Romney Strikes Back: Gay marriage ban

[Jobber of the Week 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5061600797.html

 

Romney to Back Plan to Ban Gay Marriage

 

BOSTON -- Gov. Mitt Romney said Thursday he will support a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Massachusetts, the only state where it is legal.

 

The Legislature was already working on a proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage but also would allow Vermont-style civil unions. The new proposal drops the civil union language, meaning such unions would remain illegal in the state.

 

If the new proposal passesprocedural hurdles, it could appear on the statewide ballot as soon as November 2008.

 

Romney said the original proposed amendment _ which was narrowly passed last year by state lawmakers and is awaiting a second round of voting later this year _ is "muddied" because it includes both the gay marriage and civil union issues. He said voters should be able to decide on gay marriage with a "clean, straightforward, unambiguous amendment" that does not include civil unions.

 

"I believe it's superior to the amendment which is currently pending before the state Legislature, and hope that this amendment will ultimately be the one which the citizens have the opportunity to vote upon," Romney said.

 

The announcement was immediately decried by supporters of gay marriage.

 

"I think the amendment is an extreme and mean-spirited effort to take away marriage equality and replace it with nothing," said Mark Solomon, political director of MassEquality. "It is really sad that (Romney) is playing politics with gay and lesbian families and their children, and that's all that is."

 

The new proposed amendment will take the form of a citizen's initiative. That means the state attorney general's office must sign off on the proposal language, supporters must collect 65,825 voters' signatures and one-quarter of lawmakers in the Legislature must vote twice to approve it. Only if it passes those hurdles would the state's voters have their say.

 

Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley and the bishops of the state's other three Roman Catholic dioceses pledged support for signature-gathering efforts.

 

"We encourage all Catholics to exercise their civil right to participate in the signature drive for the new initiative petition," they said in a statement.

 

Massachusetts' highest court ruled in November 2003 that the state constitution guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry. The nation's first state-sanctioned, same-sex weddings began taking place May 17, 2004, and since then, thousands of couples have tied the knot.

 

The two proposals now on the table are both efforts to reverse the court's gay marriage ruling via a constitutional amendment.

 

The earlier proposal to outlaw gay marriage but institute civil unions will still appear on the statewide ballot in 2006 if it passes a second round of legislative voting this year. But even if it were to become law, it could be overruled by the new proposal two years later.

 

Romney previously supported the original amendment proposal, but he said at the time the only reason he did so was because it would ban gay marriage.

 

"If the question is, 'Do you support gay marriage or civil unions?' I'd say neither," Romney said last year. "If they said you have to have one or the other, that Massachusetts is going to have one or the other, then I'd rather have civil unions than gay marriage. But I'd rather have neither."

 

The Christian Science Monitor strongly speculated recently that this guy will be the GOP's candidate in 2008. To compare, Dubya has never publically voiced disapproval for civil unions (whether his proposed marriage amendment would block them or not is an arguable issue.)

 

The funny thing is that opinion seems to be that he is otherwise quite a moderate.

[MrRant 0]

So to be a moderate you have to support gay marriage?

[Gary Floyd 0]

So to be a moderate you have to support gay marriage?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I'm a moderate, and I support gay marriage

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I don't think there's much anything moderate about wanting to ban civil unions.

[Guest SP-1]

Moderate means not going to the total hardline extremes of a party. The kind of moderate you guys seem to want to define is someone who just kind of randomly guesses at his policy, or makes no decisions whatsoever.

 

If he's truly a moderate, this is just one of a few issues that he happens to agree with a party's hardline stance on. It doesn't mean he agreed with all hardline stances. A singular stance doesn't change his entire policy set.

 

(Note: I don't care much about the gay marriage bill in itself here. Just wanted to point out the overreaction of "omg he's not a moderate!" based on a singular policy.)

Edited June 19, 2005 by SP-1

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I'm just defining the word here. Wanting to ban civil unions isn't a moderate position, whether you want to base it on not being a dumbass or on public opinion. I don't know shit about Mitt Romney so I'm just talking about this particular stance.

[Guest SP-1]

I'm just defining the word here.  Wanting to ban civil unions isn't a moderate position, whether you want to base it on not being a dumbass or on public opinion.  I don't know shit about Mitt Romney so I'm just talking about this particular stance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That I can agree with. That in itself is a hardline position in general.

 

I wasn't really directing that at any particular person. Just attempting to head off the inevitable knee-jerk "He's clearly not a moderate" comments.

 

of course, they'll happen anyways.

[EricMM 0]

it's a conservative position, but if it's his only one I suppose he could still be seen as moderate.

[TheBostonStrangler 0]

Romney is a Mormon, so his religious beliefs would come into play here. Overall, he's a real douchebag. He's intelligent enough, but I disagree with the majority of his opinions. He's drawn an extremely hard line on our budget which has forced cutbacks in a number of municipal programs, he's increased high-stakes testing, he's butchered the English as a Second Language program in the state, and his stance on gay marriage is mired in the dark ages.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

Good. I think gay marriage is silly. To me, marriage should be between a man & woman, with the purpose being for them to hold something sacred and potentially have a family.

 

Just because its becoming less taboo for gay couples to express themselves doesn't mean the sanctity and credibility of marriage should be harmed.

 

And while I'm on the subject...I hate being hit on by gay people in bars. It's happening a lot lately and sooner or later you're gonna see me on the news taking a friggin' lawmower to one of them.

[Special K 0]

Shut the fuck up Sledge. I'm sure there are plenty of women who you've hit on who didn't appreciate it either. Maybe you accidentally bought the gay pheremone from the back of Maxim.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Just because its becoming less taboo for gay couples to express themselves doesn't mean the sanctity and credibility of marriage should be harmed.

 

You mean that thing that doesn't work out half the time it's attempted?

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

Sure there have been.

 

I'm just venting over a few specific incidents the past couple weekends. Not all homosexual males act in the same way. My bad.

 

It was bad, though. This dude in this sleveless denim vest and aviator sunglasses, complete with long black hair was all bumping into me and ruining my dance moveset. If that wasn't enough, he proceeded to cut in between me and a girl I recognized from school and "show us some real moves".

 

That's what I get pissed off about.

 

Back to topic, though. I don't think gay marriages should be legal. Not bein' a hater, but marriage is religion, and according to my religious beliefs, marriage is between a pole and a hole. And not the hole in the ass.

[Special K 0]

Not bein' a hater, but marriage is religion, and according to my religious beliefs, marriage is between a pole and a hole. And not the hole in the ass.

 

That's great

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

No one is talking about forcing religons to recognize gay religons, we are talking about civil marriages which means visitation rights, tax benefits, etc. Think of it this way: the sex advice columnist Dan Savage, a gay man. can get a liscence to marry a lesbian who he doesn't love, won't ever have anything beyond a professional relationship with, but he can't marry his partner, who he loves and lives with. He actually went and tried something like this, which is why I'm thinking of it. And, if marriage should be inherently relilous, does that mean atheists should've be allowed to get married? Just food for thought. By the way, I'm one of those odd stright folks who support gay marriage

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

UsetheSledge should run for office.

[Sideburnious 0]

Yeah I support gay marriages. I have gay friends that will probably want to get married when they are older and I have no problem if they want to or not. The main reason people oppose gay marriages is because they don't like gays. They'll tolerate them but really they don't like them. It's probably not their fault, probably the way they were raised.

[NoCalMike 0]

I think anyone whoever utters "trying to keep the santicty of marriage" in a debate about gay marriage should immediately be declared the loser and just go away. What "sanctity" does marriage have exactly?

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Uhhhh...the sanctity that, if you're one of those people that 100% disagrees with divorce (like the vast majority of my family, including myself), occurs when you decide to leave your wife/husband to fuck somebody hotter, younger, and more fun to be with? The sanctity to know that you'll likely never be able to date anybody else ever again? The sanctity that comes from a 50% divorce rate in this country? The sanctity that causes teen depression due to feuding parents that take their anger out on their children?

 

And saying marriage is a purely religious thing is dumb. Atheists get married, people of different faiths get married...so how is it religious besides the reading of religious scripts before saying "I do"? You could skip that part, go to Vegas, meet Elvis and Jimi Hendrix, and then go right to the honeymoon.

 

There is no sanctity in marriage when you can get it done as fast as you could get a Spicy Chicken Sandwich from Wendy's (drive-thru chapels), and especially not when half marriages fall apart anyway. Stop thinking with your faith, and start thinking with fairness in mind.

 

Please somebody shut me up right now, because I'm too hungover to talk about something this serious and make sense of it without sounding like an asshole or rambling on and on and on and on.

[Guest SP-1]

To be fair, the religious, Christian sanctity of marriage stems from the base belief that biblical history is accurate and trustworthy - thus, since God deems marriage as highly special and doesn't want divorce or adultery or homosexual marriage, then there is a certain way that marriage should be upheld.

 

Measuring the sanctity of marriage by a modern, contradictory standard that's been marred by a sinful society doesn't really matter in the debate against that root Christian ideal. Marriage, in and of itself at its root, is sanctified. The ways that people dishonor it don't change that.

Edited June 25, 2005 by SP-1

[Nighthawk 0]

Calling the sanctity of marriage into question doesn't really present a point. Cigarettes give you cancer, but that doesn't mean we should support putting AIDS in them too. If you believe marriage is for men and women, divorce doesn't change that.

 

This is an issue I don't particularly care about, personally.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

No, but saying that something is sacred to our American culture when we, as a nation, don't treat it as such is ignorant to me. Personally, I like to believe that God doesn't care whether or not a man loves and has sex with another man or a woman, because a divine being probably would be above judging someone on such a thing as where their heart goes.

 

Hell, maybe we'll just take the Iranian (I believe) route and have government-funded sex change operations for gay men and lesbians so that their love is no longer a "sin."

[NoCalMike 0]

To be fair, the religious, Christian sanctity of marriage stems from the base belief that biblical history is accurate and trustworthy - thus, since God deems marriage as highly special and doesn't want divorce or adultery or homosexual marriage, then there is a certain way that marriage should be upheld.

 

Measuring the sanctity of marriage by a modern, contradictory standard that's been marred by a sinful society doesn't really matter in the debate against that root Christian ideal.  Marriage, in and of itself at its root, is sanctified.  The ways that people dishonor it don't change that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ok, but what about non-christian weddings? Right now people can go before a judge without making any "promises to god" all well and good.

[NoCalMike 0]

Anyone else find it hilarious how much of a non-issue this has dwindled to since election 2004? I mean during the election you figured that the millisecond the next guy was sworn in, gay marriage would be the first issue to tackle, and now I don't think I have heard ANYTHING about it since the debates and campaigning. Talking about whipping up a frenzy over nothing.

[Slickster 0]

Hey, they have more important stuff to deal with, like flag burning and Terri Schiavo.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

good ole fashioned bigotry sure can win a guy some votes. GOOD GOLLY, TARNATION!