2012 Election | Gay Marriage | Mitt Romney | News

Mitt Romney Supports 'Partnership Agreements' Instead of Marriage for Gay Couples

Sam Stein at HuffPo reports that Mitt Romney was asked about his views with regard to family arrangements by a student at a town hall in Hopkinton, New Hampshire. The student asked what was wrong with being raised by two women, as she was (her mother and grandmother).

Romney "I can say look, there are a lot of folks who are raised by one parent, through divorce through death or through having a child out of wedlock," Romney replied. "But my view is a society recognizes that the ideal setting for raising a child is when you have the benefit of two people working together and where one is male and one is female. I happen to believe that and that's the reason that I think as a society we say, 'You know what? We are going to call marriage what it has been called for 6,000 years.'"

So why not support civil unions? "What I would support is letting people who are of the same gender form, if you will, partnership agreements," he replied. "If they want to have a partnership with someone else and have, as a result of that, such things as hospital visitation rights and similar benefits of that nature."

More from Think Progress LGBT....

Said the student: "I was seething. I didn't want my disdain to be apparent on my face. His answer was a little odd because I grew up with two women as parents," she continued. "I didn't grow up with gay parents. But it was still two women."

Watch the video, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Who cares what one person "believes?" This is a democracy not a monarchy or dictatorship and a majority things we should have gay marriage.

    Posted by: zeddy | Oct 11, 2011 12:46:31 PM

  2. Wow, in a previous speech "one man, one woman marriage" was 3,000 years old. By the time the election gets here he'll have it being billions and billions of years old.

    [cue voice of Carl Sagan]

    He probably also believes that children are BEST raised in wealthy, Republican, Mormon households. Will he next promote legislation to make it illegal for poor people, non-Republicans and non-Mormons to marry? For the sake of the chuldrun of course.

    Posted by: TampaZeke | Oct 11, 2011 12:54:45 PM

  3. "I was seething. I didn't want my disdain to be apparent on my face."

    Why not?! If it was important enough to stand up and ask the question, why hide how you feel about the answer?

    Posted by: Dastius Krazitauc | Oct 11, 2011 12:54:58 PM

  4. OK, then grant me the right to have a partnership that includes all the rights and benefits of marriage, including the right to use whatever word I damn well please to describe it.

    Posted by: Trev | Oct 11, 2011 12:57:06 PM

  5. sorry bring'em young... but your cult is too way out for me to really care how you believe i should live my life.

    Posted by: sleepy bear | Oct 11, 2011 12:57:59 PM

  6. Do I get to prescribe the marriage arrangements for stuffed shirt Mormon candidates?

    Posted by: Charley | Oct 11, 2011 1:01:11 PM

  7. can someone inform me about why these Right-wing idiots keep talking about children?

    not all LGBT couples who marry are going to have children.

    the issue is not "can gays have children" because gay couples can, legally, have children. their own biological children, they can adopt, they can use surrogates.

    not letting gay couples marry has nothing to do with "the right home environment for children" - all it does it put the children of gay couples at a disadvantage by not letting their parents legally marry.

    many straight couples don't have children and they still get married.

    seriously. i'm puzzled. this issue is about legally marrying - WHY do people keep talking about raising children?

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Oct 11, 2011 1:02:06 PM

  8. The first banknotes (aka Money) originated around 1660.

    Posted by: oliver | Oct 11, 2011 1:15:00 PM

  9. "You know what? We are going to call marriage what it has been called for 6,000 years." --- Yes, for almost all of that 6,000 years women were property of men like Romney, not partners, not equals.
    Oh by the way, "we" asked for civil unions way back in the 1970s --- we were denied then. It does not matter what we ask for the bigotted right (christian or otherwise) is going to say NO that's ours you can't have it too.

    Posted by: Daya | Oct 11, 2011 1:18:04 PM

  10. I would love to give Mitt Romney a huge, unbridled ass pounding.

    Posted by: freddy | Oct 11, 2011 1:22:16 PM

  11. Patronizing, vote-hungry BS in the extreme.

    Posted by: Jack M | Oct 11, 2011 1:31:17 PM

  12. Mitt is the joke that might be the GOP candidate. I think somewhere in his pea-like brain, there is a voice speaking to him and it is saying, "Mitt, don't run. Please don't run. Just walk to the nearest exit and go home."

    Posted by: Steve | Oct 11, 2011 1:35:21 PM

  13. this isn't just homophobia, it's sexism. it suggests that men and women are not equally capable of providing the same sorts of things for children - which means either men, women, or both must be lacking some sort of basic human capacity... it just smacks of mommy with be the nurturer while daddy will be the breadwinner, which is not the case for many hetero families these days either.

    Posted by: mike128 | Oct 11, 2011 1:48:55 PM

  14. "Wow, in a previous speech "one man, one woman marriage" was 3,000 years old. By the time the election gets here he'll have it being billions and billions of years old."

    @TAMPAZEKE He's using 6,000 because Biblical literalists believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. You won't hear any of them speaking of anything being billions of years old.

    Posted by: Bradford | Oct 11, 2011 1:50:36 PM

  15. Let us all hope that these stupid, backwards looking, bigoted, heterosexual privileged living assholes that, today, say how much they are against marriage equality live long enough to see Marriage Equality become the law of the land.

    Mark my words. The very same way that my grandparents were ashamed of the part they played in the oppression of black people, these people will rue the day they they stood up and made their idiocy know by publicly speaking out against us.

    In other words... be a dumbass in your own home and mind but don't try to legislate it. The arc of justice is long but bends towards freedom and inclusion.

    Posted by: Mike Hipp | Oct 11, 2011 2:09:55 PM

  16. The stupid right simply don't want to recognize that gay people "LOVE". Once they admit that gays do love each other rather than just "hook-up", it would destroy all there stupid reasons to deny us all of our rights.

    So they cling to partnership as though we are only interested in business transactions and are not qualified as loving men and women who are capable of raising children and nurturing each other.

    Posted by: Steve Pardue | Oct 11, 2011 2:13:53 PM

  17. In a previous appearance, Mr. Romney, you said you supported the right of gay couples to form partnership agreements, etc. Would this be like the numerous cases of Mormons in Utah with multiple wives living under one roof while only one is legally married to the husband? Have you personally seen how this plays out in cases of, say, accidental death of the husband? How does the lack of legal recognition impact the illegal spouses?

    Posted by: BobN | Oct 11, 2011 3:06:57 PM

  18. Where is Lincoln Lounger this is his Savior?

    Posted by: CHRIS DACHOCOLATEBEARCUB | Oct 12, 2011 2:08:06 AM

  19. I could care less what marrige is called, hell they could call it scrable mc boo or all I care as long as I got the same benifits as a heterosexual couple. Thats all, and im sure many would agree the name doesnt matter as long as we get the right like every other couple

    Posted by: winston | Oct 12, 2011 9:18:55 AM

  20. @ZEDDY We don't use majority rule in the USA, thank goodness. We live by the Constitution so we don't have to succumb to the ignorant, unconsidered, might-makes-right whims of the majority.

    Posted by: Book 7 | Oct 12, 2011 9:26:09 AM

Post a comment


« «Supreme Court Declines Gay Adoption Case« «