At a recent event called “Ask Mitt Anything,” an audience member raised the concern that the government, by tolerating homosexuality, could prevent pastors from preaching that homosexuality is a sin (the implication being that it is, it just is). Romney said that the government shouldn’t tell pastors what they can say. I wonder how he’d feel about that if pastors started saying what the Vatican used to say: that secular governments are powerless over the Church, and that the Church is the real authority in everyday life.
Romney also, like the coward he is, refused to say whether he thought homosexuality was immoral, saying: “I don’t think that a person who’s running for a secular position as I am should talk about or engage in discussions of what they in their personal faith or their personal beliefs is immoral or not immoral.” The problem is, if he were actually going to be President (and can you really imagine a world where he is, really?), he would have to end up deciding whether homosexuals, immoral or no, can get married. And he’s going to fall back on his beliefs as he, inevitably, makes it a moral issue.
Romney’s record on gay rights is…questionable. In 1994, when he was running against Ted Kennedy, Romney was quick to suck up to the gay vote, claiming that he would champion for gay rights better than Kennedy would. But in 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that gay marriage was legal in the state, Governor Romney began pushing for a constitutional amendment to “protect the sanctity of marriage.”
But that doesn’t mean he’s intolerant.
“What you look for in a leader is someone who will welcome and treat with respect people who made different choices and have different beliefs in their lives,” he said. “I have nothing but respect and feelings of tolerance for people with differences from myself and feel that way with regards to those who are gay.”
Uh-huh. You just don’t think they should be allowed to marry. You don’t believe they should be afforded equal rights under the law as heterosexual people. You agree that they’re people who don’t share your beliefs…so, what, you want to punish them but not allowing them the legal protection a marriage can bring? Explain to me how this works, please, I really want to hear this. You have no problem with gay people, but you think there should be a constitutional amendment barring them from sharing in the same marriage rights everyone else has? You don’t, uh…you don’t see the total hypocrisy there?
Romney went on to point to one of his cabinet members, a gay man, and his record of having appointed gays to positions in his administration.
Uh-huh. Where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah, from bigots. I have no problem with gays. Hell, some of my best friends are gay. Yeah, we just never see you hang out with them.
Here, it gets better: “I oppose discrimination against gay people. I am not anti-gay. I know there are some Republicans, or some people in the country who are looking for someone who is anti-gay and that’s not me.”
And…wait for it…creating a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay people from marrying one another–an amendment you support the creation of–is not discrimination? How? How, exactly, is this not discriminating against gay people? You’re saying that, because of one single difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals, homosexuals don’t deserve equal rights. But you’re not discriminating against them. Is anyone else buying this line of garbage?
Romney’s big opposition to gay marriage is that it’s not in the best interest of children. He doesn’t say how, he just knows it’s bad for kids to be brought up by two gay parents. Because, like many politicians and others in positions of authority, he thinks he’s a social scientist and knows what’s good and bad for children.
It’s just all funny to me because, let’s face it, you could look at Romney’s record and the things he says and his personal life and come to the conclusion that he’s so far in the closet that there are mothballs in his pockets.
But hey, at least he’s not intolerant. He’s just really judgmental.
The two women arrived at the upscale bash together but were soon after at each others throats.
For the rest of the evening the pair mingled with other party guests including Naomi Campbell, Eva Mendes, Kid Rock and Beyonc .
