Romney adamantly rejects same-sex marriage

...from the beginning, this nation trusted in God, not man.

Wow. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington et al. would vehemently disagree: That is why they established a democracy and promoted public education, not a theocracy with religious schooling.

Republicans like to trumpet "family values," but in the end it is nothing more than a dog whistle meaning anti-gay. Republican policies hurt education, healthcare, work safety, the environment and women's equality, to name a few. Republican policies are destructive to families; some, though, are so anti-gay that they refuse to see this or simply do not care.

Central to Americas rise to global leadership is our Judeo-Christian tradition, with its vision of the goodness and possibilities of every life.

What a hypocrite.

Same sex, no way for marriage but as a Mormon it's ok in a parked car!

Given the sheer volume of gay sex scandals that have rocked the republicans in recent years, I think the real reason they oppose Gay Marriage is that they don't want to pay alimony.

I wonder what Romneys stance is on men having multiple wives?

I won>der what Romneys stance is on men having multiple wives?

@Christina, this is a good one. You made me laugh!

Same sex marriages are fine but not very productive....

Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman,

That's not what the Mormon church said. Until the US government decided to tax them. Then the elders and church President Willford Woodruff heard a voice from 'god' that said, basically, don't lose your tax-free religious status, condemn plural marriages in 1890 - after about 40 years of political and legal wrangling.

But to be fair, the Republicans at that time were against polygamy, too.

It disturbs me deeply that the 2012 US presidential election might very well be decided by the candidates' stances on this issue.

just lost a bunch of votes

Really... who cares... There are more important subjects to tackle.

although he has also stated same-sex couples should have some rights such as child adoption.

So raising a child is OK, but heaven forbid the two people actually get married?

“It strikes me as odd that the free exercise of religious faith is sometimes treated as a problem, something America is stuck with instead of blessed with,” said Romney, a Mormon.

And what strikes the rest of us as odd are laws being created or denied exclusively based on people exercising their religious faith. Separation of church and state doesn't go out the window when one religion has a simple majority. Perhaps Mitt should spend some time with people who would never vote from him since he's Morman to get some perspective.

The 2012 Presidential election will not be decided on the issue of "same sex marriage". It will be decided by a smart public that sees through the hypocrisy of Mitt Romney. This man has no touch with reality. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and has no idea how to address the problems of the common man. As Governor of Massachusetts he passed a state wide health care plan that Obama used as a model for his health care plan. Guess what? Mitt Romney and his GOP cronies where against it. When he wants to get a feel on what the women in American think about certain issues he turns to his wife for answers. A women who has never had to work a day in her life and has no idea what the the average american women is going through. Here is a guy who when strapped for cash in his early years, had to cash in stocks and bonds that his father had given to him. I feel for him. As a Republican he is for less interference by the Federal government into the affairs of the individual States. But now he is all for passing a Constitutional ammendment which will define marriage as a union between "one man and one woman", thereby taking this out of the hands of the individual states.

Well, they're even-- same-sex marriage has adamantly rejected Mitt Romney for decades.

Republicans like to trumpet "family values," but in the end it is nothing more than a dog whistle meaning anti-gay.

Exactly! Aren't 'family values' things like kindness, compassion, patience, responsibility, respect, diversity, etc...? And doesn't each family decide for itself what its values are? Gay people do have values, too! Like kindness, compassion, patience, responsibility, respect, diversity....

“Take those away, or take them for granted, and so many things can go wrong in a life. Keep them strong, and so many things will go right.”

Take WHAT away? Allowing gay marriage takes nothing away from straight marriage. It's not like a bunch of straight people are gonna suddenly think--Oh, great! Gay marriage is allowed!! Now I can marry my same sex lover!! --And suddenly the world will be filled with gay married couples.

This non-issue is really a canard to deflect attention from impoeratnt matters. Such as: shouldn't a country which places so much stock in "supporting our troops" not offer a higher standard of care to them once their mission is over?

Ron Paul! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_2BX9Zap28&feature=BFa&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

<-- pic of Romney, pic of The Godfather -->

Appropriate.

The Left doesn't want to talk about Obama's disastrous handling of the economy, budget, national debt, and unemployment so let's talk about a social issue to divide the electorate and make people mad at each other. Yeah - that should get him re-elected. Heaven forbid Obama actually does anything to make the economy better. Just forget all about borrowing that extra trillion dollars a year from the Chinese that was supposed to keep the unemployment rate from ever going over 8%.

obama is going to win the election by leading romney into the arms of the far right and away from the swing voters.

I wonder what Romneys stance is on men having multiple wives?

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman ad nauseam.

It's very similar to Gingrich's stance.

Good on Romney. Same stance as always. Same stance Obama had last week until he needed votes.

“Central to America’s rise to global leadership is our Judeo-Christian tradition, with its vision of the goodness and possibilities of every life,”

Bye-bye, Romney. The funniest, and most pathetic, part about his whole speech is how much he emphasizes 'family values' and says the most important thing in his life is his wife, kids, grandkids, etc., and then turns around and says he is all for gays adopting and raising kids but won't allow them to be married? A simple, legal, bond is more of an issue than raising a child from birth?

More proof that the religious, anti-gay nuts really have zero idea of what they are talking about. Question them about it and eventually they'll just avert their gaze and spout some catch phrases to convince themselves.

Same stance as always.

True enough! - if you define "always" as "since he began running for president."

Romney wrote to the Log Cabin Republican Club when running against Ted Kennedy:

...as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.

During Romney's 2002 gubernatorial run, his campaign distributed bright pink flyers during Pride declaring

'Mitt and Kerry [running mate Kerry Healey] wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference.

He later said,

I will support and endorse efforts to provide those domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian couples.

Certainly, he's taken care at time to distinguish between true "equal rights" and what many may deign as second-class treatment "domestic partnership," but as of late, he has been quite silent on even the latter. No doubt he'd preserve the status quo or be happy to follow states' leads in this, but a paragon of consistency he is not.

Very nice post, Laguna. More proof that Romney is simply not reliable and only attempts to pander to the audience of the moment.

The audience of the moment...unlike Obama who "evolved" overnight and found himself supporting same sex marriages...LMAO...you make it sound like there is a difference between any presidential candidate.

"Given the sheer volume of gay sex scandals that have rocked the republicans in recent years, I think the real reason they oppose Gay Marriage is that they don't want to pay alimony."

Heh. Excellent. Super Ted leading the (Cured TM) meth-fueled charge!

I am not surprised that the republican are upset about gay marriage, they are the gay in the closet party after all. But I am surprised that they have not objected to Obama's evolution of his views. If Obama made up his mind is seven days it would have been OK.

Romney said this just after Obama's change of heart on the issue on May 9th.

“I have the same view on marriage that I had when I was governor and that I have expressed many times: I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” said Romney at an impromptu news conference following a speech in Oklahoma City this afternoon.

“States are able to make decisions with regards to domestic-partnership benefits, such as hospital visitation rights; benefits and so forth of various kinds can be determined state by state,” said Romney. “But my view is that marriage itself is a relationship between a man and a woman, and that’s my own preference.

“I know that other people have differing views,” he added. “This is a very tender and sensitive topic, as are many social issues.”

I'll give him total credit, he's not trying to be divisive at all on this and respects others that have differing views and understands the sensitivity of the issue. Now that is truly a refreshing change from a Presidential candidate.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/mitt-romney-opposed-to-gay-marriage-stops-short-of-labeling-obama-a-flip-flopper/

Yanee give it a rest will ya. It's going to cost Obama as many votes as he'll gain.

I'm sorry Obama is dragging you guys from the 19th to the 21st century, but it's about time.

Oh, and what the hell is that attire Mittens is wearing?

blue dog democrat candidates for the senate in battleground states aren't standing with obama on this issue.

tester (mont.), mccaskill (mo.) declined to endorse the call for the legalization of gay marriage.

manchin (w.va), casey (pa.) and nelson (fla.) have backed away from obama's position.

joe biden.

gotta love that guy.

if you want to see obama gone.

Oh, and what the hell is that attire Mittens is wearing?

He is wearing academic regalia because he was speaking at Liberty University, which is, like Bob Jones University and other such facilities, the American version of a madrassa.

Ahhh, I thought it was religious silly me.

Sorry there Madverts...Cannot give it a rest as nobody else does. All I can pray for (OMG, religion again) is that Obama loses and everything he's done to harm America is turned around. I will state honestly that I don't believe in everything Romney stands for (which none of you Obama fawners will state) but I will support him all the way.

I will state honestly that I don't believe in everything Romney stands for....

That's wonderful, yanee! I am glad that you and your candidate have so much in common!

"but I will support him all the way."

Even by posting falsehoods such as claiming Obama's bombshell is a pander for votes?

Please, you hardcore partisan types have denied him every success (Just look at the extreme right's failure to even salute the Bin Laden kill) but have moaned incessantly about what you perceive as his short-comings and failures. And that's why Obama will more than likely get a second term, literally because the competition is that piss-poor.

At least I'm honest about it there Laguna. I know Obama has faults, however you will never get off of his knob! LOL

"I know Obama has faults, however you will never get off of his knob!"

Well you're honest I'll grant, but not very intelligent.

“Central to America’s rise to global leadership is our Judeo-Christian tradition, with its vision of the goodness and possibilities of every life,” he said in a speech punctuated with references to God.

It's not even remotely related to Judeo-Christian tradition. It's all about man playing god.

Very presidential. I like Romney better after watching his speech. There is nothing wrong with tradition, honor, Mom and Dad and a moral life. Apple pie is good too. Here is a link to the Romney speech at Liberty University: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZSIgAKL8Ms&feature=related". BTW most headlines were less dramatic then the above.

sailwind: "Romney said this just after Obama's change of heart on the issue on May 9th."

Can you provide stats on where Obama said he was against gays getting married? Otherwise your 'change of heart' is incorrect, isn't it? And I'd like to hear your opinion on Laguna's post that provides quotations of Romney saying he wants equalities for homosexuals in the past... I mean, given that you said he stands by what he has said before.

Also, I'm curious... what do you think is more important: raising a child or the title of marriage? Romney says he supports gays adopting kids, but not being able to put a piece of metal on their fingers.

I wonder what Romneys stance is on men having multiple wives?

............................ like a convicted felon serving consecutive terms ?

oberst: "I wonder what Romneys stance is on men having multiple wives?"

Don't certain Mormons think that it's okay to have numerous wives? Talk about 'family values'! Perhaps Romney, in his vehement 'defense' of family and values, can explain why according to the Mormon religion a man may marry as many women as he wants so long as he can provide for them. It's the same with Islam, actually. But my guess is he'd rather sell his beliefs short for the sake of politics (as he has numerous times already) than actually give an honest answer.

“Central to America’s rise to global leadership is our Judeo-Christian tradition, with its vision of the goodness and possibilities of every life"

A Pawnee, Arapaho, or Cheyenne might be interested in the interpretation of "Every life" there. As would people in far-off lands more recently.

Let's take a look at the First Amendment, shall we?

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion

Ooops, Mitt. You done gone slipped up again.

Romney is a member of a crackpot church that was a racist organisation until the 1970s. Bigotry isn't anything new from this clown.

Can you provide stats on where Obama said he was against gays getting married?

Obama told MTV. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/

And I'd like to hear your opinion on Laguna's post that provides quotations of Romney saying he wants equalities for homosexuals in the past... I mean, given that you said he stands by what he has said before.

I also want equal protection granted and all the rights that go with a legally recognized same sex civil union. I also believe the union between a same sex couple and a union between man and a woman is different and it is pretty apparent to anyone if they a realistic about it, that there are differences between the two ( a man / man relationship is not going to have the dreaded ......left the toilet seat up issue ever come up with the missus err mister....what actually do they call it in the relationship???). I do not believe the distinctions that are in a traditional marriage should be modified or changed in anyway to change it from what it really always was, a union of a man and a woman in holy matrimony.........There has always been a religious aspect to a marriage ceremony. I believe a recognized civil union between same sex couples shows the same respect and confers to the union the same societal respect as a recognized marriage. It is unfortunate that some of the more activists side view this as somehow being second rate to a marriage and would force the very definition of a traditional marriage to be changed just to suit their own selfish vanity and force society to embrace it, when society seems to have no problem with same sex unions and the rights granted to them in a legal way that honors both traditional marriage and personal commitment and with the wisdom to distinguish the two.

Also, I'm curious... what do you think is more important: raising a child or the title of marriage? Romney says he supports gays adopting kids, but not being able to put a piece of metal on their fingers.

sodesuka:

There is nothing wrong with tradition, honor, Mom and Dad and a moral life.

Sure... as long as you don't enforce it to others. And I don't think that something that does not harm the person or others can be considered as a "moral" problem to begin with. And just because it is a tradition doesn't mean that it's right or correct or that it has to be preserved. It's just an appeal to tradition, which in itself is meaningless.

sailwind: Thank you for answering my post honestly.

"I also want equal protection granted and all the rights that go with a legally recognized same sex civil union. I also believe the union between a same sex couple and a union between man and a woman is different and it is pretty apparent to anyone if they a realistic about it, that there are differences between the two ( a man / man relationship is not going to have the dreaded ......left the toilet seat up issue ever come up with the missus err mister....what actually do they call it in the relationship???). "

But how can you want equality and deny it at the same time? That's the crux of this issue -- religious bigots apply Old Testament crap to modern day institutions, give exceptions all over the place, but then claim certain things are age-old rights (even though what they want is strictly legal), and then the very reasons why they try to justify their bigotry are betrayed by their attempts to seem reasonable (ie. "gays can adopt").

"There has always been a religious aspect to a marriage ceremony."

Only in the minds of fools. Signing a document to declare you are married has nothing to do with god, and talk about ceremony all you want, what gays want is legal status, not god's favour.

sailwind: "Also, I'm curious... what do you think is more important: raising a child or the title of marriage? Romney says he supports gays adopting kids, but not being able to put a piece of metal on their fingers."

I asked YOU, sailwind. I didn't ask for you to deflect and try and defend the irrational. It seems like most people who simply are against homosexuality as a knee-jerk reaction are unable to answer a simple question. That says a lot about your stance on the issue, and your beliefs.

Personally, I like that at least on this issue that Romney has been consistent, he and the Republicans are smart to not take the bait and to keep the focus on the economy. People are bleeding for jobs and the main topic is gay marriage, if Romney was a gay basher? How far will the Dems and Liberals go to do anything to avoid talking about and trying to take decisive action towards the things that are of serious importance to most Americans, the economy.

...a union of a man and a woman in holy matrimony.

Thumbs up for the toilet seat comment, sailwind, but really: Marriage has never been as Romantics like to imagine it. Many leaders in the Old Testament are described as having multiple wives, indicating that marriage was originally a method to ensure females bore only a certain male's offspring. Marriage later served as a financial life raft for women; this is apparent as, when women were accepted into the workforce, the divorce rate soared. Socially acceptable divorce has spared neither party: Even Saint Ronnie divorced his first wife (and I use the active voice purposely).

Conservatives would do more to convince me of their deep, deep believe in the sanctity of marriage if they would legislate prohibitions against divorce. Obama shares with Romney a solid, healthy family, and kudos to both; Romney may be inconsistent, but he is not hypocritical on this issue, while so many members of his party are.

I asked YOU, sailwind. I didn't ask for you to deflect and try and defend the irrational. It seems like most people who simply are against homosexuality as a knee-jerk reaction are unable to answer a simple question. That says a lot about your stance on the issue, and your beliefs.

I copy and pasted your last question and started to answer your previous question above it and since I posted a pretty lengthy response above your question before sending it, I didn't see it when I hit submit.....so cool your jets. I also answered your question a civil union is the title for raising kids in a same sex union, a marriage certificate is the title for raising kids in a traditional man and woman relationship.

And where did you ever get the idea I was against homosexuality?????? I could care less what people do in their bedrooms as a matter of fact I'd rather wish a person's sex life stays private in the bedroom where it belongs as it really isn't anybodies business but between the two partners.

Only in the minds of fools. Signing a document to declare you are married has nothing to do with god, and talk about ceremony all you want, what gays want is legal status, not god's favour.

And Smith most marriages....not all but most marriages generally involve a priest. How many gaijin's have been asked to act as a fake Christian one after a Japanese buddhist couple have tied the knot? They like the western tradition of it.

sailwind: "And Smith most marriages....not all but most marriages generally involve a priest. How many gaijin's have been asked to act as a fake Christian one after a Japanese buddhist couple have tied the knot?"

It's interesting that you give a solid example of how vapid the religious element of marriage is. So if it's just a meaningless ceremony with a fake priest, what is the problem with allowing gays to do it? How about if a fake priest denies two men or women to wed each other... is it because of traditional values?

"They like the western tradition of it."

That's all it is -- tradition. Therefore Romney has no grounds to stand on when he squawks about religion and how it pertains to marriage, especially given that his own sect of Christianity allows him to go against his most recent flip-flop of 'one man and one woman'.

Socially acceptable divorce has spared neither party: Even Saint Ronnie divorced his first wife (and I use the active voice purposely).

Totally agree. Single parent households and divorce have been a scourge and have taken a pretty heavy toll on society all around. Governmental policies whether they've tried to strengthen marriages or provide a robust it takes a village approach to single parents raising children have been pretty ineffective, no easy answers on that one,

Did a little looking into your discussion about the founding fathers Washington, Adams and Jefferson and Romney's statement that we were a nation founded on Judeo-Christian traditions, that they wouldn't agree with it.

Jefferson most likely would not he was more of the rationalist bent in his religious beliefs and thought God more in the abstract then any actual personal deity and really wasn't down with religion at all in the Governance of man.

Washington, he was steeped in it two quotes of his:

“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

John Adams he credits Judeo aspect and Jewish Hebrews with civilizing mankind his quote:

The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.”

Romney's not really that far off on any far ground here actually.

the state media apparatus seems to believe they can make candidate romney the one who will pay for the distress and humiliation that joe biden has caused president obama (and quite a few other democrats seeking reelection in 2012) by forcing his hand on gay marriage.

Washington, he was steeped in it two quotes of his: “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

It may have been impossible for Washington to govern, but that was his own weakness. One that other good to great leaders, like Jefferson, have not shared.

especially given that his own sect of Christianity allows him to go against his most recent flip-flop of 'one man and one woman'.

One doesn't have to travel too far back in Romney's family history to find the practice of polygamy. Also, as someone pointed out, it was a religion that preached the inherent inferiority of some races well into the late 20th century.

Thanks, sailwind.

Often confused is what is a belief in morality and its subsequent consequence of laws and a belief in a particular morality and its subsequent subjection of laws to that belief. Remember, Charles I had been overthrown and executed only a hundred years before the American revolution, and during the English Civil Wars, and estimated 3.6% of the population died. When embarking on a quest as ambitious as the establishment of a democracy with no royalty and no aristocracy, obvious concern was placed on what would hold the center: if not heredity and not brute force, then what?

You will note that Washington spoke of no particular religion (his talk of "God and the Bible" could well serve as a morality and its subsequent laws), and Adams spoke not of Christianity at all but of the Hebrews, also known as the People of the Law. Thus, it is well-argued that their references to religion have nothing to do with religion in any dogmatic sense, but in the establishment and respect of a government based on sensible and fair law.

This has been achieved. Legalization between same-sex couples does nothing whatsoever to impinge upon this; indeed, it is a step forward in the inclusion in legality of what is de facto reality.

Romney knows he is toast come November, so he wants to go out with a bang. This declaration will really stir the crappola, and when he loses, his devotees won't blame him. They will instead blame the gays and the gay lovers (their words, not mine). They will feel all bitter and disenfranchised. But Romney will be off the hook for losing. He is as shrewd as he is bad for the country. What a butthole.

And why can't these people understand that they can live their Christian beliefs while others live other beliefs? Why can't these people just leave others alone and stop poking their noses into other people's business?

Conservatives would do more to convince me of their deep, deep believe in the sanctity of marriage if they would legislate prohibitions against divorce.

For me it would be quite enough if they just practiced what they preached and put up representatives doing the same. Instead they are represented by the divorced and those with a wide stance on the toilet. If conservatives are effectual its because words don't stick in their heads. They forget all words and just do, do, do as they please. They firmly believe what they say though, at least for the ten minutes it takes to forget what they said! Have a nice gander at Mitt "Flip-flop" Romney for proof.

sailwind: I notice you still cannot answer my questions. That in and of itself is testament to the fact that you doubt your own beliefs. I think that's the case of most Republicans, though... so you are not alone.

Just another distraction from what's really important. It's the ECONOMY, stupid!

"the presumptive Republican nominee enjoying a huge 69-19% lead over Obama among white evangelicals"

So? Obama enjoys a huge 99.5%-.5% lead over Romney among blacks.

sailwind: I notice you still cannot answer my questions. That in and of itself is testament to the fact that you doubt your own beliefs. I think that's the case of most Republicans, though... so you are not alone.

Not sure how you came to the conclusion that I haven't answered your questions.

I believe marriage is a compact that is based on pretty common societal traditions seen through all civilizations going back thousands of years between a man and a woman. I do not see any need to change or modify or turn into something it has never been or was intended from its beginnings.

I believe same sex unions are unique have different dynamics and fall outside the scope of a male and female relationship and to properly honor the uniqueness and the difference between the two and still ensuring that all equality and rights that it falls under a civil union instead for the same sex couple and if they want to call it marriage knock themselves out it is after all for all purposes the same thing, just respects the inherit differences between the two forms of relationships.

The only other thing that I really see also when you get down to it, is just plain divisive crass politics being played and 32 states now put into positions to pass amendments to their constitutions so marriage between a man and woman is actually........Legally protected from being changed into something else in the first place. Now, at least to me if you really think about it, really how silly is that? When trying to advance societal change and the society reacts by changing their constitutions to prevent it from happening by a vote of the people really should give one pause that it really isn't the way to go here.

I

"Separate but equal" - remember that phase in US history, when blacks and whites supposedly possessed equal protection under law? (It's kinda similar to Florida's "stand your ground" law, but that's a different story.) The point is, sailwind, what you believe is of no importance. Law is the arbitrator, and currently, state laws are dominating the country. What Obama has initiated is a roll towards the Supreme Court, which must eventually rule on whether an American government entity has the ability to constrict "marriage" to heterosexual couples. This patchwork of state rulings will not stand, despite Obama's passing-the-buck pragmatism of leaving it up to the states for the time being.

Serrano: "So? Obama enjoys a huge 99.5%-.5% lead over Romney among blacks."

And yet only yesterday you were depending on a poll to tell you what to think.

FarmboyMay. 13, 2012 - 08:00AM JST

LagunaMay. 13, 2012 - 02:22PM JST

Good and well analyzed posts showing how inconsistent Romney's stance has been when it comes to the Civil Rights and Gay issues. He now plays God suggesting there is no separation of Church and State. He is very dangerous. Tell him to come to Colorado, we will cook him on BBQ grill on these issues.

I believe marriage is a compact that is based on pretty common societal traditions seen through all civilizations going back thousands of years between a man and a woman. I do not see any need to change or modify or turn into something it has never been or was intended from its beginnings.

There is no need for you to change this belief Sailwind! Hold it dear. Just accept that its not your place to force your belief on others or think its cool for the government to do the same.. Its just that simple.

You have your beliefs. Others have theirs. But that is no reason for discord. There can be harmony if the government is more inclusive.

sailwind: "I believe marriage is a compact that is based on pretty common societal traditions seen through all civilizations going back thousands of years between a man and a woman."

No you don't. You think that some people should legally be not allowed to do the things others take for granted. Admit it, sailwind -- you think homosexuals are less entitled than heterosexuals! Can you not stand behind what you claim to believe in?

The funniest, or rather the most pathetic, is that you talk about thousands of years of 'tradition' when all you hide behind is cowardice. But please stop thinking others are as stupid as you and saying, "duh... I'm all for equal rights unless it's for gays".

"Separate but equal" - remember that phase in US history, when blacks and whites supposedly possessed equal protection under law?

Interesting you should mention that as I gave that a lot of thought also and didn't find the comparison to really be apt as I was tossing back a few at my favorite nomiya last night and thinking about this issue. Gay folks of all race , creed or background are already afforded equal protection under the law as individual citizens, it's not a very good comparison since almost all the states have laws of the books against discrimination based on sexual orientation and separate but equal was nothing more than codified segregation. They isn't going to be seperate water fountains for LGBT folks use only in our future.

What Obama has initiated is a roll towards the Supreme Court, which must eventually rule on whether an American government entity has the ability to constrict "marriage" to heterosexual couples.

Which is a HORRIBLE way for the President of the United States to govern or lead. It's divisive, ignores the will of the people, circumvents the Democratic process and is why this President should only be given one term. President Obama does not bring the country together and this is yet just another example of how he leads and the results that we have been getting.

EZTokyo,

Thank you for the kind words, just posting my opinion and respecting others who do have different views, sometimes discussions do get heated but I do try my best to keep it civil. Again thanks.

EZTokyo: "There is no need for you to change this belief Sailwind!"

If it were up to people like sailwind the blacks would still be at the back of the bus -- not because he would tell them that's where they should be, but because he lacks the backbone to state otherwise. He's part of the 'shouganai' crowd that the woman in question was fighting against -- b-b-b-b-ut I can't do anything!

I hope he gets a good cry in before he is hopefully apprehended.

Moderator: You're still ill-mannered and arrogant. You can have another 48 hours off.

... seperate water fountains for LGBT folks use only in our future.

Ah, but you see, there is, legally speaking, and not in our future but now.

...a HORRIBLE way for the President of the United States to govern or lead.

Wait - when a president tries to lead by moral suasion, it is a horrible way to lead? Lincoln would be dismayed.

@Laguna: Exactly

Which is a HORRIBLE way for the President of the United States to govern or lead. It's divisive, ignores the will of the people, circumvents the Democratic process and is why this President should only be given one term.

People who prevent those of same gender to marry are akin to those who prevented those of different races to marry. (Or prevented minorities from serving in the military.) They represent the worst impulses of our nation, even though they are temporarily held by an ever-declining "majority" of Americans. With every passing year, more Americans are coming to take the view that our president recently has.

Only the worst sort of leader would try to "unite" a people around its worst impulses. As soon as one state or district recognizes a same-sex marriage as just that, the 14th Amendment compels other states to honor it or else we as a nation are back to the period of Dred Scott on this issue. (When will these conservatives ever learn?)

Sail, what I just don't see are the damages that will be cast upon marriage if homosexuals are allowed to marry in the same way heterosexuals are. I don't see the damage, the change, the anything. We could allow it everywhere tomorrow and the net result would be that people would just stop talking about it.

Sooner or later a Republican presidential candidate will be saying the same thing. It's inevitable.

If gays want social recognition, they're going to have to work at it.

Let's be honest, the average Joe's reaction to "gay marriage" is somewhere between revulsion and taking it as a big joke.

Uphill battle guys.

Good luck!

but you see, there is, legally speaking, and not in our future but now.

Let's not forget the language of what those opposed to same-sex marriage have chosen to amend our nation's constitution: the defense of marriage.

Much as racist whites believed that their opposition to interracial marriage was based on the premise of defending the white race from "mongrelization," -- and with President Obama, their worst fears have been realized -- the same kind of mentality views same-sex marriage as some kind of assault. It is those seeking equal treatment and civil rights who are the evil ones who need to be "defended" against.

It is as if marriage is a privileged "fountain" that only the ones they approve of can drink from, not seeing that same-sex couples who want to marry actually strengthen the institution rather than weaken it.

If gays want social recognition, they're going to have to work at it.

Let's be honest, the average Joe's reaction to "gay marriage" is somewhere between revulsion and taking it as a big joke.

Uphill battle guys.

Good luck!

@johninnaha, apparently you are still in 19th century living in Japan while we Americans are living in 21st century. You have missed how American culture and society have evolved in the past 100 years as far as the Civil Rights and gay issues. I am very proud to state the US Constitution states and guarantees :

Equality, Liberty and Justice.

IN GOD WE TRUST

@johninnaha, I have missed the most important issue to my blog listed above.

Liberty, Equality and Justice for ALL. All is THE key word. This applies to every Americans.

I am very proud that Obama has a strong courage to say what it means to all of us. He got out from a concept of "Do not ask, do not tell" policy. This is a very important historic moment in American history you may envy.

Basic arguement is that civil unions might be acceptable but marriage would not be. I can deal with that. Marriage is more of a religous idea and should be seperate from the government recognized union anyway. My church, for example, cannot recognize gay marriage but doesn't have a problem with a government recognizing a civil union. They have them in a number of countries with large Catholic populations.

I support civil unions and they should have the full rights and privledges as marriage but there religious connotation to marriage that should be taken into account. In fact, I think all marriages should be reclassified as civil unions and marriage should be solely a religious term. Would solve a number of problems and eliminate a lot of confusion. Governments can form civil unions, religious organizations for marriages.

" In fact, I think all marriages should be reclassified as civil unions and marriage should be solely a religious term."

Probably the best point on the thread.

Probably the best point on the thread is from Sailwind.

'Did a little looking into your discussion about the founding fathers Washington, Adams and Jefferson and Romney's statement that we were a nation founded on Judeo-Christian traditions, that they wouldn't agree with it.

Jefferson most likely would not he was more of the rationalist bent in his religious beliefs and thought God more in the abstract then any actual personal deity and really wasn't down with religion at all in the Governance of man.

Washington, he was steeped in it two quotes of his:

“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

John Adams he credits Judeo aspect and Jewish Hebrews with civilizing mankind his quote:

The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.”

Romney's not really that far off on any far ground here actually.'

" In fact, I think all marriages should be reclassified as civil unions and marriage should be solely a religious term."

Hmm, I have an even better idea. Lets keep things the way they are.

Hmm, I have an even better idea. Lets keep things the way they are.

Why? It serves nobody and acomplishes nothing. Merely another example of government attempting to enforce morality on the population. No different than attempting to inflict healthcare on the people.

0

MolenirMay. 14, 2012 - 03:20AM JST

In fact, I think all marriages should be reclassified as civil unions and marriage should be solely a religious term."

Hmm, I have an even better idea. Lets keep things the way they are.

Molenir, I respect your opinion. You want to press on the 'PAUSE" or go << "BACKWARD" choices while we go >> "FORWARD" Have a great Day!

Molenir, did you already press on the <<BACKWARD to see many shows of Archie Bunker? That is what I see, Is this what you want to see in America and American people, Molenir?

Only time I press on the "PAUSE" is when I need to take a break to go to the bathroom while I am watching DVD. Nothing move and accomplish NADA!

Why? It serves nobody and acomplishes nothing. Merely another example of government attempting to enforce morality on the population. No different than attempting to inflict healthcare on the people.

Actually changing it would be an example of government attempting to enforce its morality, or lack thereof, on the population.

Molenir, I respect your opinion. You want to press on the 'PAUSE" or go << "BACKWARD" choices while we go >> "FORWARD" Have a great Day!

Not interested in backwards, or pause for that matter, maintaining the status quo in terms of marriage, ie the way it has been since the beginning of time, seems like the way to go. Why try to fix what isn't broken?

maintaining the status quo in terms of marriage, ie the way it has been since the beginning of time, seems like the way to go. Why try to fix what isn't broken?

Molenir, we are not asking you to disregard a marriage between man and woman. We are adding a different term "Civil Union" committment between the same sex. I do believe in separation of church and state. I am a Christian while I can see things differently from the other side in law and compartmentlize them independently. I myself has struggled on this issue for years as well as Obama.

Just want to add that PM Cameron of Britain has just made an announcement today that he supports Civil Union between the same sex for British people as he IS conservative. Australia has already recognized the Civil Union between the same sex while Putin of Russia is strongly oppose that idea. FYI

Actually changing it would be an example of government attempting to enforce its morality, or lack thereof, on the population.

Its hard to believe any govenment would try and force freedom of choice down our throats. There the sarcasm ends.

What you wrote has to be the single-most anti-freedom comment I have ever read. The government taking a step back is not enforcement of anything. Its the freedom America has fought wars to have.

maintaining the status quo in terms of marriage, ie the way it has been since the beginning of time, seems like the way to go.

You and yours are welcome to go that way. Forcing us all to follow you however, is RIGHT OUT.

You and yours are welcome to go that way. Forcing us all to follow you however, is RIGHT OUT.

Why can't these people just leave others alone and stop poking their noses into other people's business?

There is no need for you to change this belief Sailwind! Hold it dear. Just accept that its not your place to force your belief on others or think its cool for the government to do the same.. Its just that simple.

@EZTokyo, your posts are suggesting others to RESPECT other's. They are all well said. You and I are on the same page here. Thank you.

You and yours are welcome to go that way. Forcing us all to follow you however, is RIGHT OUT.

Heres the thing. If you are homosexual, you and your partner, can call your relationship a marriage, a civil union, or as I said elsewhere, a dog and pony show. It doesn't matter, and I don't care. We aren't even talking about that. What you are saying though, is that I have to call it marriage. That legally, in every employment document and legal paper, I must accept that a marriage can be defined in the way you wish it to be defined. That is unacceptable. And it is despicable that any person or group is trying to force others to their way of belief. I don't care if 2 people want to do things with each other, be they of opposite gender or not. Its not my business. But when you force your relationship on others, thats when it becomes their business. Attempting to redefine the term marriage, to fit what you want is just that, its forcing others to accept something that is antithetical to their beliefs, and is wrong.

What you wrote has to be the single-most anti-freedom comment I have ever read. The government taking a step back is not enforcement of anything. Its the freedom America has fought wars to have.

Not a single American has ever fought and died, for the right of 2 men to get married. Not one. Not changing the status quo, is in no way taking a step back. Indeed, changing it would be construed as a step back to many people, including myself. And your hatred of those who dare to believe differently than you, does not change this fact. Nor do the lies you and others spew, as you attempt to paint what is right, as wrong, and what is wrong as right.

Sail, what I just don't see are the damages that will be cast upon marriage if homosexuals are allowed to marry in the same way heterosexuals are. I don't see the damage, the change, the anything.

Respect your opinion and understand your view.

My view my also evolve in time, which is actually an ironic term in the discussion considering a same sex marriage pretty much stops evolution in its tracks on the passing on the actual DNA and genes level between the partners and has to use different DNA from a surrogate to happen.

As of now I can't square the circle between "I now pronounce you Husband and wife" and "I now pronounce you Husband and Husband" as being exactly 100 equal to a marriage in the traditional sense between a man and a woman , and to be honest, I'm very proud that the U.S has moved far enough in my lifetime to be quite comfortable with civil unions for same sex couples to square the circle in a way that is not divisive and ensure the same rights without that much rancor at all, as opposed to all the rancor that this does instead with individuals personal beliefs and value systems. Personal beliefs and values that they have grown up and have cherished as time honored traditions in their own families and many feel that they are now under attack for it as it doesn't fit a more activist view to change them and that it needs to be forced through a supreme court decision, since putting it to voters in 32 states hasn't panned out to make it happen. It's a bit dictatorial and not a good thing at all in the long run for all American's regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation with any future decisions that a Government might want to impose on a populace if the people just don't get with the program by voting actually going to the polls and voting against it.

When the states start voting to approve it and reverse course then the issue has really evolved and American's as a whole are truly comfortable with it, that really should be the only real marker here on the issue and on how it will be in the future.

When the states start voting to approve it and reverse course then the issue has really evolved and American's as a whole are truly comfortable with it, that really should be the only real marker here on the issue and on how it will be in the future.

That will happen sooner than later.

I can predict with a high degree of certainty that, 25 years down the road, conservatives will be arguing that they were champions of gay rights from the very beginning.

I can predict with a high degree of certainty that, 25 years down the road, conservatives will be arguing that they were champions of gay rights from the very beginning.

I seriously doubt that. Especially considering that the same statements were made when abortion was imposed on an unwilling nation. The direction the abortion debate has been going ever since, says a great deal. When you try to force, or impose your morality, or lack thereof on a populace unwilling, and unready to support it, that populace will rebel and pushback.

I'm sure I can find people who felt the same way about gays in the military. What happened? It came and went and now it's completely forgotten about. That's what will happen with gay marriage. People will fight against it, the tide will slowly turn, and then everyone will forget about it since it really has no impact on their lives at all.

Especially considering that the same statements were made when abortion was imposed on an unwilling nation.

Here we go again! Abortion was not forced on anyone. If you don't want one, don't get one. You seriously need to pack up and move someplace less free than America, because you obviously have a big problem with people being allowed to choose their own path. I think Saudi Arabia might suit you pretty well.

When you try to force, or impose your morality, or lack thereof on a populace unwilling, and unready to support it, that populace will rebel and pushback.

You need to heed your own advice partner, because the only group trying to impose morality, or lack thereof, is yours.

I can predict with a high degree of certainty that, 25 years down the road, conservatives will be arguing that they were champions of gay rights from the very beginning.

I think in 25 years Conservatives will be remembered for making the economy center issue which is at the end of the THE MOST important issue. Gay rights and gay marriage are social side issues that at this present time can wait and are not issues that of the highest priority. This is not a federal issue and for the Dems to make it as such shows how desperate they are and will do anything, anything to stay in power.

I'm sure I can find people who felt the same way about gays in the military. What happened? It came and went and now it's completely forgotten about.

Super,

Let's not forget that it took 18 years from going from the "don't ask don't tell" compromise under Clinton, until it was repealed that compromise really was the key to ease the acceptance and the transition. Also, since it was repealed I've seen absolutely zero people in the Military come out and state they are openly gay, they'd rather just go about their business as usual and leave their private life private and just be treated as any other service member. Pretty much just as it was under the DADT. They can tell now, but they'd rather not as a personal and professional choice to continue to accomplish the missions that they are tasked with fullfilling. I'm sure there are some who have actually come out to their shipmates in private and those that they have revealed it to have also kept the confidentiality private outside the work environment, but what has really happened since the repeal is it has been pretty much the same as it was before the DADT repeal, except now even if they wanted to get out because they hate being in the service after all, that telling your Chief Petty Officer you've developed the hots for him isn't going to get you booted out and ticket home but is only going to end up with being told to shut up and get back to work and more than likely ending up repainting something grey once again to try and hide the rust.

Romney adamantly rejects same-sex marriage

What, did some guy propose to him?

Sailwind: they'd rather just go about their business as usual and leave their private life private and just be treated as any other service member.

Just as it would be with gay marriage.

Molenir - you put it so beautifully:

If you are homosexual, you and your partner, can call your relationship a marriage, a civil union, or as I said elsewhere, a dog and pony show. It doesn't matter, and I don't care. We aren't even talking about that. What you are saying though, is that I have to call it marriage. That legally, in every employment document and legal paper, I must accept that a marriage can be defined in the way you wish it to be defined. That is unacceptable. And it is despicable that any person or group is trying to force others to their way of belief. I don't care if 2 people want to do things with each other, be they of opposite gender or not. Its not my business. But when you force your relationship on others, thats when it becomes their business. Attempting to redefine the term marriage, to fit what you want is just that, its forcing others to accept something that is antithetical to their beliefs, and is wrong.

TOTALLY AGREE!

Molenir - you put it so beautifully TOTALLY AGREE!

What a complement! It made me a belly laugh. Both of you do not understand the constitution of USA and how the civil rights and gay issues evolved over 100 years here in USA. According to the academic research, more educated people are more open minded. These are not afraid to change. Molenir and johninnaha, welcome back to 19 century! Have a great day!

We aren't even talking about that. What you are saying though, is that I have to call it marriage.

No. You don't have to call it a marriage. You personally can call it anything you want to. Freedom of speech has not been repealed.

What you have to accept is that other people not yourself get to call it a marriage, and it has to be considered the same as any other marriage under Law.

Just as it would be with gay marriage.

Begs the question, why is it being thrown into ones face to accept it.

Begs the question, why is it being thrown into ones face to accept it.

Those who want to oppose the right of two people to wed themselves in a church ceremony or civil union, and call it whatever they want to, should stop leading with their faces.

Those who want to oppose the right of two people to wed themselves in a church ceremony or civil union, and call it whatever they want to, should stop leading with their faces.

Those that mock others that disagree with them and equate the gay sexual practice of "Tea Bagging" to Tea party supporters just to mock them and then equate that it is equal the sexual practice to a man and woman's relationship as not a factor in the difference between a marriage and a same marriage should also step back in what one is just forcing society to accept.

Those that mock others that disagree with them...

Those that victimize themselves over an issue where there is no intent to harm whatsoever should be mocked.

Gays honor and respect the institution and commitment of marriage, which is why they want it.

Anyone who fancies or calls themselves "conservative" today would do well to thoroughly read one of the leading lights of the modern conservative movement -- Barry Goldwater -- to see how far they've fallen off the path on their way to today's Tea Party cloud cuckoo-land.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/13/barry-goldwaters-war-against-the-religious-right/

History is not necessarily linearly progressive. It can go backwards into forms of slavery and cruelty. For example Slavery itself:

"After the end of the Roman Empire in 476 AD slavery did not disappear from Europe. It continued for centuries (although the Church disapproved). The Vikings and other nations kept slaves and there were slave markets in towns like London, Dublin and Rome. In Saxon England slaves were called thralls. They did the hardest and dirtiest work. At the time of the Domesday Book in 1086 there were about 10,000 slaves in England.

Nevertheless slavery gradually declined and by the mid-12th century it had vanished from Western Europe." http://www.localhistories.org/slavery.html

However, we all know that when the USA started that there was indeed slavery and it took a civil war to get rid of it. Are we not all called to a chaste existence, meaning pure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity

For all the talk of gay marriage being the majority view in the US, have any states actually approved it by other than court action? Last I heard, even California and Oregon (definitely NOT conservative strongholds) rejected it when it was put to a vote of the people.

I personally don't care what people do in their private lives. However, from a logical point of view if you can erase one previously accepted boundary of marriage (opposite genders only), then it follows that you can also eliminate another boundary (number of participants, for example). This won't be brought up by the Mormons, either. The odds of some white bearded Patriarch arguing for his 16th bride are pretty low. Nah, chances are it will be a Muslim arguing for THEIR rights, since multiple marriage is common in many Muslim areas. It's already happening in the UK...

Attempting to redefine the term marriage, to fit what you want is just that, its forcing others to accept something that is antithetical to their beliefs, and is wrong.

Yes - couldn't have said it any better myself.

Despite the headline of this article, Romney is not being adamant in his opposition to gay marriage. He realizes what Obama and the Dems are trying to do. They want to change the subject from the horrible economy and Obama's failure to lead while the country adds more debt in 3 years than Bush did in eight. America is facing economic peril and all Obama wants to talk about is how he has become the first gay president.

Obama is adamantly in favor of gay marriage only a week after re-evolving into supporting it. I don't think the American people are going to be bamboozled on this issue and avert their attention from Obama's failures as president.

Sad...really sad that people in this day in age are still opposed to same-sex marriages.

Who cares, same sex marriage is a personal choice. Some people like fish and some do not!!!

@canadianbento

That's true, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Nothing is being thrown in your face Sailwind. In fact it is the protest against equal rights for gays the issue. They're not about to go anywhere, people just need to get over the fact some people are attracted to the same sex. And half the problem is that those that protest he most are surpressing their own homosexual urges.

And if conservatives were serious about the economy, they wouldn't be protesting so much.

Mitt Romney has changed everything but his religion. But I think he would do much better to change that too and leave the anti-sex, anti-gay, anti-beer clan behind. Its hard enough to trust someone who changes his mind on everything, but its harder to trust someone who belongs to an anti-sex, anti-gay, anti-beer group, that is for sure!

Thats his opinion which is fine. Everyone has an opinion. However, it doesnt mean the government should be in peoples lives constantly making decisions for them.

MARRIAGE IS ... between a MAN and a WOMAN ONLY... PERIOD!

less than one percent of Americans seek marriage with a partner of the same sex.

nobody really believes obama 'evolved' for any reason other than financial gain.