Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney Stands Firmly in Support of Marriage Potection Amendment
National Review Online--Transcript of Romney's Letter To Senators ^ | 6/5/06 | Mitt Romney

Posted on 06/06/2006 1:49:22 AM PDT by Jeff Fuller

Governor Mitt Romney has sent this letter to every member of the Senate encouraging them to Vote "Yes" on this landmark peice of legislation--the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA). A few excerpts are below:

"Americans are tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage.

Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.

Later in the letter Romney continues . . .

Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities ofmodern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary.

Your vote on this amendment should not be guided by a concern for adult rights. This matter goes to the development and well-being of children. I hope that you will make your vote heard on their behalf."

Maggie Gallager, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and prominent national figure on this vital issue said nearly two years ago (in this article) the following:

“Mitt Romney is a brave man. While the GOP glitterocracy attended the first gay wedding of one of their own, Gov. Romney was in Washington, D.C., making the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician."
Unfortunately, thanks to a lack of unity among Republican senators (especially McCain and our own Grassley who do not support it) the MPA has little, if any, chance of passing. Part of the problem is the lack of true leadership on this issue and the cop-out of "states rights" (I know I'm being conned when my other state Senator, Harkin, a Democrat, writes his standard letter back to me that he feels strongly in supporting states rights).

Governor Romney stands head an shoulders among GOP presidential frontrunners on this issue and could provide the true leadership that is necessary to get the MPA through on the next time around.

*****This commentary was originally posted at Iowans for Romney.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Iowa; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: 109th; digression; distraction; diversion; dogandponyshow; evasion; flimflam; fma; gaymarriage; homosexual; homosexualagenda; manbehindthecurtain; mpa; pander; razzledazzle; redherring; romney; shellgame; snowjob
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

1 posted on 06/06/2006 1:49:25 AM PDT by Jeff Fuller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller

good read.


2 posted on 06/06/2006 1:54:58 AM PDT by jamesm113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller
Governor Romney stands head an shoulders among GOP presidential frontrunners on this issue and could provide the true leadership that is necessary to get the MPA through on the next time around.

If Romney sticks by this, it will be a first. He always buckles.

3 posted on 06/06/2006 2:19:34 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller
Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.

Right on the money.

I would add "procreation," but that might be in there.

4 posted on 06/06/2006 2:23:28 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It. Supporting our Troops Means Praying for them to Win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jamesm113
Agree.
Amazes me that WE increasingly need a Law telling US "some" right thing to do.
Things Our parents taught us and subsequently reinforced at levels of religion, academia and some self summation of the preceding amazes me.
Even to some point of UFB even.
And for me the laws are very simply symptomatic of US being unwilling or unable to warm the feet of our our multi-levels of ALL political representation.
Reps at ALL levels appear to focus on their individual Hot Buttons while ignoring Reasonable Representation if not Management.
Must regain the mindset that They are One, WE are MORE. Believe in Live and Let Live. Beyond some obvious context of Mr. Bush's talk, this includes need changes to how ALL proceeds of one's estate is distributed.That's Common Sense.
But Folks Need A Wakeup Call To Some Real World. That or Go On Liberty Call...
5 posted on 06/06/2006 2:38:53 AM PDT by Gunny P (Gunny P)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller

"While the GOP glitterocracy attended the first gay wedding of one of their own"

What is that referring to?


6 posted on 06/06/2006 2:52:44 AM PDT by catholicfreeper (Proud supporter of Pres. Bush and the Gop-- with no caveats, qualifiers, or bitc*en)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: catholicfreeper

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=32988

OH I see


7 posted on 06/06/2006 2:55:06 AM PDT by catholicfreeper (Proud supporter of Pres. Bush and the Gop-- with no caveats, qualifiers, or bitc*en)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller

"But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage.
Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation."

This should be in big bold letters....maybe tattooed on the behinds of people like Harry Reid who insist its legalizing "pwejoodice".

Hey, if its a state's issue, like the naysayers are saying, pass the ammendment and let the states decide.



8 posted on 06/06/2006 3:05:51 AM PDT by Adder (Can we bring back stoning again? Please?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maryz
Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.

Someones got it right alert!
9 posted on 06/06/2006 3:47:38 AM PDT by HHKrepublican_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller

Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.


10 posted on 06/06/2006 3:51:11 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla; Jeff Fuller
Yeah BUT,

Romney was AWOL in Mass when the court ruled and the debate was raging. He made a few "right" noises and was barely visible.

I suspect same is going on here as he preps for the primaries.
11 posted on 06/06/2006 4:05:56 AM PDT by beckaz (Deport, deport. deport.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: beckaz
I suspect same is going on here as he preps for the primaries.

I do, too.

In any case, I'd never vote for a pol who's got people leaving his state in droves :)

12 posted on 06/06/2006 4:07:42 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
In fairness, the one-party state's problems go way back.

The irony is people leave the freaky state and go to NH or Maine and then vote in the same crap/people that screwed up Mass in the first place. Go figure.
13 posted on 06/06/2006 4:12:57 AM PDT by beckaz (Deport, deport. deport.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Adder
This should be in big bold letters....maybe tattooed on the behinds of people like Harry Reid who insist its legalizing "pwejoodice".

The first time in decades that they didn't bleat like sheep that "it's for the children" when, for once, that is the actual issue.
14 posted on 06/06/2006 4:15:11 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller

Bumpersticker:

“Sodomy is NOT a family value.”


15 posted on 06/06/2006 6:23:22 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Fuller

Nice try, Mitt.

But, if memory serves, your record as the governor of Massachusetts reveals you're anything but conservative.

You can try to move to the right for a presidential run, but it won't work. Iowa Republicans won't be fooled.


16 posted on 06/06/2006 6:29:49 AM PDT by newgeezer (Repeal all Amendments after XV. Yes, ALL of them. Yes, I mean that one, too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

LOL! True....I hadn't thought of that.


17 posted on 06/06/2006 7:00:13 AM PDT by Adder (Can we bring back stoning again? Please?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

No, Republicans will turn instead to such reliable conservative profiles in courage as George Allen who opposed extension of hate speech laws to gays, then supported the extension once elected, and then (once conservatives called him on it), flip flopped yet again as he prepared to run for president.


18 posted on 06/06/2006 7:03:31 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: maryz

He's been in front of this issue for 2 years.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004647

His abortion stance may be ambiguous but on this one I doubt he'll buckle


19 posted on 06/06/2006 7:07:20 AM PDT by slowhand520
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

So, who are you backing?


20 posted on 06/06/2006 7:52:58 AM PDT by newgeezer (Repeal all Amendments after XV. Yes, ALL of them. Yes, I mean that one, too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson