What's Mitt Afraid Of?
It’s been almost two years since the MSJC ruled in favor of same sex marriages. Contrary to the religious right’s apocalyptic fears the sun still rises, the tides still flow, and there have been no reports of locust infestation. In February of 2004, our governor warned that, “… the acceptance of same sex marriages threatens all marriages.”
I can’t speak for Mitt, but my marriage is doing just fine. I suppose it could be different in the Romney household. Perhaps the governor caught his wife TiVo-ing
“The L Word,” or maybe he has blown the kids’ trust funds on Diesel Jeans and midnight showings of “But I’m A Cheerleader.”
Quantum physics has proven that particles from a common origin are linked indefinitely. Change a parameter of one particle and its “sibling” is similarly affected. They appear to communicate instantly, across infinite distances with no known understandable method of data transference.
This must also be Mitt Romney’s definition of marriage. How else to explain his contention that a lesbian couple in Amherst or a gay union in Truro can so drastically affect his life?
Could it be that Mitt is just another middle-aged conservative homophobe, or is it bigger than that? Remember if he does decide to run for a national office the red states seem to prefer angry white men. Slyly, Romney claims no prejudice towards the gay life style; instead he affirms the historical sanctity of marriage between one woman and one man.
Of course he’s not alone, local conservatives like Howie Carr and Barbara Anderson also have their knickers in a twist. However since they have both been divorced and remarried their sudden dedication to piety seems somewhat self serving.
The fact is, half of all marriages end prematurely, and 60% of married people walk down the aisle more than once. If Conservative’s really wanted to save marriage, they should propose an amendment that outlaws divorce, promiscuity and drinking.
Mitt’s life is so threatened by same-sex marriages; that he is spearheading an effort to add an anti-gay amendment to the state constitution. This would be the only amendment ever added to our constitution that restricts individual rights and discriminates against an entire class of people.
He first tried to jam a bill through the legislature, but our elected officials proved too savvy. Three times the anti-gay bill came to the floor and three times it was defeated.
Dismissing first the Supreme Court Justices, and then our elected representatives, Romney has now requested the issue be put on the ballot for a vote in 2006. Much like Caligula seated at the Roman Coliseum, he hopes to excite the crowd with a taste of blood and then let them be responsible for a life or death decision.
Replacing facts with fiction, and playing to conservative paranoia, it is the governor’s hope he can incite an emotional response to a legal decision. Conservatives have already been charged with fraudulently handling the signature gathering process and many worry more Nixonian tricks will tip the scales towards disaster.
If this amendment succeeds what is to become of the previously wed same-sex couples and their children? Are the families going to be legally dissolved? Will their parental rights be limited or non-existent? How will the children feel when they are told that their parents’ love cannot constitute a legal marriage or family?
Small wonder many oppose this vote and fear its outcome. I, however, believe this vote will provide Massachusetts with its finest hour since Bunker Hill. When 60, 70, 80%, of the voting public recognize and reject this amendment for the bile it represents, our state will again prove to be this country’s democratic leader.
Mitt Romney may chuckle when other conservatives refer to us as the home of the KKK. He may gain favor with the national Republican Party by lobbying to rip apart families and deny individual rights, but in Massachusetts his wickedness will not win out.
I finally understand why Mitt believes this issue threatens his marriage. When his wife gets beyond his smile, his hair, and his wardrobe to see him for the monster he truly is, she’s bound to leave.

7 Comments:
Where did you get the impression I'm opposed to gay marriage? I just like ballot questions on any subject. Haven't made up my mind yet on how to vote on this one, but havetatellya, your assumptions, and the attitude of some of your supporters, aren't making it easy to support your side. Barbara Anderson
Barbara,
With all due respect, it would be hard for anyone who has heard your public discourse on gay marriage to believe you haven't made up your mind.
More to the point, we elect a representative government to do the "right" thing not just the "popular" thing.
Using a ballot question to allow a majority to repress a minority is a dangerous precedent.
Really? I don't recall doing a public discourse on the subject. Did write a column about my gay friends wedding, but that doesn't fit your description. Maybe you could give an example; or, alternatively, admit you don't know what you are talking about, that you did a knee-jerk assumption that fiscal conservatives are also social conservatives, as if you never heard of libertarians.
Not to give free advice, but if I were heading into a ballot campaign, as I have many times, I wouldn't start by assuming the voters don't deserve an opinion, or by assuming that my side isn't competent to make its case. Barbara Anderson
Barbara
If you support same sex marriage, and recognize it as an equal rights issue there would be no need for a ballot initiative.
Unless, like Mitt Romney, you are hoping the hoi polloi will do your dirty work for you while you remain above the fray, thus insuring continued invites to gay weddings.
As far as hiding behind the Libertarian nomenclature, I believe the party, founded in 1971, has a stated goal "to challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual."
Evidently Gay and Lesbian individuals don't count.
Ah, Barbara - see how shamelessly he tries to flatter you?
Mr. Clements isn't interested in any inconvenient facts that would clutter up is grand design, like the fact that Romney didn't file the petition, Rep. Travis did - and before Romney was elected, to boot.
Now, go stay in your box like a good girl!
My gosh, Raymond, you really aren't too bright, are you? I would almost feel guilty picking on someone who is clearly not my size, but hey, if one enters the political arena... here you are. And I am having a quiet day. I shall try to help you be a better, more credible blogger.
Now go back and see what I wrote about libertarians, and you will see that you completely missed the point. I said that people often make the mistake of thinking that fiscal conservatives are also social conservatives, when in fact some of us are social liberals, or libertarians. Not to speak for other libertarians, all of whom by definition like to speak individualistically for themselves, but one libertarian position on marriage would be that, gay or straight, it shouldn't be connected to government at all, except to the degree that government oversees all civil contracts of any kind into which adults wish to enter. So there would be no government definition of marriage at all; there would be contract unions or something like that, and churches could do whatever they wanted on the subject, and we would all get on with our lives.
Once again -- just trying to be helpful -- the issue probably is going to be on the ballot whether you like it or not, and one really cannot win the hearts and minds, never mind the votes, of other people by referring to them contemptuously as "hoi polloi". Barbara Anderson
FYI-
His claim of lineage has yet to be supported by DNA.
Post a Comment
<< Home