Mitt Romney Has Three-Tier Anti-Gay Marriage Plan
Mitt Romney talked to the Boston Herald about a number of things, including marriage:
In a wide-ranging interview with Herald reporters and editors, the former Bay State governor also:
Expressed support for a constitutional amendment that could create a complex three-tier system of marriage — maintaining marriage rights for straight couples, allowing gays who have already married to remain married, but barring future same-sex marriages.
“I think it would keep intact those marriages which had occurred under the law but maintain future plans based on marriage being between a man and a woman,” Romney said.
The Log Cabin Republicans rejected Romney's proposal in a press release:
"Governor Romney is contorting himself into a pretzel trying to avoid the simplest solution to a purely political problem. The best way to strengthen all families is to grant equal access to civil marriage for all couples regardless of their orientation," said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director. "Governor Romney's proposal to create a stratified system is a recipe for legal chaos. It is an offense to the rights of states like New Hampshire that have chosen to legalize marriage equality, and would, for the first time since the Civil War, enshrine second class citizenship in the American Constitution. On the state level, California is already struggling to deal with the fallout of multiple classes of marriage rights imposed by Proposition 8, proving that this system simply doesn't work. Log Cabin Republicans appreciate the governor's efforts to find middle ground, but this is not an acceptable solution."
Who told Mitt that marriage is for him and his pious hooligans to grant and take away? They're in for an overdue, loud, rude awakening from the federal court system, and they're powerless to do anything about it!
Posted by: FlexSF | Dec 15, 2011 8:01:31 PM
Actually, I like Romney's plan, although I'm not sure such a stratified system will be workable in the long run. But Flex, people need to question whether or not courts are always the way to go in order to get a reluctant majority to go along with change. The "courts lead and the rest of society follows in time" model may have worked in the past, but there is a limit to how far it can go before there is a serious backlash. As we saw with forced busing, people can often circumvent a court ruling even without being violent (as many city families did by moving to the suburbs to avoid busing.)
There is no no point to enacting laws through the legislature or referenda if a court can always declare the law in violation of someone's "rights." Also, a conservative administration could stack the court with reactionaries and they could actually IMPEDE progress. Building a genuine and workable majority is the way for activists, whether right or left, to succeed.
Posted by: Mary | Dec 15, 2011 8:20:14 PM
Funny, his constitutional amendment sounds rather unconstitutional, not to mention irrational. Fail.
Posted by: Ernie | Dec 15, 2011 8:21:07 PM
I wonder why the Log Cabin Republicans feel that, on the one hand, everyone should have equal access to civil marriage regardless of orientation and, on the other hand, "appreciate the Governor's efforts to find middle ground." What might an "acceptable" middle ground be?
Posted by: Commenter | Dec 15, 2011 8:29:47 PM
mary, i think ur scholarly analysis of this issue is totally 'on the money!' we should def 'wipe our asses with the 14th amendment' bc Middle Americans think that 'gay ppl suck.' i mean why should we even have a judiciary at all if we r just going 2 ignore them whenever they make a ruling that ppl dont like? let's just put everything up for a referendum and see how fast everyone's civil liberties 'go down the shitter.'
Posted by: bro-mosexual | Dec 15, 2011 8:31:58 PM
What no Plural Marriage (a.k.a. "The Principle") Mitt? You'll be answering to the good folks in Salt Lake City for leaving that option out.
Although the LDS Church has abandoned the practice of plural marriage, it has not abandoned the underlying doctrines of polygamy in an eternal sense. According to the church's sacred texts and pronouncements by its leaders and theologians, the church leaves open the possibility that it may one day re-institute the practice. The church also holds that plural marriage will exist in the afterlife.
Posted by: DearComrade | Dec 15, 2011 8:48:46 PM
"Actually, I like Romney's plan, although I'm not sure such a stratified system will be workable in the long run."
Mary, Mary, Mary. You try to impersonate a reasonable bigot and fail every time. Of course it's not workable in the long run, or the short run. It's unconstitutional, and wrong. Fears of a backlash are both misplaced (marriage equality breeds approval for marriage equality, not the reverse, and approval is only going to increase with the next generation) and the last reason one should avoid fighting for equality via the legislatures and the courts. Public opinion isn't the measure of whether you should fight for civil rights, justice is. You actually know that, don't you? (Your Mary Mary Quite Contrary persona is entertaining to a point, but it's getting tiresome.)
Posted by: Ernie | Dec 15, 2011 8:56:14 PM
"But Flex, people need to question whether or not courts are always the way to go in order to get a reluctant majority to go along with change."
The legislatures are increasingly leading. There's been a sea change in political seriousness in the three years since Prop 8, and there's been substantive shifts in public tone and opinion regarding marriage equality.
"The "courts lead and the rest of society follows in time" model may have worked in the past, but there is a limit to how far it can go before there is a serious backlash."
Not to trivialize our struggle, but we've not having authority figures turn water cannons or unleash dogs upon us for asserting our rights. Our court victories have provoked far less serious public backlash than some other minorities struggling for their rights.
"As we saw with forced busing, people can often circumvent a court ruling even without being violent (as many city families did by moving to the suburbs to avoid busing.)"
What comparison are you trying to make here? What law is going to be circumvented if we achieve marriage equality.
Posted by: Nat | Dec 15, 2011 8:56:29 PM
Stepping on soap box... sorry, I can't take it anymore - "...people need to question whether or not courts are always the way to go in order to get a reluctant majority to go along with change..."
Ahem...
We have the ultimate law here in the United States, it is called the Constitution. It is the judiciary's responsibility to interpret and enforce. The Constitution was designed to be difficult to change in order to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny and whims of the majority. The 14th amendment (equal protection/due process) was added to the Constitution because a super majority of the people of the US knew in their heart of hearts it was the right and decent thing to do. Everybody wants equal protection. To imply that rights should be up to a majority vote in an election is ludicrous.
If people truly want that, let them pass an anti-gay amendment to the constitution. I can tell you here and now it won't happen.
If discrimination were ever placed into our constitution it would be the beginning of the end of our great nation. It is anathema to the principles on which the United States was founded.
... stepping off soap box... whew, feel better now...
Posted by: MikeH | Dec 15, 2011 8:56:49 PM
Who cares what the Log Cabinettes "feel" Commenter.
They're just a cabal of Bottoms-Who-Think-They're-Tops.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Dec 15, 2011 9:56:27 PM
What is so difficult about understanding that civil marriage is a secular issue? I have asked on numerous sites and I have not had a single straight married person explain to me how my same sex marriage effects their marriage.
Posted by: PLAINTOM | Dec 15, 2011 10:20:32 PM
Mary what is your deal anyway? You're not gay why do you follow this blog so much? I wonder sometimes if people are right, are you here for added gasoline? Really tho why?
Posted by: George M | Dec 15, 2011 10:21:19 PM
It amazes me how people can be so ignorant, isn't civics taught in schools anymore? Also, I've never have been a particular fan of the GOP - but can they be any more ridiculous? What next, a book burning in a public square? Maybe Kristallnacht? All one need to is read a simple article on the Holocaust - you can't start vilifying a group of people without it ending badly. If you don't learn from history you're doomed to repeat it - and apparently the GOP has forgotten how to read. Alarmist? I don't think so - the parallels are alarming and frightening.
Posted by: MikeH | Dec 15, 2011 10:33:38 PM
@Mary: This isn't a popularity contest, so I don't care if we're unpopular with the billbilly mouthbreathers.
And your "forced" busing example is non-applicable. We want equal marriage rights for our dealings with the IRS, INS (or whatever they call it now), DOD and SSI (for spousal benefits), et cetera. See a pattern here? We want our GOVERNMENT to treat us equally. Screw what the neighbors think.
Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen | Dec 15, 2011 10:40:10 PM
@Mikeh
We have the ultimate law here in the United States, it is called the Constitution. It is the judiciary's responsibility to interpret and enforce.
Mikeh, you need to re-read the Constitution of the United States. It is the judiciary's responsibility to interpret the laws as to them being in compliance with the Constitution. It is the job of the Executive branch of the the government to enforce the laws as interpreted by the courts. The federal judiciary has no enforcement powers as the Constitution only allows them to interpret but not enforce their decisions.
Posted by: vanndean | Dec 15, 2011 10:48:04 PM
@Vanndean - I fully understand the separation of powers. I was using the word enforce as in compel. The are mulltiple meanings to the word enforce. Read a SCOTUS decision. The last four words is "It is so ordered."
Posted by: MikeH | Dec 15, 2011 11:04:50 PM
@PLAINTOM: From what I understand, the religious straights are terrified all their menfolk will start leaving their wives (and wives will leave their men) once gay marriage becomes legal. They predict this will happen in such great numbers the survival of the human race would be in peril.
They actually believe this.
Posted by: Sean in Dallas | Dec 15, 2011 11:11:04 PM
@Sean in Dallas: I've never heard that. The more common arguments are that same-sex marriage would devalue hetero marriage---making it less special if "just anyone" can do it---and because their bibles and churches tell them that same-sex attraction makes people "less than" others, they're entitled to treat us as a separate, lower class.
It's simply ignorant bigotry. You can use the bible to defend or promote whatever you like, but the separation of church and state is even more crucial to the Constitution than equal protection. Hence the point above about civil marriage. Someone else's religious beliefs should have no bearing on my rights, whether those beliefs are held by 1 or 99 percent of my fellow citizens.
I get tired of these discussions. In 20 years the main group of voters opposed to same-sex marriage will be dead, it will be universal, and children learning history will wonder why people wasted so much time debating such a basic point.
Posted by: Paul R | Dec 15, 2011 11:42:58 PM
It's official, Mitt has lost his marbles. He's grasping at straws. You can see it in his eyes, the panic, the mania, the desperation.
His Mormon training has given him the power of believing in six new impossible things before ten a.m. each and every day.
(Look up Mormonism and see what crazy azz sh*t those followers wallow in.)
Posted by: desperation anyone? | Dec 16, 2011 12:00:16 AM
Absolutely - total bigotry. We have nothing to fear from Romney. He will never be elected President of the US - and this coming one of those legally married same-sex couples who would benefit from his proposal. On the whole I would never stand for such a three-tier system. The man is a fool and anyone supporting him is a bigger fool.
Posted by: OS2Guy | Dec 16, 2011 12:04:33 AM
Mary - how about letting LGBT couples marry? Seriously. Gay and Lesbians couples who love each other and want to commit to each other aren't the reason that YOU are single.
Posted by: Little Kiwi | Dec 16, 2011 2:09:12 AM
quite frankly i don't know why anti-gay bigots continue to be upset. it's not as if they're going to be invited to any gay weddings anyway...
Posted by: Little Kiwi | Dec 16, 2011 2:16:40 AM
Attitude follows behavior, as behavior follows attitude. Laws regarding civil rights affected behavior, which affected attitude, which affected behavior. Clearly, racism still exists, but it is less prevalent, and less unquestioned. Because we stood up and said, "No!"
Posted by: TJ | Dec 16, 2011 2:26:55 AM
I know the "F" word is not politically correct, but the truth is it sometimes apply because the Log Cabin republicans are a bunch of Fa****s . . . gay people who identify more with people who have money than those who do not, and like all people who have money, care more about how to get and keep money in their pockets than the common good.
Like I said: F****s!!
Posted by: RiccoRicco | Dec 16, 2011 3:39:50 AM
Goproud probably supports this!
Bte, Is "Mary" Mary Cheney?
Posted by: r | Dec 16, 2011 4:21:06 AM