Skip to content

Mitt Romney hates equality

November 20, 2006
tags:

Governor of Massachussetts Mitt Romney is attempting to revoke the rights of gays to marry in his state, cravenly masking it as a gambit by the Massachussetts General Assembly to block the people from putting it up to a vote. According to this slimy bastard:

“The issue before us is not whether same-sex couples should marry. The issue before us today is whether 109 legislators will follow the constitution,” declared Romney, promising to send the 109 lawmakers a copy of the constitution and their oath of office to underscore his frustration. “Let us not see the state, which first established constitutional democracy, become the first to abandon it.”

Yes, let’s please forget the fact that he’s initiating this in order to take away the rights that had been granted by the state in 2004 for gays to marry. Let’s also forget that the Assembly is trying to keep the majority from voting on the rights of the minority. Mitt Romney is apparently the vaunted protector of the MA Constitution, not a hatemonger in power! What a, dare I say, Culture Warrior!

I don’t envy the position of the MA legislature. This smarmy piece of shit is making them choose between the Constitution of their state, and the Bill of Rights. Whether or not they allow the people to vote to revoke the right of gays to marry, they will be unwillingly turning their back on a constitutional law. So far, their hesitiation to allow this shows a commendable loyalty to Civil Rights, but how long can they hold out against the teeming, frothing masses of neo-conservative bigotry?

God, how slick! The kind of devious genius that the Governor is using for no better reason than to steal the hard-won rights of a minority. Don’t forget, in his demented mind, he’s the good guy:

Yesterday, though, Romney said there is no question that the majority of state legislators on Nov. 9 decided to “usurp the Constitution, to abandon democracy, and substitute a form of what this nation’s founders called tyranny” for the will of the people. He said the constitution “plainly states” that legislators must vote directly on petitions from citizens.

Note the strong words: usurp, abandon democracy, tyrrany. Sounds great unless you have held in your mind that his version of democracy means taking the right to marry away from a minority group, and his tyrrany is the GA’s struggle to defend the civil rights of a minority group. But, you were supposed to forget about that, because he’s simply defending the state constitution and not initiating a draconian bid against the rights of a minority.

I’ll leave you, dear reader, with a thought: it was never a basis of our legal system that the majority could dictate the rights of the minority. The rights of every single American are unalienable, tempered by the Bill of Rights against miserable attempts, such as this, of a majority to mandate the rights of a minority. Every attack on civil rights, successful or unsuccessful or unavailing, blatant or hidden, is an attack on the spirit of what we struggle for: peace and happiness for all. There is no peace when there is inequality.

UPDATE: 

…a spokesman for House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi said, “The speaker is not going to respond every time the governor stages a cynical political ploy designed to impress right-wing Republican voters in primary states.” (link)

Now, that’s a quote!

Advertisements
23 Comments leave one →
  1. Reality Check permalink
    November 20, 2006 10:54 pm

    The last thing a slick rich Republican pres hopeful should be doing is trying to divide people along the old social hard-right lines, lessen he wants to be cast down the pit with Bush et al. This guy is an unbelievably stupid reactionary just from a political standpoint.

    It’s amazing how bigots can be so contradictory of themselves when they attack equal rights as some sort of abomination. There is no valid reason in logic or at law to deny the right to marry to any two citizens based on gender, expect for pure religious fanaticism. Where in the Constitiution is marriage defined as a between a man and a woman or even as a right at all? Nonetheless, if the fanatics want to make it a right they better realize it can never be denied arbitrarily to any citizen, whether in contract or at law.

    If a Mormon idiot like this wants to keep marriage sacred he should try getting government the hell out of it completely. He can’t be a smaller, less-intrusive government conservative and try to go after basic equal rights like this by making government the oppressive arbiter of personal unions. For scores of decades black people were dehumanized and denied basic social freedoms anyone else had, including marriage. This Romney character is just the slimy progeny of the trash who kept minorities down for centuries based on superstition, fear, and hatred.

    Those who want marriage to be exclusively between a man and a woman should take their neanderthal asses to your houses of so-called worship and leave the rest of civil society out of it. What would Jesus say about the empire meddling in what is supposed to be sacred?

    I will tell you what is the most prevalent and natural result of what Romney seems to feel is some sacrosanct ritual : DIVORCE. It clogs up the courts and rips families to shreds. Without marriage there would be no DIVORCE to destroy over 50% of every family or couple that falls into this antiquated ritualistic nonsense. It is a fabrication left over from the caveman days when monogamy and family had to be enforced by statutes. Bible-thumpers are still in that mindset but enlightened society doesn’t need their bigotry and buffoonery in the 21st Century.

    Marriage should for any two consenting adult citizens if it is to be a right for anyone. Otherwise, let’s do society a favor and write it out of ALL the laws. Screw Romney and all his ilk. He is a sleazy snake oil peddler not even clever by half in trying to cloak his bigotry behind legalisms and horse shit phony constitutional arguments. He is yet more proof positive that wealthy privileged sons of famous politicians are bad for America no matter where their family hydra appear.

  2. jason permalink
    November 21, 2006 7:36 am

    There is huge amount of irony in this. Romney wants to kick the gays (to appeal to social conservatives), but 43% of Americans (mostly evangelicals) say that they would never vote for a mormon to be President.

    You have to laugh.

  3. jason permalink
    November 21, 2006 4:17 pm

    I love that quote so much I want to marry it. (In your face Romney!)

  4. November 21, 2006 4:28 pm

    Yes, it was the perfect mix of sarcasm and bitterness. One for the ages!

  5. firststatepolitics permalink
    November 21, 2006 8:19 pm

    Yeah. Constitution, schmonsitution. Who did those founders think they were, anyway?

  6. November 21, 2006 10:11 pm

    Yeah. Equality, schmequality. Who did those dead founders think they were, anyway?

  7. November 21, 2006 10:13 pm

    You only prove that Mitt’s smokescreen is effective, FSP. If people will concentrate on that rather than the glaring civil rights violation that this guy is trying to hide, then it sets the precedent that something being legal makes it the right thing to do.
    Does the ability to legally deny the rights of a minority make it the right thing to do? In a morally and civilly ethical society, the answer is a resounding “no”.

  8. November 22, 2006 6:01 am

    I would also like to add that if individual civil rights were not more important than holding onto a Constitution as-is, we wouldn’t have a Bill of Rights. I’m not saying that the law that Romney is abusing doesn’t hold merit, but it is outweighed by the civil right of gays to marry.

  9. firststatepolitics permalink
    November 22, 2006 12:32 pm

    The “right” Romney is enforcing is the right of the people to petition their government. The Massachusetts legislature is violating that right. If you want to talk about rights, let’s talk about rights that are actually in the Constitution. Is Romney scoring political points with the right? Sure. Is he wrong to ask that the Constitution be followed? No.

  10. November 22, 2006 12:34 pm

    No, Romney is using that right to petition the government in order to take away the rights of gays to marry.

  11. anon permalink
    November 22, 2006 4:20 pm

    “The “right” Romney is enforcing is the right of the people to petition their government. The Massachusetts legislature is violating that right.”

    Most bizarre twisting of an issue ever.

    So an alleged majority of people are being denied by their legislature and judiciary the right to deny a right to a minority of people?.

    Mitt to the rescue!! He’ll save the day!!

    Nah. It sounds like something is working right up in Massatushetts. No wonder he is abdicating.

  12. firststatepolitics permalink
    November 23, 2006 9:31 am

    No, Romney is asking the SJC to enforce the law to require the Legislature to fulfill their Constitutional duties.

    If this is the clear and easy issue you want it to be, then why did:

    – 175,000 people sign a petition to put it on the ballot?

    – 109 legislators choose to ignore the petition, instead of easily and unanimously voting it down?

    Mitt Romney can not outlaw gay marriage in Massachusetts, nor is he trying to do that. However, the people of Massachusetts can, and they should have the right to do so, according to Commonwealth law. No one is sure what the outcome of a ballot issue on gay marriage would be. I’m certainly not.

    Romney wants the Legislature to fulfill their duties, not run away and hide.

  13. Anonymous permalink
    November 23, 2006 11:28 am

    However, the people of Massachusetts can

    Can they bring back slavery too? Ban abortion in all instances? Deny women the right to vote? Deny other minorities access to marriage or other legal fictions enforced by their all powerful government?

    FSP you should really avoid trying to defend Romney on this point. It is a real loser like Romney will end up if he keeps climbing into bed with religious fundamentalists for political points. He may be playing to Bob Jones but it is only hurting him with John snd Jane Public and most moderate people in states that decide elections rather than races to the right wing bottom.

  14. firststatepolitics permalink
    November 23, 2006 7:38 pm

    Anon — 40 states ban same-sex marriage, either statutorily or Constitutionally. Seems to me “John and Jane Public” have spoken fairly clearly on this one.

    In fact, in the only same-sex marriage ban that failed was due to a media campaign surrounding elderly heterosexual cohabitants who would have been affected by a strict ban on domestic partnerships in Arizona.

  15. Anonymous permalink
    November 24, 2006 2:51 pm

    Political animals are always at a loss to understand why civil rights are not matters for voters to decide from year to year. I am not surprised you make every argument on this a matter of process or politics. No one is arguing that hysterics and anti-gay referenda have not made headway in the era of Bush. It is easy enough to see how Jim Crow laws were certainly decided by John and Jane Public in the 19th century in similar fashion. But thankfully these abominations were very rightly struck down in total by judicial means. There are some matters on which the public can vote all they want. But if our system works there are enlightened people in power who realize how base the mass public can be in this tendency to emotionally vote away equal rights for others. Romney comes across as someone who is trying to use political or procedural arguments to achieve a backwards agenda that dehumanizes gay people popular or not. Courage in civil rights is not found in siding with the hatred of the many but with the struggles of the few, against the many. Romney is hate filled and will not win with his evangelical pandering and gutless means of doing so. Bye bye Romney.

  16. firststatepolitics permalink
    November 24, 2006 5:11 pm

    Well, gee, I’m glad you settled it. I’ll call Romney and tell him not to bother.

    I didn’t bring up “John and Jane Public.” You did. Now that the argument has been turned around on you, John and Jane become “base” and their opinions are dismissed. Nice.

    I love how anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is judged to be filled with hate. What a leap that is. You’ve introduced hatred to the argument, veiled connections to racism and sexism. It’s only a matter of time until you reference Nazism and the debate ends.

    Also, you’ve proven how little you know about Romney. Outside of his fervent opposition to gay marriage, he has been relatively open to helping gays.

    “On Gay Rights: All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their
    sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney
    believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that
    includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship.”
    Romney’s 2002 campaign website

    Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said yesterday he was ready to work with
    lawmakers to craft a “civil union”-style law to give some marriage rights to
    homosexual couples, even though he also supports a constitutional amendment
    to preserve traditional marriage . . . Mr. Romney yesterday told TV news
    stations that he would support a Vermont-style civil union law in
    Massachusetts, but reiterated his support for a constitutional amendment
    that would clarify that “marriage is an institution between a man and a
    woman.”
    Washington Times, 11/20/2003

    Through all the twists and shifts during the gay-marriage debate this
    year, there was one constant: 22 Republicans in the House of Representatives
    opposed every measure that would grant gay couples civil unions in the
    constitution. That all changed yesterday, however, when 15 of that 22-member
    bloc broke away at the urging of Governor Mitt Romney and voted in favor of
    a proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage but create Vermont-style
    civil unions. Those 15 members provided the margin of victory, observers
    from both camps said yesterday after the measure passed by just five votes.
    In the end, the 15 agreed that approving a measure that they viewed as
    highly undesirable was preferable to the possibility that nothing would be
    sent to the state ballot for voters to weigh in on.
    Boston Globe 3/30/2004

    Hate-filled? Funny that you are guilty of what you accuse others of. You’re hopelessly lost.

  17. AnotherAnon permalink
    November 24, 2006 11:50 pm

    Has Mitt mentioned just how many spouses gays can’t have? Are they allowed to not have only one or can they not have multiple spouses?

    h/t Dale at thecarpetbaggerreport.com

  18. anon permalink
    November 25, 2006 1:09 pm

    What a guy Mitt Romney is. What a hero he is rather. I hear he is helping with the financing to build gay ghettos so “those people” can be equal while separate.

  19. anonmyous permalink
    November 25, 2006 3:18 pm

    Eleanor Rodham Clift nailed this one. Sometimes liberal opponents give you the best perspective on reality. This can be especially true when it comes to maneuvering by frauds like this Romney guy. There are no pluses in this for Mitt the Shitt :

    Clift: Mitt Romney and Same-Sex Marriage
    Mitt Romney is wooing conservatives by opposing gay marriage. It’s a strategy that won’t get him very far.
    WEB EXCLUSIVE
    By Eleanor Clift
    Newsweek
    Updated: 4:01 p.m. ET Nov 24, 2006

    Nov. 24, 2006 – There ought to be a prohibition against opportunistic politicians messing around in state laws to further their presidential ambitions. With his days as governor of Massachusetts nearing an end, Mitt Romney is trying to reopen the issue of same-sex marriage in the only state where it is legal.

    Romney opposes gay marriage, and he hopes to ride the issue to the White House. Talk about retro. Rallying the right around fear of the so-called homosexual agenda worked in 2004, but it failed to rouse the same degree of passion in ’06. Voters are wising up to the games politicians play.

    A relative unknown, Romney is fashioning himself as the conservative alternative to John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination. The right doesn’t trust McCain, and Romney thinks he can prove his bona fides with social conservatives by forcing a measure onto the Massachusetts ballot in ’08 to amend the state constitution and ban gay marriage. The state legislature adjourned without doing his bidding, so Romney has appealed to the state Supreme Court, asking it to order a ballot initiative because 170,000 citizens have signed a petition asking for it. This is the same court that in 2003 ruled same-sex marriage legal; since then, 8,000 gay and lesbian couples have been joined in matrimony in Massachusetts.

    The issue would be settled in Massachusetts if not for Romney’s meddling. A survey done by the progressive Campaign for America’s Future found that the more gay marriage is debated, the more tolerant the country grows, with a majority (51 percent) now saying “homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society” rather than something that should be “discouraged by society” (42 percent). Romney is going to battle stations over yesterday’s issue. He says McCain is “disingenuous” because he opposes same-sex marriage but believes it should be left up to the states. Romney wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Yet he was elected governor as a social moderate and once ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate as a liberal Republican. Where does he get off accusing McCain of trying to have it both ways when it comes to gay marriage?

    The conservative movement is in a real meltdown since the election. Conservatives have been so wedded to this White House that they don’t know which way to turn for ’08. This will be the first election since 1922 where there is no sitting president or vice president on the ballot. President Bush has been derelict in positioning a successor, and thankfully so, since the policies he advocated have brought America worldwide condemnation and deserve to be retired with him. There is no conservative darling to capture the hearts of the right, no candidate who can check off all their boxes. McCain was clearly squirming when ABC’s George Stephanopoulos pressed him on “This Week” last weekend about whether he supports civil unions, a loaded term among social conservatives who see it as a fig leaf for gay marriage. McCain avoided the phrase but said he supported various partnerships to facilitate hospital visits and the like. His home state of Arizona just voted down an anti-gay marriage initiative that also would have banned domestic partnerships even among heterosexual couples. The state’s large retired population took the lead in defeating the measure. Many older couples opt to live together rather than marry to keep their retirement incomes intact.

    McCain gets more latitude on this subject because we sense that in his heart, he’s a Goldwater libertarian. Social issues are not what drive him in public life. He’s playing to his party’s conservative base as newly defined by the religious right, but if elected president, he’s not going to be beholden to them the way Bush has been. Romney is harder to read. As both a Mormon and a onetime moderate, he can expect some tension with and suspicion from the evangelical community about his conversion to social conservatism. The voters may be less inclined to give Romney a pass if he goes overboard with his fealty to the right. His father, the late George Romney, a three-term governor of Michigan, famously offended his party’s hawks when he belatedly confessed after visiting Vietnam that he’d been subjected to “the greatest brainwashing that anybody could get.” The admission subjected him to ridicule (“all it would have taken is a light rinse”), and ended his presidential hopes.

    The Republicans took control of the House in 1994 on the strength of the Contract with America, which stayed away from social issues. Former House majority leader Dick Armey, architect of the contract along with Newt Gingrich, recalled to NEWSWEEK that when he first ran, the head of Texas Right to Life thanked him for his pro-life stand but recommended he not talk about it on the campaign trail. Puzzled, Armey asked why. He was told the subject makes a lot of people uncomfortable. The Gingrich revolutionaries championed reform and fiscal responsibility. How the GOP got from those issues to gay marriage is not evolution, it’s devolution.

  20. November 27, 2006 1:36 pm

    Do not call him hateful. He has never done or said anything hateful. If you are going to make assertians, please have some sort of evidence, or how are we to find truth?

    He has said: “This is a subject about which people have tender emotions in part because it touches individual lives. It also has been misused by some as a means to promote intolerance and prejudice. This is a time when we must fight hate and bigotry, when we must root out prejudice, when we must learn to accept people who are different from one another. Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians.”

    Is this hateful?

    He has also said, “They (Mass supreme court) viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults … Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother.”

    Romney wants them to be able to inherit money from each other and all that legal stuff. He just doesn’t think catholic charities should have to change it’s practicies with regard to adoption. There are plenty of other places for people to adopt… Is that hateful? If you were a kid, wouldn’t you want a Mom and a Dad? You have to pick on or the other. Are you going to side on the side of kids or adults? Well if you are a typical politician, you would side on the side of adults, because they are more politically active, and can call you a bigot…

Trackbacks

  1. Mitt Romney: Another guy who will never be President « delawareliberal
  2. Mitt Romney: Set to Follow in Bush’s Footsteps? « My View from the Center . . . a fresh perspective on today’s news
  3. Dirty pull « Merit-Bound Alley

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: