We haven’t had much to say about this, since in the context of our local reality it seems like it’s from Mars: Mitt Romney tried to shore up his hard-right bona fides yesterday with an anti-same sex marriage rally at the Tremont Temple in Boston:
Governor Mitt Romney joined social conservatives and religious leaders at a downtown Boston church last night for a nationwide broadcast that condemned same-sex marriage and called on evangelicals to fight what they see as a threat to Christian beliefs and values.
In a cavernous, gilded room festooned with American flags, speakers described how a “homosexual agenda” was interfering with the constitutional rights of same-sex marriage opponents to express their dissent and religious freedom.
Ah, the victim card … from Hallmark. How can you be so motivated against your gay neighbors and still imagine that it’s you that’s getting the shaft?
See, in my opinion, all the recent media tongue-baths notwithstanding, Mitt Romney is soon-to-be toast with the Religious Right because of his ever-shifting positions on choice — and civil unions, for that matter. He’s just not a True Believer in that or anything else. Furthermore, I strongly suspect the religious right will be even more toxic with the electorate at large in ’08, leaving old Mitt beloved by no one.
But that’s neither here nor there — kind of like Our Guv. Isn’t it hilarious that Mitt can’t spend enough time out of state, except to import a bunch of out-of-state haters? Pretty much sums up Romney’s contempt for his own state, and gives Mitt another opportunity to hang a millstone around Healey’s neck.
Shouldn’t someone ask Healey how she feels about this event? Up or down, Kerry? Defend or disavow. This should be interesting.
Update: You can find Romney’s remarks here. (Thanks to the Globe’s blog.)You’ll recognize Romney’s signature ability to juxtapose totally vile ideas — the supposed oppressiveness of the “religion of secularism”; children are hurt by gay marriage, etc. — with aw-shucks platitudes: “We must vigorously reject discrimination and bigotry. We are all God’s children. He abhors none of us.” Isn’t he cute?
BTW, not that anyone here needs persuading: Romney is, of course, wrong in claiming some nasty effect on kids. From the American Psychiatric Association:
There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.
If you care about kids, support same-sex marriage. Simple.
Hilarious indeed.
<
p>
Mitt is still the actual Governor of Massachusetts, yet every move he makes, he steps on Healys neck. Could he possibly do any less for her campaign?
<
p>
I don’t care if he speaks in tongues and calls for the imprisonment of all homosexuals, the Christian Right in this country will never accept a Mormon as the GOP nominee. Never.
They view Mormons like a cult.
<
p>
Romney became deluded by the fact that in MA no one really gave a damn about his religous leanings, and he was elected once. Now that he can’t get re-elected he’s had to jump ship, but he’ll sink like a stone nationally.
<
p>
Carrying Bush’s water will only take you so far, and that’s about all he did for the last few years. See ya Mitt!
<
p>
“Everyone deserves a mother and a father, and two grandfathers and seven grandmothers like I have….”
I can’t figure out what will hurt Romney more with the fundies: the doubt over what “traditional marriage” means to him, or the fact that one hundred percent of the legally recognized same-sex marriages in the history of the United States have occurred under his reign, while so many other demagogues have successfully sold anti-marriage amendments.
<
p> – Dan
How can somebody say that the “homosexual agenda” (whatever that is) is interfering with the right to express religious freedom from the inside of a Church? Doesn’t the fact that they’re able to congregate and express their religious beliefs in public by definition mean they are able to express their dissent and religious freedom?
David Parker, the ‘concerned’ homophobe from Lexington who, when he lived in New Jersey, gave money to Alan Keyes campaign. That alone should tell you how whacked he is.
the right-wing buzzword word “concerned” in a group’s title, most of the time you can bet the bank that it’ll be a fundie or wingnut group (the Union of Concerned Scientists being one notable exception I can recall offhand).
<
p>
Concerned about what? Concerned about stuff that happens in other folk’s bedrooms, usually. I guess looking in their neighbors’ windows with binoculars isn’t enough for these people.
http://www.knowthyre…
I don’t believe I’ve ever been visitor #2 to a website. “Know thy rep” doesn’t exactly appear to be burning up the internets. Nonetheless, I agree (as I said at the time) that adjourning the session ’til after the election was weak.
Deny me a vote? I only get a vote if specific conditions are met. The legislators are not obligated to make those conditions come true. It’s a multi-step process, and in each step the players get to choose their action. In no step are the actors obligated to make a particular action, by definition.
<
p>
Dumb dumb dumb. And, as mentioned above, rather ineffective. I was hit number 10.
That could be a good list of people to email and thank for their supporting equal rights for all in Massachusetts.
until they vote “no” on the amendment once and for all. Procedural maneuvers don’t show courage.
Since it will only take a 25% vote to move the amendment forward, I think the only practical vote against it will be to adjourn the convention. I think safeguarding the Constitution is a higher responsibility of theirs than showing courage.
<
p> – Dan
I would love to see Kerry Healey’s response to Mitt’s anti-gay spew-fest. I don’t even know how she stands on this issue! But then again, did Mitt allow her to have an opinion?
<
p>
We should all chip in and buy her a new pair of sneaks; hers MUST be worn out after running from Team MittWitt’s record all this time.
said she supports civil unions, but not marriage. However, if the anti-SSM amendment came up for a vote… I hardly doubt she’d bat an eye to protect my rights to marry the person I end up falling in love with.
She should still have to answer for why she joined Mitt’s administration and whether she’s a bad judge of character for joining the admin of someone with whom she apparently shares so few views. She is, after all, serving as Lt. Gov. to the most arch-conservative governor in Massachusetts in decades. Does the media fail to see that as an issue in the same way that the private lives of Deval’s relatives are an issue?
Among the many stunning non-sequitors in Pretty Mitt’s remarks was this:
<
p>
By now this bit of dime-store sophistry has become standard fare from Religious Right ideologues, but its use by a prominent Mormon like Mitt is truly bizarre. After all, it is America’s secular constitution and respect for church-state separation that guarantees the extraordinary religious pluralism of which the LDS Church is a part.
<
p>
You’d think Romney of all people would remember the early years of the LDS Church, when religious supremacists in Missouri issued an Extermination Order and otherwise waged war on Mormons.
<
p>
Perhaps because the LDS Church is now sufficiently regarded as mainstream, Mitt is willing to wage that today’s supremacists will support him if he joins them in some back-slappin’ public gay-hatred. It reminds me of the pathetic skinny kid eager to impress the racist bullies by leading the taunts against black kids in the schoolyard…
<
p>
A shame that Mitt will squander what little integrity he has left for a bloc of likely Rpeublican voters who think he belongs to a cult.
You’d also think Mitt might remember that in 1856 the Republican Party dedicated itself to the eradication of what it called the “twin evils” of slavery and polygamy. Of course, that is about as relevant as the argument conservatives put forth that African-Americans should really vote Republican because Lincoln freed the slaves but what the hey. Not only did Missouri persecute Mormons, but the federal government essentially occupied Salt Lake City for several years before the Civil War in an attempt to ensure that the civil government there was not a theocracy. One thing I’ve noticed about in talking with Mormons however, is how little they understand about the history of Mormons in the United States.
One reason Mormons were disliked and persecuted when they settled in Missouri was that they tended to be anti-slavery. This offended the sensibilities of self-proclaimed “real” Christians and gave them one more rationale to persecute their fellow Americans.
<
p>
Sadly, many current LDS Church members choose to ignore history now that they have been accepted into the “mainstream” and are able to worship freely.
<
p>
Just watch what happens, though, when Mitt gets taken to task by the Bob Jones University & Jerry Falwell crowd for his LDS faith –he’ll hide behind our secular Constituion and make the same arguments for tolerance as gay Americans.
Mormons also barred African-Americans from membership until recently, long after any other mainstream group or religion did so.
There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.
<
p>
Stop it with these pesky facts, would ya? They’re focusing on the family here!
But in Marjorie Eagan’s very nice piece today on Romney’s weekend speech, all concerned about gay people doing bad things to families and such, Ooops, Mitt did it again, the add for Levitra came up in the story. Now that’s good marketing.
I’m probably not the only one here who doesn’t go out of his way to see what’s in the Herald.
<
p>
I especially like her finale:
The Republicans’ domination by the “nuts” is setting them up to look very bad in a decade or two.
<
p> – Dan