Public Health to record the marriages.
He predicted that Patrick's actions would lead to a Supreme Court showdown when an out-of-state couple gets married in Massachusetts, goes back to their home state, and demands the marriage be recognized.
Said Romney: "At that stage, the Supreme Court could say it's not valid, it's null and void. But to me the most sure way to preserve the traditional marriage is by having a federal amendment...Marriage is not an activity that goes on within the border of a state. It is a status, a marital status, and therefore, somebody who becomes married and moves to Ohio will be seen in the eyes of many as being married."
On an unrelated topic, Romney recently caught flak from critics by continuing to promote himself as "a hunter". In a Q&A session on Tuesday, he reportedly boasted to a man in an NRA cap, "I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life."
Yet, according to the Associated Press, Romney's hunting experience is far more limited than his statement might suggest: "the former Massachusetts governor's hunting experience came during two trips at the bookends of his 60 years: as a 15-year-old, when he hunted rabbits with his cousins on a ranch in Idaho, and last year, when he shot quail on a fenced game preserve in Georgia."
Romney: 1 man 1 woman [union leader]
You may have missed...
Massachusetts Gov. Patrick Orders 26 Gay Marriages Recorded [tr]
Posted 3:38 PM EST by Andy Towle in Election 2008, Gay Marriage, Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, New Hampshire, 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.
Romney is the GOP's John Kerry (that's not to say that Kerry was as big a tool as Romney; just that everything the right threw at Kerry can be returned to them, given a Romney nod, tenfold.) That anyone takes this spineless, waffling freak seriously is an indication of the desperation and vapidity of the party. Values, schmalues, we want to win!
Posted by: Acolyte | Apr 5, 2007 3:47:27 PM
mmmm.... hating gays and killing helpless animals gets me hot... Romney's the man!
Posted by: Greg | Apr 5, 2007 4:06:35 PM
Mormon money is backing him, so I think this guy is just trying to throw up the gay ghost to scare the religious freaks enough for them to overlook his religion.
Posted by: Gary | Apr 5, 2007 4:18:17 PM
[snip]
Said Romney: "At that stage, the Supreme Court could say it's not valid, it's null and void. But to me the most sure way to preserve the traditional marriage is by having a federal amendment...Marriage is not an activity that goes on within the border of a state. It is a status, a marital status, and therefore, somebody who becomes married and moves to Ohio will be seen in the eyes of many as being married."
[/snip]
I agree! There should be a nationwide standard. And that standard should be that ALL citizens are equal under the law and that same-sex couples have as much right to marry as do mixed-sex couples.
Romney's last sentence here pretty much encapsulates the fears of right-wingers and religious moonbats. What they fear is not the oft-lamented decline in "traditional" marriage - because they know that the causes of the terrible record of heterosexual marriage have nothing to do with homosexuals. What they fear is that once people accept the idea of same-sex marriage and understand that it does not affect existing mixed-sex marriages that there will be more and more acceptance of gays and lesbians in larger society. They are dead set against any progress by gays and lesbians and they realize that marriage is the "final battle" for gay equality.
Posted by: Jonathon | Apr 5, 2007 5:02:14 PM
Christ of the Andes! Does everyone realize that we have about another YEAR AND A HALF of this competition to determine who's the greater neo-nazi; of being publicly kicked around like human footballs day after day?
Most maddening to me of all is their still getting away with the Big Lie that it's simply about ways "to preserve traditional marriage." Where is the reporter who will finally say to Romney or McCain or Brownback or Bush or Falwell or Dobson or Robertson or...., "Uh, sir, with all due respect, that's a load of crap. Gay marriage could be as wrong as Britney with no panties but for you to stand there and insist that it would affect straight marriage in any way means either your knowingly lying or hopelessly retarded. Which is it?"
That none ever do and that the general public believes the lie is Reason #412 to "fire" HRC.
Posted by: Leland | Apr 5, 2007 5:05:53 PM
One can only hope Romney will go hunting with Dick Cheney sometime soon.
Posted by: peterparker | Apr 5, 2007 5:19:45 PM
I'm sure Mitt biggest fear is that if gay marriage is nationalized, his wife will leave him for a woman.
Posted by: homer | Apr 5, 2007 6:05:15 PM
Mormons talking about traditional marriage! Well, polygamy was very popular a few thousand years ago, and still is in some places...
The mormon FMA:
"Each state shall recognize that marriage shall constitute a bond in life between one man and as many women as he can afford to buy."
Posted by: anon | Apr 5, 2007 6:10:24 PM
He's trying to get votes, now that he's squeezed the mormons for money. The poll numbers for every canidate is going to remain the same until summer or a big name gets in.
Posted by: Jack! | Apr 5, 2007 7:10:26 PM
Leland: Ronny Reagan (the dancer, not the dead guy) actually called the RReppubblliccannss on the whole marriage things last election. I thought his response to the "defense of marriage" was extraordinarily well-done!
Posted by: JT | Apr 5, 2007 7:54:22 PM
I smell desperation in the air, and its name is Mitt Romney.
Posted by: Frank L | Apr 5, 2007 8:23:37 PM
I think it's funny that GAYS think it is unfair to be criticized for their actions but yet at the same time BASH Mormons for what they believe in. If you want to be treated like everyone else try doing the same. Quit wasting time worrying about Romney because Edwards will pull away in the end and win it all.
Posted by: Dillon | Apr 5, 2007 9:08:50 PM
"I think it's funny that GAYS think it is unfair to be criticized for their actions but yet at the same time BASH Mormons for what they believe in."
Hmmm.
I think it's funny that MORMONS think it's unfair to be criticized for their choice of faith, but yet at the same time BASH Gays for simply being who they are.
Posted by: mark m | Apr 5, 2007 9:21:51 PM
Dillon,
Being a Mormon or a polygamist is a CHOICE. Being homosexual is NOT a choice.
Posted by: peterparker | Apr 5, 2007 11:58:54 PM
Thanks Mark M; like gays are supposed to all "nice" and decent to the Mormon religion, but the Mormons are free to use their religion as an excuse to deny rights to gays..I don't think so!!
Religion is no more sacred than individuals; and if thinks so, they are free to preach it at their home (and out of the state affairs.)
As it stands, I've never seen gays march against Mormons or Christians; but earlier this year 20,000 teens from Battlecry were ignobly dispatched to San Francisco to attack unsuspecting LGBT people there.
And a couple of months before, Mitt Romney was on record in a CPAC speech making a ominous attack to (you guessed it) San Francisco! He also praised Ann Coulter, and praised America's strenght as a reason why its citizens are not speaking German, Arabic or Chinese. This man's words need to be heard by many, cause he represents a political discourse that is now mainstream in the US -whether people admit it or not-, and last I heard he raised the most money out of all Candidates in the republican party.
Here's his CPAC speech in its entirety:
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2007/03/romney_wows_em_at_cpac.html
Posted by: Da | Apr 6, 2007 12:27:03 AM
To be honest, Mormons haven't officially supported polygamy in over a century, but the irony and hypocrisy is still there. What does Romney believe? Why is he a Mormon?
Posted by: anon | Apr 6, 2007 1:46:17 AM
Gay people dont have to "play nice" to bigots like the mormon cult ... this whole play nice to be accepted thing has NEVER worked ... the 60's and the 70's showed not accepting the bigots as acceptable is the way to progress.
sorry - if you belong to a make believe cult religion that teaches intolerance and said cult backs a political candidate that is trying to gain power by fear mongering you dont get to be "treated" nice and have your differences accepted - sorry
this one gay is not at all concerned about political correctness - but is concened with ending discrimination against homosexuals
not trying to be Mother Theresa - in fact I bet she was a self rightous bigot
Posted by: rjp3 | Apr 6, 2007 3:42:54 AM
Gay people dont have to "play nice" to bigots like the mormon cult ... this whole play nice to be accepted thing has NEVER worked ... the 60's and the 70's showed not accepting the bigots as acceptable is the way to progress.
sorry - if you belong to a make believe cult religion that teaches intolerance and said cult backs a political candidate that is trying to gain power by fear mongering you dont get to be "treated" nice and have your differences accepted - sorry
this one gay is not at all concerned about political correctness - but is concened with ending discrimination against homosexuals
not trying to be Mother Theresa - in fact I bet she was a self rightous bigot
Posted by: trip | Apr 6, 2007 3:43:56 AM
Gay marriage is and always will be an oxymoron to those who take their religion and faith seriously. In their eyes, same sex couples cannot marry.
Laws that would validate gay marriage will further deteriorate the fabric and foundation of what America was built on, i.e., the right to hold to and speak about topics and issues where there is a difference of opinion between individuals, groups, etc. and not be harmed, not be tagged a derogatory name for doing so.
The reverse of that, i.e., accepting same sex 'marriage'(and what it would perpetuate) is this kum-baya state of mind ("Oh, let's just let everyone do as they please. Did anyone see my rose-colored glasses? I'm simply not the same without them.") It's tantamount to everyone disposing of their own values, morals, and beliefs and they way they live their lives in order to gain a superficial public acceptance when in fact, their heart, their conscious tells them there really is something wrong with two people of the same sex being married.
"Separate but equal" is the typical rebuttal here. But remember, slogans aren't solutions. Differences aren't always a negative. Civil unions (which the majority of politicans would pass tomorow) afford virtually the same benefits of married couples. It's time to take this and own it. It gives you what you desperately want. Indeed, support it now and you will soon realize the benefits you seek.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 6, 2007 7:55:58 AM
The problem is this; Regardles of his history, Romney is talking the talk that the Christian Reich want to hear, and has a few soundbites from his time as MA Gov. to back him up. The kool-aid vat has been refilled. They love Mitt. They have the money and, as with The Idiot in 2000 and 2004, enough people in the right places of power to ensure he marches right up to the Whitehouse. I think Obama would have the best chance of beating him given Barak's strong Christian belief system. And that is what our elections have come down to; "My church is better than your church".
The Democrats may have eeked out a win in this last election. Don't look for it to last. The pendulum of ignorance has too much momentum going to stop.
Only if one of those "Swiftboats for Obama" groups get rolling now, to begin smearing Romney, will we ever get him out of the running.
Rad
Posted by: Rad | Apr 6, 2007 9:17:13 AM
Why is the Morman cult accepted by so many in this country, but other religious cults are not? What if the truth came out that one of the top Democrats practiced Voodoo? Would y'all still vote for Mambo Priestess Hillary?
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Apr 6, 2007 9:45:13 AM
Mitt Romney versus "the polygamy curious and the tricky polygamy question"
Mitt Romney should Transfer (1) the political risk, (2) the public relations risk, and (3) the burden of persuasion risk of explaining polygamy to: (A) a National, (B) a Regional, (C) an Interstate, or (D) a Local Corridor of Living Museum(s) of Polygamy-Secular History. Conceptual http://mspt.org
Copyright (c) 1995-2007 All Rights Reserved
Posted by: DEBATER | Apr 6, 2007 12:29:16 PM
Stephen, if marriage is a religious institution then the government should get out of it altogether.
Posted by: Boobs | Apr 6, 2007 1:13:07 PM
Boobs,
The gov't chooses to extend some tax benefits to those married couples who bear children and those benefits extend to those (married) couples who adopt children. Married couples who choose not to bear or adopt are eligible for a modicum of(tax) filing benefits, but certainly not all of the ones that child-bearing parents are provided.
I support civil union laws that would do essentially the SAME thing:
You are correct in saying that (for the majority of those who marry) marriage is a religious institution. For others it is a contract that the gov't recognizes, sans any religious connotation as those couples usually get married by a justice of the peace.
Both marriages (male/female) still have the ability to pro-create, should they chose to (and reap the gov't's tax benefits). Same sex couples who adopt or have children through artificial means, i.e., any means other than male/female sexual intercourse, should be afforded the same benefits.
This 'equates' the differing couples in the most ideal way possible. The distinction is that a married heterosexual couple (barring any health problems) will always have the ability to pro-create in and of themselves. Same sex couples differ in this way (no need to explain this).
Hence, my support for civil unions that afford the benefits aforementioned. Different but equal works in this case and bridges the gap that gays & lesbians seek in a 'gay marriage' law.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 6, 2007 2:05:38 PM
Stephen,
If there is such a huge religious connotation to marriage then the government should not be involved in marriage at all. If they are then gay people should be allowed to be married. If they change that--make the government only involved in "civil partnerships" (whatever) and make "marriage" a purely religious ceremony then maybe I'll take your parsing seriously. (Although, I would like to point out, if "marriage" was made a purely religious ceremony, there are churches that will "marry" gay couples.
Right now "marriage" is the ceremony that joins two people for a variety of reasons--only one of which is childbearing--and automoatically and without benefit of lawyers grants a couple all kinds of rights. The fact that any two strangers of the opposite sex can get drunk and get married for the price of the quickie chapel in Las Vegas but two people of the same sex who have been together for decades have to got through the massive legal costs and trouble for only a portion of those rights is discriminatory and your parsing of the words just makes me more and more annoyed with you.
Posted by: Boobs | Apr 6, 2007 7:32:28 PM