Election 2008 | Gay Marriage | Gay Parents | Mitt Romney | New Hampshire | News

Lesbian Mother Challenges Mitt Romney on Gay Families

At a campaign stop at Concord High School in New Hampshire yesterday, Mitt Romney was confronted by Cynthia Fish, a lesbian with two children, about his views on family and marriage.

According to the Concord Monitor, "The confrontation came just after Romney explained that he viewed marriage as 'primarily an institution for the development and nurture of children.' While he said he wouldn't prevent gay couples from entering spousal contracts if they choose to live together, 'the government benefits of marriage I'd reserve for a man and a woman.'"

Romney_2Said Fish: "I am a gay woman and I have children. Your comment that you just made, it sort of invalidates my family...I wish you could explain to me more, why if we are sending our troops over to fight for liberty and justice for all throughout this country, why not for me? Why not for my family?"

Romney's response?

"Wonderful. I'm delighted that you have a family and you're happy with your family. That's the American way. ... People can live their lives as they choose and children can be a great source of joy, as you know. And I welcome that...Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child and that the ideal setting for society at large is where there is a male and a female are associated with the development and nurturing a child...There are other ways to raise kids that's fine: single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That's the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice."

And added, according to the Monitor, "That's not to say these other forms aren't valid. But, for instance, we don't say a single person is married, even if they are raising children," Romney said. "I believe, in society, we want to bring a man and woman together."

N.H. woman challenges Romney on gay marriage [ap via boston globe]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Does it worry anyone that he didn't stumble at all or miss a beat when he answered that question? He reminds me of Reagan.

    Posted by: Matt | Jun 7, 2007 8:58:38 AM


  2. RoboRomney - the republican droid?

    Posted by: Rob (lrdarystar) | Jun 7, 2007 9:11:03 AM


  3. By saying "People can live their lives as they choose," Mitt Romney is implying that being gay is a choice, which it is not. And how can he lump gay parents in the same category as single moms and grandparents raising kids? That is clearly a smooth -- dare I say, unctuous -- way of digressing from the topic at hand: gay marriage, and he appears to have gotten away with it. Well done, Romney.

    Posted by: PC | Jun 7, 2007 9:16:07 AM


  4. Oh great, here come the Repugnikkklan trolls *cough*Matt*cough*Tom*cough*cough to fawn all over Mitt and his "Reagan"-esque speech abilities (truly tasteless old Reagon joke in 3...2...1 - how is Reagan like a typewriter? He has no memory and no colon - DOLT lol). Puh-leaze, Mitt didn't even answer her question, but simply re-iterated the same bullshit Repug response like the small minded driod he is. I'm certain if the woman were to engage in a political debate with Mitt he'd turn to shit. The Repug's only care about one thing - their own wealth, power and greed. Let's hear it for the boys! LOL God help us.

    Posted by: Anon | Jun 7, 2007 9:19:21 AM


  5. What a great non-answer!

    Posted by: Michael W. | Jun 7, 2007 9:22:35 AM


  6. Remarkable doublespeak from a Republicant, how special. You're right, Matt, the slipperiness with which he responded was utterly vile. All of these weasels are so transparent. Screw them.

    Posted by: Bill | Jun 7, 2007 9:25:13 AM


  7. If the Republicans could dig up Reagan, put him in a fresh new suit and re-animate him, ala Disney, they'd probably nominate him at this point.

    Posted by: Malibu Boy | Jun 7, 2007 9:41:19 AM


  8. Matt, he did miss a beat. That would be a heartbeat. While he, and his minions of Cuntstervative Republicunts, get all crazy over the 'sanctity' of human life and would go to war over a stem cell; you fail to respect the human dignity of the children of the woman who posed the question. Respect Life! You Republicunts cry! Ad Nauseum. But to take into consideration the rights and feelings of the children in gay families would actually require a heart. Something Republicunts don't possess. To actually be mindful of the inheritance rights ( and tax) to the seperate (but less than equal) gay and lesbian families would take a heartbeat. To work to ensure the right to insure her children would take a heart. To be mindful that these children deserve equal protection under the law from the hate crimes that Christians instigate and perpetrate would take a heartfelt appreciation for the sanctity of all life, not just straight Christian life. To appreciate the beauty of all family life however it is defined would take the integrity of an open heart. Yes, Matt, he did miss a beat.

    Posted by: Crixi Van Cheek | Jun 7, 2007 9:43:14 AM


  9. Maybe I'm not here enough, and thus not familiar with Matt's usual perspective, but I thought he was saying, in effect: "watch out for this guy, he's slimy like Reagan--people will believe anything he says, even if he is a comatose buffoon, because he sounds like their grandpa and he's the Gipper and blah blah blah." But I could be wrong, obviously.

    Posted by: Acolyte | Jun 7, 2007 9:55:14 AM


  10. Acolyte,

    That's exactly what I was saying.

    Posted by: Matt | Jun 7, 2007 10:00:33 AM


  11. So, with his argument, I think that all people who are married and don't have kids should have their marriages dissolved by the government. That is what marriage is "primarily" for, right? Why should two people who don't intend to have kids get any special rights?

    Posted by: ray | Jun 7, 2007 10:03:08 AM


  12. Matt,

    Oh, well in THAT case...nevermind.

    Posted by: Crixi Van Cheek | Jun 7, 2007 10:03:36 AM


  13. It won't be long until Romney is led off the stage with a hook and finally gives up. He is a lunatic who is incapable of any thought process which conforms to logic or continuity. While I think we need to go on the record to any and all diatribes which trash gay rights, let's not get too worked up as non of these Republican candidates have any chance of winning whatsoever.

    Posted by: Johnny Lane | Jun 7, 2007 10:11:22 AM


  14. Actually, although Romney is clearly wrong on the issue, his skillful and seemingly affable answer makes me regard him as that much more dangerous. The open homophobe screaming about abominations and quoting scripture is much, much easier to spot and outwit than someone like Romney.

    Posted by: Zlexar | Jun 7, 2007 10:24:16 AM


  15. You're absolutely right, Ray, but none of the right people are pressing these candidates on that bit of logic. They raise the question and then basically let the candidate do his little non-answer tap dance (we don't call a single parent married???? Is that REALLY the best argument he can come up with???).

    The reason these candidates will never provide a compelling argument for why gay couples should be denied marriage or adoption rights is because there is no logic or reason behind their pat answers. The answers they give have nothing to do with the real reason.

    What they are saying in between the lines is that gays are sick perverts who aren't worthy of those rights.

    Posted by: mark m | Jun 7, 2007 10:29:19 AM


  16. What irks me is that he has the gall to say in one breath "That's the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice." Then in another breath "I believe, in society, we want to bring a man and woman together." Well this weasel can't have it both ways. Either people are free to choose or they aren't and right now in the USA everyone isn't free to choose. Too bad he didn't say "I believe, in society we want to bring loving people together and acknowledge their commitment with inclusive policies." After reading this I am feeling pretty good about being a Canadian and very fortunate to live in a country that has acknowledged in our laws that separate but equal is an oxymoron.

    Posted by: Taylor | Jun 7, 2007 10:48:43 AM


  17. As a gay man who, with my partner of 22 yrs raised two sons- what I heard in this was "Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah".

    I've met my responsibilities. Where are my rights?

    Posted by: malcolm | Jun 7, 2007 11:15:45 AM


  18. If Romney is selected in 2008, does he place his hand on the Bible or the Book of Mormon?

    Posted by: zabadak | Jun 7, 2007 12:33:21 PM


  19. Well, here's the obvious question: How does same-sex marriage/civil unions interfere with Romney's "institution to bring a man and woman together to raise a child"? Those men and women are going to be coming together whether we have the right to marry or not.

    Posted by: Tom K. | Jun 7, 2007 12:43:10 PM


  20. Alas, she didn't frame the question in the form of a negative, "So, given your stance opposing gay marriage because of the need for a man and a women to raise children, would you invalidate the marriages of any couple that did not or could not have children?" Not to mention that we give SS benefits to widows but not single moms.

    Zabakak: would you ask the same question of a Jewish president (Bible or Torah?)?

    Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Jun 7, 2007 12:48:23 PM


  21. What worries me is not that he's Mormon or that he didn't miss a beat answering the woman's question. What worries me is that he is worth an estimated $350-$400 million dollars. He can basically buy his way into office. And he's handsome which will influence a fair number of people (yes...it's sad but true that all things being equal, American's vote for the prettier one). Given all that and his scary-ass views of government, Mitt Romney scares the hell out of me.

    Posted by: peterparker | Jun 7, 2007 12:58:20 PM


  22. catcher's mitt, shut up already. you have all the intelligence of a spitball.

    Posted by: sean | Jun 7, 2007 2:32:24 PM


  23. blah blah blah, mitt. your logic is awful. go away.

    Posted by: FanGirlHater | Jun 7, 2007 3:32:33 PM


  24. The Republican race is looking unusually pathetic. The Grand Old Party must be in disarray. I mean, is there a single viable candidate on the dark side??

    Maybe there is hope for the Democrats in 2008. Though I have to say, the strategizing in that camp hasn't been too swift, either. Let's keep our fingers crossed . . .

    While I had thought that Romney might be the square jawed knight on a white horse for the Republicans, it seems he shoots himself in the foot whenever he opens his mouth!

    Posted by: Richard | Jun 7, 2007 11:04:04 PM


  25. If it were not for "ideal marriages" we all would not be here. I thought it was very well spoken, to say it is ideal to have a man and a women raise a child. You have got to admire him for his ideals something this country is really lacking.

    Posted by: Gabe | Jun 8, 2007 10:32:01 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Former Arizona Rep. Jim Kolbe Cleared in Page Investigation« «