December 15, 2011
By Adam Bink
During an interview with the Boston Herald on Wednesday, Mitt Romney reiterated his support for a federal amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, but also said that he would establish three different tiers of marriage specifically for gay people:
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.
A three-tiered marriage system? What the hell is that? Romney is setting some kind of world record for twisting himself into knots for flip-flops already, but this one just takes the cake. I remember helping phonebank against Governor ConCon (as we nicknamed him for his repeated demands to hold a constitutional convention in Massachusetts to try and reverse the Goodridge decision). He was against same-sex couples remaining married then. Now he’s for it? Big surprise. And while he’s for it, he’s also for separate but unequal, i.e. marriage for straight people but no one else, and banning future same-sex marriages?
This is one of those things politicians do that please exactly no one. They anger your base. They anger the people who oppose you on the issue. And they make swing voters confused and/or think you have no principles at all.