“Actually, the fact that Romney doesn’t believe in treating gays and lesbians as second class citizens makes me apt to support him more.”
Opposing gay marriage has nothing to do with treating gays like “second class citizens.” That’s what the left says about the issue. Those who oppose gay marriage generally do so on the basis that it knocks out a major underpinning that supports the traditional family.
“Opposing gay marriage has nothing to do with treating gays like “second class citizens.” That’s what the left says about the issue. Those who oppose gay marriage generally do so on the basis that it knocks out a major underpinning that supports the traditional family.”
Oh I absolutely agree with you! Please don’t misunderstand me. My response was an attempt to differentiate Romney’s perceived advancement of some so-called homosexual agenda from his belief that discrimination is wrong. I have no doubt that Romney supports traditional marriage and the traditional family—his fight against the MA legislature when they refused to vote to allow a traditional marriage amendment measure on the state ballot convinced me of that—I’m just saying that Romney does not believe in denying gays and lesbians certain rights as domestic partners (e.g. hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc.) because that would be tantamount to treating them like second class citizens. I just think that people should really learn to differentiate between undermining the traditional institution of marriage (which Romney does not want to do) and outright discrimination (which any fair-minded person would hopefully oppose). :)