CommunityPam's House Blend

Parsing Mitt

Mitt tries to clarify what he really believes, from a December 14, 2006 New Republic Online interview.

We all oppose bigotry and disparagement. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage and it is a debate about activist judges who make up the law rather than interpret the law.

I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman and I have been rock solid in my support of traditional marriage. Marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. It’s unfortunate that those who choose to defend the institution of marriage are often demonized.

…I don’’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.

You figure out how he’s “evolved.” Then he digs deeper, this time on Monday in a Boston.com article, Romney against bias to gays despite opposition to gay marriage.

“I’m not in favor of discrimination of any kind including people who have a different sexual preference than myself,” Romney said during the brief interview. “At the same time I’m very committed to traditional marriage between one man and one woman and believe that marriage should be preserved in that way.”

?”I don’t think there’s any conflict between feeling that all people deserve respect and tolerance and that discrimination is wrong and a belief that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Romney said Monday.

What a flaming pile of crap Romney is. Does he really believe that this argument will fly with any thinking person? Shakes Sis is having none of it…after the flip.

Sure, sure-no conflict at all. Except for the inconvenient little fact that “a belief that marriage is between a man an a woman,” in spite of its positive-sounding spin, still doesn’t really mean anything legally aside from denying rights to same-sex couples, i.e. discriminating against them. So, in fact, there is some conflict and Romney is in favor of at least one kind of discrimination.

…Romney’s playing an infuriating little game whereby opposition to same-sex marriage can’t possibly be considered discriminatory because marriage isn’t meant to be for anyone aside from one man and one woman in the first place so not extending it to gays isn’t discriminatory, by gum, it’s just the way it has to be by definition, that’s all. (And hence granting it would be granting “special rights.”) Such reasoning, of course, is manifest bullshit, the same kind of rubbish spewed by defenders of all manner of discrimination, right back to slavery, because freedom was only meant for certain people.

Previous post

Dick Takes the Stand

Next post

Rights Of All Workers

Pam Spaulding

Pam Spaulding

17 Comments