05/11/2007
Mitt Romney to Defend Gay Marriage Stance on 60 Minutes
According to portions of a transcript that has been released, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney defends his position on gay marriage (and apparently gay parents) to Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes this Sunday.
Where does he go? The Bible.
Romney: "This isn't just some temporary convenience here on Earth, but we're people that are designed to live together as male and female and we're gonna have families. And that, there's a great line in the Bible that children are an inheritance of the Lord and happy is he who has or hath his quiver full of them."
Isn't Mary Cheney due any day now?
Posted 6:16 PM EST by Andy Towle in Election 2008, Gay Marriage, Gay Parents, 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.
Speaking of sell-out Mary Cheney, her book is available for a whopping seven cents a copy on Amazon.com these days.
Posted by: MPetrelis | May 11, 2007 6:47:24 PM
I absolutely detest Mitt Romney. I think that guy as President of the United States would be almost as bad as W.
Posted by: peterparker | May 11, 2007 6:48:00 PM
Gee, I wonder why he wasn't interviewed by Anderson Cooper.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | May 11, 2007 6:48:43 PM
So God wants everyone to procreate and overpopulate the Earth? Gay people (and infertile couples, apparently!) are hence denied His good graces?
Mitt Romney - and his ilk - are hateful jackasses with the worst arguments. Without religion, they have nothing to fall back on.
Separate church and state much?
Posted by: the other jeff | May 11, 2007 6:49:53 PM
and what should we do with our gay children ? .. re-gift them ?
Posted by: el polacko | May 11, 2007 6:51:05 PM
The Bible verse that Romnut appears to be (mis)quoting is Psalm 127:4-5.
Posted by: Frank L | May 11, 2007 7:19:45 PM
What does he plan to do with those of us who happen to be breeding homos? You know, queers with "quivers".
Why do so many people think that gay = sterile?
Posted by: Zeke | May 11, 2007 7:30:39 PM
What a giant double D boob.
Posted by: CHUX | May 11, 2007 7:34:34 PM
If Mormons and evangelicals are so anti-gay because of the kid thing, then how do they explain why they go absolutely bat-shit whenever it is suggested that Christ had a child with Mary M.?
Everyday I become more convinced that if people (e.g. evangelical christians) actual rea the bible they constantly rely on for their hate and bigotry, that brand of faith would simply disappear due to lack of interest.
Posted by: hoya86 | May 11, 2007 7:48:37 PM
How can anyone defend the silliness that is Mormonism, in particular regarding its founding? Then there is that arrow called polygamy. I would separate out Cheney from Romney though. There is no evidence she supports his candidacy. I don't think the Bushes-Cheneys even have any regard for Romney.
And what a nice topic to discuss on Mothers Day.
Posted by: anon | May 11, 2007 8:17:49 PM
IMAGINE if he were saying, "The Bible clearly suggests that Black people originated as the punishment for Cain killing Abel and are cursed. That was the teaching of our great leader Brigham Young." You bet shit would hit the CBS fan. But this slick psychotic who would shoot babies in the street if it helped get him into the White House gets a free platform to spread his bigotry about gays in God's name. WHERE IS OUR ANGER?????!!!
Then there's that little thingy about the Mormons "baptizing" AS MORMONS Jews killed in the Holocaust and other deceased Jews including David Ben-Gurion, Albert Einstein, Menachem Begin, and Sigmund Freud. Equal opportunity religious nuts, they've also posthumously baptized Adolf Hitler, Hermann Goering, Heinrich Himmler, Ghengis Khan, Joan of Arc, Stalin, and Buddha.
There are sick religions and then there are sick religions and Mormonism is among the sickest.
Posted by: Leland | May 11, 2007 8:18:48 PM
And Christ of the Andes! The point isn't whether or not Mary Eva Braun Cheney support Romney. SHE SUPPORTS HER WAR CRIMINAL FATHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Leland | May 11, 2007 8:20:58 PM
Leland: you're lobbing hand grenades while I'm shooting arrows.
Posted by: anon | May 11, 2007 8:42:14 PM
Holy hyperbole, Leland! Really, your type of batshit insane ranting about Romney killing babies in the street is JUST AS CRAZY as baptizing Eva Braun.
Posted by: theo | May 11, 2007 9:08:57 PM
Leland -
In fact, the Christian clergy widely misquoted or appropriated many parts of the Bible to justify racial segregation as "natural" for decades.
These pious "men of God" turned the story of the Noah's sons, for example, into the division of the three so-called races by God (with Japheth = White, Shem = Middle Eastern/Asian, and Hem = Black). Not surprisingly, blacks are the "descendants of Hem"...the most sinful and evil of Noah's sons.
There are enough holes in this interpretation of the scriptures to drive a Hummer through. But, of course, people believe what they want to believe.
This was widely accepted as true 40 years ago in the United States. It was widely accepted as true in Afrikaner circles well into the 1990s. It's the same with gender, sexuality, violence, and what have you. They believe whatever confirms and reinforces their prejudices.
Posted by: John | May 11, 2007 9:28:25 PM
So, to explain his flip-flop stance on gay marriage and rights, is Romney saying that he's a born-again Mormon or just a sleazy opportunistic politician with nary a trustworthy bone in his body?
Posted by: RJ | May 11, 2007 9:34:09 PM
Yes, Theophilus, it was meant as hyperbole. Get a grip. But, for those unfamiliar with the history of Romney's church, there's this passage from the recent PBS special on "The Mormons."
"On the morning of September 11th [ironic, n’est-ce pas?], 1857, [John Lee, Brigham Young’s adopted son] rode out to [a] besieged wagon train [of non-Mormon emigrants in Mountain Meadows, Utah] under a flag of truce ... [saying], 'Throw down your arms, we've got the Indians under control, you come out with us, and you'll be safe.' And they were reluctant to do it, but they finally did. And as they marched out, the order was given, 'Do your duty.'" The Mormons opened fire, each man assigned to shoot the emigrant walking next to him. Lee's task was to kill the sick and wounded riding in a wagon in front of the others. Then [their allies] the Paiutes swept in and finished off the rest. In less than half an hour, 120 people had been butchered at Mountain Meadows. Only seventeen children were spared, thought too young ever to tell the horrible story. They were later adopted by local Mormon families. The dead were stripped of their clothing and belongings which the Mormons sold at auction. They were hastily buried in shallow graves—and soon dug up again by wild animals.”
Posted by: Leland | May 11, 2007 9:35:13 PM
Did I miss the part of his paraphrased Bible quote that mentioned a man and a woman. Puppets are almost as frustrating as blatant ignorant liars. I'm just saying.
Posted by: Nick | May 12, 2007 12:27:47 AM
I wonder what Romney thinks of this verse:
Gen 3:16:
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply they sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
This passage was used to 1) oppose giving pain medication to women in labor, and 2) oppose women's rights. I'm sure Romney will keep his mouth shut on this one, as there aren't as many votes for misogyny as there used to be.
Posted by: Zlexar | May 12, 2007 12:31:46 AM
I fail to see what THIS MAN'S Bible has to do with me, or us, or anyone other than himself?
But if he's so against gays because his god says so, why not go that one step further - why not "sentence a man who lies with another man" to death as his bible says?
The reason he won't do that because he knows it would be political suicide. But this the "logic" behind their decision - that everyone need to obey their god or else.
How is he any differet to the Taliban?
Posted by: Louie | May 12, 2007 2:45:03 AM
Is marriage a religious institution?
I feel at times I am the only gay person that is not satisfied by the term “civil union”. To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. Throw them a few crumbs as their used to and they’ll shut up. Truthfully, I hope that we gay men and woman will not stop at gay unions and go after what we truly deserve, that being gay marriage. I am saddened but not surprised that many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship after all it is what we are accustomed to. Our entire gay civil rights movement that is being courageously fought by a very few, has been about equal rights, not just some rights. This of course means marriage as well.
We should not be satisfied by civil unions. Unions are not equal. It’s unfortunate that this issue has become so politicized as did the civil rights movement back in the 60’s. Even the politicians that are privately in favor of gay marriage are afraid to speak openly about it with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and a clear view of what is right and wrong.
We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for an ancient culture. It may surprise many to know that gay marriages were widely accepted by the Romans and the Greeks. We also must understand that many of the ancients were a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions. We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. The many books within the bible vastly contradict themselves on issues to numerous to mention here. Which ones should we believe? Many religious institutions have the belief that sexual relations is solely for the purpose of procreation. This is an affront to childless marriages. Are they any less valid? Should they therefore not have sexual relations knowing full well that there will not be any children produced? I wonder why God would make sexuality so very pleasurable if it were only for the purpose of procreation. It wouldn’t need to be enjoyable. The mechanics of sexuality would be all that is necessary to create offspring. Beside don’t we live in a country that has a law about separation between church and state?
Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those damned heathens.
Straight men and woman can choose a church marriage; they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a happy meal. Don’t get me wrong, I do love happy meals. The best part is no one even has to bother to get out of the car. How can one compete with that kind of service? I’ve heard that they even change your oil while waiting but that may be just hearsay.
Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except for gays. What was stated in that document still rings very clearly yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nation’s history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being fairer. I have still yet to hear a valid reason how gay marriage could negatively impact modern society. I’ve heard that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the potential of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of “traditional marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver www.aaronjasonsilver.com; Fennville, Mi 49408 for more information on issues within gay culture please read; “why gay men do what they do”, an inside look at gay culture.
Posted by: aaron jason silver | May 12, 2007 7:03:54 AM
Prior to 1978, Mormon leaders forbid Blacks from holding the Mormon Priesthood. In 1978, due to mounting pressure from pending lawsuits concerning racism, Spencer W. Kimball suddenly received a revelation that Blacks could now enter the temple and hold the Mormon Priesthood. If the Mormon Church had not changed its views on Black people, it would have lost its Tax-Exempt 503(c) status - as pending litigation in several states in America were proceeding.
Today the Mormon Church flatly denies that it's revelation was based on loosing its Tax-Exempt 503(c) status - however a great deal of evidence exists showing that it did.
Heck, I am still waiting for a reporter to ask romney to show us his magic holy underware. Yes, non mormons out there to be a good temple mormon and get into the highest heaven one purchases from the church and wears constantly (they used to bathe with and even have sex with them on) the supposedly magic holy underware. Coo Coo with his magic underware and his grandfather and great grandfather who were both polygamists judging us gays. That is height of audacity
Posted by: pacificoceanboy | May 12, 2007 9:26:39 AM
The reason blacks weren't allowed to be Mormon priests is because they were thought to be the dark angels (demons) that were thrown out of heaven with Lucifer (Satan), who was, according to their scriptures, Jesus' brother.
Racist Christians have some really crazy Bible stories to justify racism, slavery and segregation too. I know this for a fact. I grew up marinated in them.
Posted by: Zeke | May 12, 2007 10:49:13 AM
My response to all these people who want to legislate their religious beliefs is simple.
Don't force me to pray and I won't force you to think.
Posted by: Zeke | May 12, 2007 10:52:27 AM
I'm confused by NICK's comment. Are you saying that Romney DIDN'T suggest a man and a woman? Because he clearly says male and female in the interview.
Posted by: Gregg | May 12, 2007 5:58:44 PM