Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Mitt Romney shows us how to please exactly no one on the issue of marriage

Community/Meta

By Adam Bink

This:

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.

35 Comments

  • 1. Sagesse  |  December 15, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    @

  • 2. Derek Williams  |  December 15, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    It'll be Newt Gingrich out of this sorry lot for sure. He has the best gift of the gab and the governmental experience from the Bush days to back it up. Since GW is still the GOP's (Gay Oppression Party) erstwhile knight in shining armour, that association won't queer his pitch with the gay bashers.

  • 3. Derek Williams  |  December 15, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    or ♀♀+♂♂+♀♂=∑♡

  • 4. Str8Grandmother  |  December 15, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    Derek = GOP's (Gay Oppression Party)
    StraightGrandmother = That there is a good one Derek!

  • 5. Gregory in SLC  |  December 15, 2011 at 8:57 pm

    wow…. ::open closes mouth:: ….no words…
    @
    A three-tiered marriage system? What the hell is that?

  • 6. Deeelaaach  |  December 15, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    Now wasn't it Romney the other day who said that he thought same sex marriage was unconstitutional? But he supports an amendment to the Constitution to make it so? So if it is unconstitutional now, why does he need a Constitutional amendment in the first place? I'm twisting myself into knots trying to understand this (failure of) logic.

    If it wasn't Romney, maybe it was (fill in the name of the GOP candidate)?

    And to be fair, I think Romney does have one guiding principle: say whatever he has to say to get elected. At least that's what this independent voter is hearing.

  • 7. Bob  |  December 15, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    that would be a big old fat slab of one man one woman,,,, bottom layer,,,, with more evoolved creative thinking types like common unions/civil marriage etc,, forming the second layer,,,, to hold up the top gay marriage,,,,,,,,,,,

  • 8. jpmassar  |  December 15, 2011 at 10:27 pm

    It's exactly what exists in California now.

  • 9. sfbob  |  December 15, 2011 at 10:33 pm

    You give the man too much credit. He DOES have a guiding principle but it's more like: Say whatever it is you think your audience wants to hear and then, when a different audience seems to disapprove, deny you said what you'd said to the first audience.

  • 10. Mike  |  December 16, 2011 at 12:36 am

    He cant say he is for gay marriage because he will lose the conservative vote, and he cant say he is against gay marriage because he will lose the gays and friends vote. which each side pretty much makes up 50/50 of registered voters, so it seems like he is just dancing in the middle there… you cant know how he really feels about the issue, because politicians are liars who say what they gotta say for the vote.

    Being president is like a fame game, and I hate it. Give me a bold honest candidate please.

  • 11. Sam_Handwich  |  December 16, 2011 at 7:15 am

    GOP = Ghoulish Orifice Police

  • 12. Sam_Handwich  |  December 16, 2011 at 7:23 am

    What he's proposing is the schizophrenic marriage policy that now exists in California. Well, he's a Mormon after all….

  • 13. Lymis  |  December 16, 2011 at 7:42 am

    Each and every gay marriage will completely and utterly destroy civilization as we know it, devalue all straight relationships, put our children in peril, and cause the permanent degradation of any chance of loving relationships and families forming in the future….

    But I suppose we could put up with a few of them.

    Do these clowns even listen to themselves?

  • 14. Reformed  |  December 16, 2011 at 7:50 am

    In a democracy, we check the latest polling to see what we stand for.

  • 15. Walter  |  December 16, 2011 at 8:21 am

    All I gotta say is let's hope this guy doesn't get to be President.

  • 16. AnonyGrl  |  December 16, 2011 at 8:37 am

    "Separate but equal doesn't work, Mitt."

    "Oh… ok… how about MORE separate and kind of unequal, or maybe not legal, or perhaps somewhat legal but only if you got in on the right window, or not?"

    "Oh, thanks. That is MUCH better." (eyeroll)

    Is it possible that Mitt thinks that the best road to equality is if no one has a CLUE what sort of marriage they may or may not be in?

  • 17. thark  |  December 16, 2011 at 9:11 am

    The funny part is, all the other Antigays in the TeaO-P are going to have to "rise" to the defense of one or more of Romney's untenable scenarios regarding the creation of "laws" to disenfranchise loving but unmarried gay couples, and ONLY loving unmarried gay couples, while magically leaving all other law-abiding citizens 100% un molested, "law" or no "law".

    One by one, they wlll be challenged to make sense as to why no one has to share OUR country equally with every law abiding citizen equally, and they won't be able to do it.

    The "best" convolutions on the subject are bound to ooze from the cauldron of Newt, because he has said the gay marriages now are sure to be a blip in history, with the "fad" on gay rights fading somehow into draconian squeamish-antigay "history" – or so says the "historian".

    They will be challenged to defend the indefensible, and each time they fail – and actual HISTORY say they are doomed to – the questions will only get more pointed and more frequent…perhaps even affecting NC's illegal ban from staining the NC constitution this coming May.

  • 18. thark  |  December 16, 2011 at 9:20 am

    2010 – 1986

    Now, as then, there will be NO going backwards to coddle the irrational squeamishness that even the Antigays themselves have yet to coherently explain to anyone publicly.

    Marriage equality is here to stay in CA; with the crash and burn fo Flop 8, it is farily impossible that any similarly malicious marriage bans can ever be constitutionally introduced in this state, ever again…

    Which is hilarous: The darkside forced the spending of $85 million -in this economy to chum for votes under the guise of "protecting marriage" and will ultimately end up nauseating voters with their obtuse whinings, while protecting marriage for ALL.

    Seeing the Anti's scramble to defend insanity is going to be as hilarious as it has been watching all these trials they keep losing in federal courts…

  • 19. Brett Cottrell  |  December 16, 2011 at 9:20 am

    Mitt Romney's a funny guy, both of them.

    He says he doesn't approve of discriminating against gays, by saying he discriminates against gays. Stay classy, Mitt.
    http://brettcottrell.blogspot.com/2011/12/mitt-ro

  • 20. thark  |  December 16, 2011 at 9:21 am

    Funny I meant to right 2010 = 1968!

  • 21. thark  |  December 16, 2011 at 9:22 am

    Funny I meant to write "right" too…

    (guess I'm just excited to hear what BLAG is going to say to the questions their judge wanted answered today. DOMA is going down too…

  • 22. thark  |  December 16, 2011 at 9:23 am

    No, it's "write".

    I meant to write…

    (Oh, nevermind)

  • 23. fiona64  |  December 16, 2011 at 9:26 am

    I would like to remind Brother Romney that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution precludes his "three-tiered marriage" system. Just sayin' …

  • 24. fiona64  |  December 16, 2011 at 9:27 am

    If Newtie is the nominee, that guarantees an Obama landslide. Seriously. Newtie is a whole different kind of creepy from Brother Romney.

  • 25. N_Donnelly  |  December 16, 2011 at 10:44 am

    What I do not understand is why these candidates act as if HJ Res. 56 (the Federal Marriage Amendment floated by Bush 2 in 2006) doesn’t exist. It’s been languishing around the Capitol for lo these many years, and has yet to make it out to the states. Do they somehow imagine that we have forgotten about it, as they apparently have? Or do they somehow imagine that partisanship would step aside (the worst partisanship I’ve ever seen in Washington and I’m 61) just to pass that amendment. The thing couldn’t get out when it was a new idea and there was no marriage equality in this country. Yet they yammer on about how badly it is needed. If it were so desperately needed, why is it still not passed. (BTW: I’m not convinced we could get an amendment on anything passed in this country because of partisanship.)

  • 26. Gothelittle  |  December 16, 2011 at 11:25 am

    Same reason why we needed a constitutional amendment to allow women and blacks to vote despite it being very clear in our originating documents that all were to have equal rights under the law in this great country… no matter how obvious something is, there will always be people who try to push the envelope and make the law of the land something that didn't even deserve to be suggested for people to laugh at when the Constitution was written.

    The other side has made it very clear that they're going to do everything they need to do, cheat, steal, throw rocks through elementary school windows, beat up old ladies, whatever it takes to make the U.S. Federal Government force everybody to refer to two men having sex or two women having sex as "marriage". As much as we've never desired to have the government make marriage definition clear through force of law, we realize now that it's the only way to preserve the stronger American values of free speech and religion.

  • 27. Straight Dave  |  December 16, 2011 at 11:55 am

    Constitution? What Constitution?
    Didn't you hear them all blathering on in last night's debate about how lifetime federal judges that adhere too strictly to the Constitution ought to be replaced by ones that have time limits and are subject to political influence? OMG it was a riot. A race to the bottom to see who could whine the loudest about judges being unconstrained by the peoples' wishes. I wish I had recorded it but didn't want to waste precious DVR space. I fully expect a few crtical columns to show up soon, even in the MSM. It was absurdly un-American. I could not believe so many "leading" candidates for President chased right down that rat hole. Only Huntsman spoke sanity.

  • 28. Str8Grandmother  |  December 16, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    I saw a video of Newt in Iowa. I think it was an Iowa newspaper, the editorial board was interviewing him. It was on http://WWW.GoodAsYou.org. H actually said in the interview that Rick Santorum has the right idea on Marriage.
    One other thing I have noticed in most of these interviews and debates. As soon as the topic of sexual minorities is raised the candidates reach for their bottle of water. Watch for it.
    If Obama is not re-elected we are in deep do-do.
    Just think of those 2 big donors at NOM each giving over a million dollars each. If one of these Republicans earn the presidency we would have four years of well funded attempts to get that Federal Constitutional Amendment passed.

    It is nerve wracking waiting for the Decision from the 9th Circuit.

  • 29. Str8Grandmother  |  December 16, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    I missed that debate. Where was it?

  • 30. Steve  |  December 16, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    It's not like insulating the Supreme Court from political influence has actually worked. The judges are divided into conservative and liberal wings. Precisely because an appointment can have a lasting influence for decades, it's a hotly contested political process. Judges aren't selected for their competence, but based on their political views and opinions in certain issues. There is really no reason to think that a term limit of maybe 15 years would be any worse.

  • 31. DaveP  |  December 16, 2011 at 10:56 pm

    My goodness, such drama! Can you tell us – what part of the Prop 8 decision do you think is wrong? Where is the legal or constitutional error? Have you read the Findings of Fact?

  • 32. DaveP  |  December 16, 2011 at 11:16 pm

    …. And spare us the rhetoric about free speech and religion. Civil marriage equality has no negative effect on either of those. Nobody is telling the church to change its views. We are talking about LEGAL CIVIL MARRIAGE like you get at City Hall with a marriage license. Civil marriage does not affect the church and the church has no effect on civil marriage. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Quote from the Prop 8 Findings of Fact: "19. Marriage has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law. (p. 60)."

    Worship however you want by don't use religion as an excuse to hurt families by denying them equal civil rights and equal legal protections. And BTW, there are plenty of churches that read the exact same Bible you read, yet they fully support marriage equality. The vast majority of the public has religious beliefs and yet the majority support marriage equality. Is God really telling them one thing, but telling YOU something different? It is very suspicious when you think that God hates all the same people that you hate. Don't blame God for your anti-gay views. It's YOUR choice.

  • 33. denus  |  January 3, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Please spare us the bull oppression speech. NOM tried it and got laughed in the face for it in court.

    You are not being attacked, your little old ladies are not being beat up, elementary school windows are not having stones thrown through them, just to get marriage equality back on track.

  • 34. fiona64  |  January 3, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    Are there any facts in here?

    Yeah, I thought not.

  • 35. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  January 8, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    […] Adam wrote earlier in December, Mitt Romney is not a advocate for full equality for LGBT citizens: in an […]

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!