Eric Cantor | Gay Marriage | Mitt Romney | New York | News | Republican Party

Romney and Cantor on Same-Sex Marriage: Bosom Buddies


On John King's State of the Union today, Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Eric Cantor demonstrated that they're still clinging to the religious right-wing base on marriage views, while the rest of the nation moves forward.

Clip and transcript, AFTER THE JUMP...

KING: Since the last election, a number of states have moved ahead with same-sex marriage proposals. Some have done it legislatively. Some have done it in other ways. Some has happened through the courts, which I know both of you think is the wrong way to do anything, whether it's same-sex marriage or anything else. But, if, at the end of this conversation, you come to the conclusion that the consensus of the people you're talking to is to agree what Steve Schmidt, John McCain's campaign manager, said, you know, the Republicans are viewed as intolerant because we want constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.  If, at the end of this conversation, you think the consensus is, leave it to the states, which was Dick Cheney's position. That was Tom DeLay's positions, be federalist and let state-by-state make these decisions. Are you both willing to support that?

ROMNEY: My view I've laid out before, which is you really can't have different marriage provisions in different states and then expect people to be able to move around the nation and have different rights in different states. Marriage is a matter of national consequence. It's a -- it's a status. It's not an activity. And as a result, there should be a national standard. And my own view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.

KING: And so if five or 10 states go that way, do you need to have a constitutional amendment, a national referendum? How do you deal with it?

CANTOR: I think Mitt has made the point that there are federal implications; there are national implications to what one state does, in terms of the status of a married person in another state. I share Mitt's views. I believe in conditional marriage between a man and a woman. It's been that way thousands of years. And I believe that most of the American people, by far, apply or adhere to that principle. So I would continue to support the ability for us to say that's what a marriage means in America.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Eric Cantor pings so loud he woke my cat.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | May 3, 2009 9:03:58 PM

  2. Mitt Romney is a hypocrite! When he ran for the US Senate in '94 I sat in a Dining Room with 20 other people and HEARD him say directly that he would be "Better on Gay Rights Issue then Ted Kennedy"!! When he ran for Governor of MA he ran as a moderate who was PRO-CHOICE and PRO-GAY - needless to say he LIED and cheated his way into the Governors' office and when he left he left this state having achieved Gay Marriage! He is the one who attempted to revive the anti miscegenation Law of 1913 - which would have prevented anyone from outside of MA to come to MA and get married!! Even if i were a conservative I would not trust him having knowledge of his hypocrisy and lies!! would someone please out Kantor talk about Gaydar going off!!!!! my ears are ringing!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by: alex in boston | May 3, 2009 9:36:19 PM

  3. Mitt Romney: Interstate commerce will collapse if same-sex marriages are recognized by the federal government. Wait, if all gay couples would move to Massachusetts to save money on their taxes, shouldn't Mitt be in favor of that? As the former governor?

    Posted by: Karl | May 3, 2009 9:46:54 PM

  4. Well said, Alex. You'd think a vote slut like Romney would have better political antennae. I mean, in GOP circles right now, there are a whole bunch of people who are moving away from anti-gay sentiment, thinking ahead to ten years from now when gay rights are an issue of the past.

    The only other possibility is that Romney is just appeasing the base that will get him elected within the party, after which he will shift his position and have a more pro-gay stance later.

    Either way the GOP is messed up right now. Too baaaaad.

    Posted by: Dan | May 3, 2009 9:52:15 PM

  5. "Traditional marriage it's been that way for 1000's of years" LIE! The Lie-o-meter has hit the Red zone. Don't buy that crap. There is no ONE traditional marriage standard for the human family.

    Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | May 3, 2009 10:00:20 PM

  6. "it's been that way for thousnds of years".

    guys, it's not climate change where heterosexual marriage becomes extinct or something. the two will exist simultaneously.

    Posted by: dean morris | May 3, 2009 10:17:34 PM

  7. Marriage in most of the US has derived from English common property law and has been constantly changing over the past hundred plus years.
    The "thousands of years" quote is code to the fundamentalists who believe the earth is thousands of years old.

    Posted by: Rich | May 3, 2009 11:11:29 PM

  8. In politics it is all about timing. At this point in time, neither Romney or Cantor are concerned with growing their party, they both want to fare well in republican primaries, that is all that matters right now. I suspect that they will become less and less vocal about social issues as we approach 2012 (perhaps even by 2010).

    In part I agree with them, equality is ultimately a federal issue. But in lieu of federal leadership, we must continue to pronounce ourselves as we march forward.

    Posted by: Rafael | May 4, 2009 12:33:00 AM

  9. well my gaydar went off for one of them..I'm sure we can all agree on who..

    Posted by: Ford | May 4, 2009 2:56:55 AM

  10. One word: Gayface.

    Posted by: The Milkman | May 4, 2009 8:51:54 AM

  11. Romney's assertion that you can't have different marriage provisions in different states is an argument FOR marriage equality. The rest of the country needs to follow the lead of the states, not the other way around.

    And Cantor is just lying. Marriage has not been the same for thousands of years. It has continually evolved, and it was straight people who altered the institution to make love between two people the primary impetus for marrying. He's also lying about the feelings of most Americans. Last week's ABC poll showed more in favor than against, and that support is only going to grow as the old bigots die off and additional states join the marriage equality bandwagon.

    Posted by: Ernie | May 4, 2009 9:20:30 AM

  12. I actually agree with both of them on different Marriage Laws in different States is unsustainable. It seems strange to me people who oppose SSM and support DOMA but oppose a Federal Amendment, like McCain, think it should be left up to the States to decide for themselves. Have they never heard of Full Faith and Credit?

    Posted by: occono | May 4, 2009 10:05:31 AM

  13. Mitt is both appealing to his base and shrewdly covering his ass with his word choice of "..MY view is that marriage is a man and a woman." Years from now, when we have marriage equality in all states, it can unembarrassingly be spun that this was just his personal opinion. He could have easily said, "MY view is that a woman's place is working in the home" and to many he would simply appear quaint and traditional. Fortunately or unfortunately, I think this is the same dance that Clinton and Obama have used at times.

    All said, Cantor is so pretty I could just kiss him. Actually, Mitt & Eric, mmmmm...

    Posted by: lodenmuse | May 4, 2009 10:21:08 AM

  14. Ewe, you people are just gross. Do you have to spend every waking moment thinking of new places to stick your dicks? Grow up and stop deluding yourselves. You will not find happiness this way.

    Posted by: Mary | May 4, 2009 10:54:16 AM

  15. I always love the " ... and MY OWN view, is that marriage should be between a man and a woman." It's a great way to make oppressing people and robbing them of their civil rights sound somehow innocuous and reasonable. Fuck you.

    Posted by: Tom | May 4, 2009 11:30:45 AM

  16. Hi Mary -

    Provided that my dick is being stuck nowhere near you, yes, happiness is indeed achievable.

    Posted by: Tom | May 4, 2009 11:32:53 AM

  17. mary

    we are so gross that you just couldn't keep away. Did you get wet while linking to this so gross site? Seek therapy

    Oh and go out and stone some dolphins, some bonobo chimps, stone some penquins, stone the majority of the animal kingdom. You can not be more natural than animals and homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality has always been rampant and well documented across the animal kingdom. Hell if we follow the bonobo chimp model which does provide a survival benefit for their species = evolutionary success......then all of humanity should be one heaving fucking sweaty 24/7 bisexual orgy mass

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | May 4, 2009 12:07:30 PM

  18. I rest my case. You make your case by saying since the animals do it, we should also? You people are no better than animals. I on the other hand am trying my best to be human, an EVOLVED species.

    Posted by: Mary | May 5, 2009 3:46:23 PM

  19. The next time someone says that we need to stick with biblical marriage in this country, you can ask them which of the eight kinds they would prefer. Such as:

    Polygynous Marriage:
    Probably the most common form of marriage in the bible, it is where a man has more than one wife.

    Levirate Marriage:
    When a woman was widowed without a son, it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her. If the resulting child was a son, he would be considered the heir of her late husband. See Ruth, and the story of Onan (Gen. 38:6-10).

    A man, a woman and her property — a female slave:
    The famous “handmaiden” sketch, as preformed by Abraham (Gen. 16:1-6) and Jacob (Gen. 30:4-5).

    A man, one or more wives, and some concubines:
    The definition of a concubine varies from culture to culture, but they tended to be live-in mistresses. Concubines were tied to their “husband,” but had a lower status than a wife. Their children were not usually heirs, so they were safe outlets for sex without risking the line of succession. To see how badly a concubine could be treated, see the famous story of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19:1-30).

    A male soldier and a female prisoner of war:
    Women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process.

    A male rapist and his victim:
    Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes how an unmarried woman who had been raped must marry her attacker.

    A male and female slave:
    A female slave could be married to a male slave without consent, presumably to produce more slaves.

    Monogamous, heterosexual marriage:
    What you might think of as the standard form of marriage provided you think of arranged marriages as the standard. Also remember that inter-faith or cross-ethnic marriages were forbidden for large chunks of biblical history.

    Posted by: Dawn | May 5, 2009 5:04:24 PM

Post a comment


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #474: Carrie Prejean Edition« «