No waffles, just pancakes:
Romney said on the campaign trail Monday that he continues to oppose gay marriage.
“My view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” Romney said. “That’s the position I’ve had for some time, and I don’t intend to make any adjustments at this point. … Or ever, by the way.”
Note how he had the self-awareness (that is so often lacking) to add that last part.
“In my family,” Romney added, “Marriage has always been between a man and at least one woman.”
Hah hah!!
Hilarious… you need to put this out on Twitter if you have not done so already.
Seriously, has Romney ever responded to the polygamy question? Not that I think it should be an albattros around his neck. Just curious.
In my family, marriage has also been between a man and at least one woman. At a time.
But just so’s we’re clear about it…whose fucking business is it, anyway? For all I care, he or anybody else can marry 17 women, 2 men and 5 women, a sheep, a goat and a watermelon or whatever else strikes their fancy.
As Billie Holiday so aptly sang so many times:
Bet on it.
AG
Polyamory I’ve got no problems with, at all. Hypocrisy, however…
What!!!??? What kind of ‘Murican are you, anyhow?
The U.S. is built upon hypocrisy.
And it will collapse from it as well unless things change radically.
Bet on it.
AG
Yes…yes, I’ve noticed that. Might explain my distinct lack of patriotism.
As a purely theoretical stance, I have no issue with polygamous marriages or relationships, provided it’s consented upon (it’s often not). However, there are a slew of rights that come with marriage that would be really hard to travel around legally. Moreover, polygamous marriages are often associated with child abuse.
I know a few people who practice polyamory — the one in particular is a husband, wife, and her boyfriend. They all live in the same house. No children, though. In that specific relationship, I doubt children would be harmed. But on the whole? It’s undeniable that it’s not simply an “association”.
“Or ever, by the way”.
Yeah, problem is Willard has flipped-flopped like a fish out of water on how many issues now?
So it would be unsporting to suggest, repeatedly, that he is likely to flip-flop on this issue also…
It would not be unsporting… it’s realistic.
Just like it’s realistic to think a parent of a gay person will change their hardened, dogmatic view on the matter of gay rights– just as Dick Cheney did.
It’s unfortunate more people can’t have compassion and empathy for people outside of their immediate family.
Poor Mitt. He spent the whole day talking about how his tax cuts will create jobs, how bad Obama is at his job and no one heard a thing he said. Well, he will just have to say it all again tomorrow an hope someone is listening.
Fuck you, Mitt.
Does anyone else out there have the same conflicted feelings that are expressed in this comment over at TPM.
I wish I could agree with reader WB. Most of me is absolutely thrilled to see Obama boldly step forward to the right side of history. But I also have this sinking feeling: the feeling that Obama just handed the election to Romney.
Obama held the advantage, in large part because he was facing the least compelling candidate anyone could ever possibly dream up. But so much for the enthusiasm gap, because there’s nothing that spikes turnout among conservatives like a referendum on gay marriage — which is of course what the religious right will turn the election into. Any voter who might have just stayed home will now come out to vote against Obama’s secret plan to make us all get gay married. Please tell me I’m wrong about this.
Since a certain degree of apathy and disinterest on the part of Republican voters was part of the recipe for success in November, do these concerns have some merit now that the issue has been addressed so directly by Obama? I’m really interested in what people’s thoughts are on this.
If highlighting gay marriage as an issue would be so helpful to the Republicans, why haven’t the Republicans been doing so?
I don’t have any conflicted feelings on it whatsoever. If gay marriage is the issue that was going to decide the election for you, you probably weren’t voting for Obama anyway. And remember that Obama’s 2008 campaign was successful due in part to a new crop of younger activists, who are overwhelmingly on the right side of this issue. Further, many of those same people (and I include myself in this) are high-information voters who may have had their issues with Obama on various points, but seeing him take a firm stance on the right side of this issue will help to rekindle that fire.
I know I am not alone in saying how sick I am of the hand wringing and bed wetting that has been far too large a part of the Democratic party’s electoral calculus. That is why it is so refreshing and inspiring to see him finally TAKE A FUCKING STAND on this issue.
I have no idea how all this will play out, but I say amen to that.
A thought: Obama acted like the president the morning after Election Day 2008. Could it be that he is acting like the second-term president we all hoped he would be, before the election?