Replies

I agree with you. In fact:

No one expects him to do an about-face on marriage, but Cooper says Romney may well soften his tone or shift emphasis. There have been hints of that already. Romney restated Thursday that he thinks it's fine for gay couples to adopt children. On Wednesday, Romney called gay marriage a "tender" issue and chose his words carefully about civil unions.

"I don't favor civil unions if they're identical to marriage other than by name. My view is that domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights and the like are appropriate," Romney said.

"Essentially he was trying to put forward language that left the door open," says Cooper, who says it's always the way politicians start evolving. (article)

He says he doesn’t favor civil unions that are marriage in all but name, but then he goes on about how homosexuals should be able to have civil unions with domestic partner benefits, hospital visitation rights, adoption rights, etc. I guess I’d really like to know the difference between that and marriage, because he sure seems to be cutting a very fine line.

The bottom line on gay marriage is that the left sees it as a civil rights issue. Once you make that logical leap, then government not only should, it must act to squash out opposition. When it came down to private property and religious rights versus civil rights, the latter won.

If this was simply about homosexuals making long term commitments, it wouldn’t be that big of a deal. But it’s not about that. It’s about religious and private property rights and the right of association that will be sacrificed so that homosexuals can live free of ever hearing a dissenting opinion.

When they leave the door open to evolve you find out they don't particularly care about the issue ~ might even find it personally intrusive.

Anyone know if this guy ever said he loved his wife in public? He refers to his many years of marriage, but that's just a Mormon thing ~ kind of a cultural tic ~ but how married does he view himself.