Posted on 09/10/2006 2:59:43 PM PDT by Panerai
BOSTON --When Gov. Mitt Romney leaves office in January for an expected bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, opponents of gay marriage back home will lose one of their loudest cheerleaders.
Despite Romney's departure, gay and lesbian advocates in Massachusetts -- the only state to recognize gay marriages -- aren't taking anything for granted.
Worried their legal right to marry could slip away if Bay State voters follow a national trend and choose to outlaw same-sex marriage, activists are ramping up their efforts to mobilize sympathetic voters for the gubernatorial campaign.
In the first statewide race since gay marriage became legal, the issue, gay advocates say, remains polarizing, but the conversation has changed. It's no longer about legalizing the unions anymore, but whether to revoke an existing right.
"All the Democrats now say gay marriage is OK and the law is the law," said Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus. "But just as importantly, maybe more importantly, do they support repealing it? Do they support letting it go to the gauntlet where it could be repealed? And are they going to stick to their word?"
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
That's one of thee major reasons I left Mass.
Pro-"gay rights" politicians like Mitt Romney have been instrumental in laying the groundwork for gay marriage.
* Gay Boy Scout leaders
* Gay partner benefits
* Gay "non-discrimination" protection
* Gay youth government support
* Gay civil unions
Then hypocrites like Romney, after supporting and accepting the reasoning of the "gay rights" agenda and pandering to gays for votes, turn around and protest when it comes to gay marriage and think they're doing something special. Well, guess what, it's useful idiots like you who brought us to this point.
My aunt and uncle renewed their vows yesterday, and some friends of them had written phrases like "Just Re-married" all over their back and side windows. The plan was for my A&U to ride in the truck, however they wound up in another vehicle and instead my male cousin and his friend, also a guy, wound up driving the truck. They got some interesting looks, they said. LOL!! This article reminded me of that...
What the he!! are you babbling about?
How has Mitt Romney done any of what you suggest?
When are we going to stop calling queers "gays"?
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Mitt said he opposes the Boy Scouts policy on gays
Mitt campaigned on gay rights platforms in both his elections, 1994 vs Ted Kennedy and 2002 for governor.
Mitt supported and supports domestic partner benefits for gays.
Mitt supported and supports gay non-discrimination.
None of those things are disputed.
Mitt also supported gay civil unions before he opposed them.
Also, Mitt's Salt Lake City Olympics were described as the first gay-friendly Olympics.
Are you being serious that you've never heard any of this before? It's not like it's a secret. Well, I'm sure Mitt doesn't mention it when he goes around the country calling himself a conservative, but he's very open about being pro-gay in Massachusetts. http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,525039435,00.html That talks about his "centrist" view on gay rights, opposing marriage and maybe civil unions but supporting everything else.
Several of the points you are attempting to make are blunted, if not refuted, by the article you linked me to. I'd use another article if I were you.
Anyhow, the points you make are clearly not complete. There are a lot of shades of gray in these issues over which good conservatives can disagree. Supporting some sort of legal protections for a gay couple is hardly the same thing as running on a 'gay rights' platform.
And even if it were, heck, I'm all for 'gay rights' depending on how you define it, of course.
I think they should have the same rights as everyone else. That doesn't mean I think they have the right to redefine marriage, it doesn't mean that I think they ought to have special protected status, etc.
Do I think they should have civil unions? Ehh, depends on how they are defined. I certainly have no problem with some sort of legal method to which they are allowed to visit each other in the hospital, split up property fairly when they split up, etc. especially if these things are instituted at a state level.
Do I think gays should adopt? Well...that's tough. Generally...no. But do I think that a kid is better off being bounced from one foster home to another as opposed to being with a stable gay couple? I'm gonna have to say no on that. I'm not sure how exactly a policy like that would work, and if it required gay couples to be put on an equal footing with hetrosexual couples in terms of children, I'd oppose it. But if it allowed them to adopt under certain circumstances when others aren't willing to, I'd probably be inclined to support it.
The only point I'm trying to make is that Romney is hardly some fruity guy marching in a gay pride parade, and there is room for disagreement among conservatives of good faith. The world doesn't break down into 'pro-gay' and 'anti-gay' people, and as far as I've seen, his positions have been sensible and reasonable even if I don't always agree.
I think that's the real issue here. I expect you to be very happy with Romney, you're both "shades of grey" gay rights supporters.
And you conveniently mention none of these supposed points.
I'll tell you:
A. It makes it clear he hardly ran on a 'gay rights' platform against Kennedy.
B. It also makes it clear that he took flack for supporting the Boy Scouts and not, as you infered, was opposing their rights to set their own policies. I'm not sure if you are right about his opposing the policy, but there is a difference between supporting the policy and supporting the right of the scouts to make that decision, which he clearly does.
As to your other comment, it's pretty typical of you. Don't debate the issue, just slap some label on your opposition and assume the arguement is won. I'd try a new strategy if I were you.
I'm sure there are those with better sources, but the internet wasn't so big back then, and this is the best I have for that race: "Tovia Smith of Boston University radio station WBUR asked: "Mr. Romney, you say you're a moderate on social issues. One who will defend abortion rights, equal rights for women, for blacks, and for gays. In fact you say you will do more to promote gay rights than Senator Kennedy."
I presume Ms. Smith was working from a Romney campaign promise. And I know that political opposition researchers will be able to dig up the original and expose Romney during the primaries, if he makes it that far.
B. It also makes it clear that he took flack for supporting the Boy Scouts and not, as you infered, was opposing their rights to set their own policies. I'm not sure if you are right about his opposing the policy,
How can you not be sure??? He said, "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation". I never said he wanted to force them to accept gays, just that he thinks they should. Which is insane, IMO, and SO not conservative!
Do you actually believe these positions you take are credible?
If I didn't know better, I'd say you are doing a self-parody.
So some radio hoast in Boston believes Romney's views are one thing, and suddenly, that becomes your authoritative proof on what his views are. Perfect. THAT'S authoritative proof all right.
And how can I be so sure? Well, there is the fact that he was involved with the Boy Scouts, took heat for it in Mass. and stuck by them anyway. Had he been interested in forcing them to change, he would have said so, and he would have taken the heat off himself.
And as far as I'm concerned, it depends on what you mean by allowing gays to be involved. Do I think that there should be gay scoutmasters? No, although I wouldn't ask if they were gay. If they didn't make it an issue, and agreed with all the other tenents of the Boy Scouts, I'd be OK with it. If they were openly gay, and if they insisted on promoting it, absolutely not. But also, it's not actually clear that he was talking about scoutmasters. I do think that young men that are having sexual identity problems should be allowed in. The Boy Scouts would be just the sort of organization that could help them through it.
You mean all the factual material I post backed up by quotes and links?
Trying to ignore it won't make it go away. You can't handle the truth!
You are laughable. You just ignore anything you don't like and plow on like it never happened, and then claim victory.
Have fun sitting in a corner contemplating how great you are.
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.