Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Mitt Romney responded to the president's announcement today by stating:
States are able to make decisions with regard to domestic partnership benefits such as hospital visitation rights, benefits and so forth of various kinds can be determined state by state, but my view is that marriage itself is a relationship between a man and a woman and that's my own preference. I know other people have differing views. This is a very tender and sensitive topic as are many social issues, but I have the same view that I've had since running for office.
"My view"? "My own preference"? "A very tender and sensitive topic"?
The president's view is that justice requires same-sex marriage, but Mr. Romney couches his response in terms of personal subjectivism. Which claim will be more persuasive to citizens who have not made up their minds on this question?
Furthermore, Mr. Romney does a great injustice to marriage and to conservatism by suggesting that nothing more than taste stands in the way of granting same-sex couples "full civil rights," as the Left would put it. There are reasons - numerous, strong reasons - why marriage must remain between a man and a woman. Does he know any of these reasons? Will he be able to learn them, enunciate them, defend them? (He might educate himself by reading the many articles by Professor Lynn Wardle, a fine scholar and fellow Mormon.)
Marriage will continue to lose ground if the GOP cannot provide a cogent and confident case for its survival.
We have arrived at this desperate point today, in which same-sex marriage is favored by most of one party and by a portion of the other party as well, largely because the GOP has refrained from opposing the Left's zealous indignation. In the absence of serious opposition, the Left has advanced by default. And now a majority of Americans may not even be able to explain the purpose of marriage.
We are losing because we have not fought enough - not intelligently enough, bravely enough, doggedly enough. Mr. Romney's sensitive relativism will not reverse the tide of battle.
- Comment (91)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
This is my worry too. I just posted a comment about it on TR's thread on the home page.
I am very worried that this was a diabolically clever move by Obama. He is pressuring Romney on a point where Romney is weak. He's weak both in his support of marriage and in his willingness to take a strong stand on a controversial question. Plus he's surrounded by Establishment types who want the social issues to go away.
Way to put a wedge between the candidate and the base.
Feb '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Katie: I wish I didn't agree with you! I would like to be persuaded there is reason to hope that Mr. Romney will make a better case in the future.
I hadn't thought about the cleverness of the president's tactical move against Mr. Romney here. Good point. Let's hope he is a speedy learner, and can summon up the courage demanded by the moment. The re-election of the president after his statement today would, for the first time, give the majority's stamp of approval to same-sex marriage.
Jun '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
To be fair, any initiative to redefine marriage, nationally, is not going to originate from the White House. It will come either from Congress or the Courts. In the case of Congress, Presidents don't get to weigh in until there's something on paper, something specific. And in the case of the courts, Presidents don't get to weigh in at all, and shouldn't.
Feb '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
The president nominates judges and justices who have ruled and will continue to rule on this question. The president also plays a large role in setting the agenda for Congress. Furthermore, he has a certain amount of influence over public opinion when he speaks from the presidential pulpit.
Jun '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Leporello
The president nominates judges and justices who have ruled and will continue to rule on this question. The president also plays a large role in setting the agenda for Congress. Furthermore, he has a certain amount of influence over public opinion when he speaks from the presidential pulpit. · 2 minutes ago
I'd be very surprised if that was one of Romney's litmus tests for justices, or even came up as a specific issue. I hope the philosophical vetting is more general than that.
Feb '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
etoiledunord
I'd be very surprised if that was one of Romney's litmus tests for justices, or even came up as a specific issue. I hope the philosophical vetting is more general than that.
You may be right about Mr. Romney, but I disagree with that approach. We're beyond the time when we can suffer the risk of a justice who will vote to impose same-sex marriage, to uphold Roe, or extend the life of many other leftist precedents with no basis in the Constitution. If we want more Kennedys and O'Connors and Blackmuns, a general, philosophical vetting will be sufficient. If we want more Thomases, a more careful and thorough vetting will be required.
Edited on May 10, 2012 at 1:56amJul '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
I don't care if he needs to open mouth kiss Elton John to get this commie out of the white house.
Romney is a finger in the wind guy. Expect nothing better. Sadly, this is what we get to vote for but vote I will.
Feb '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
DocJay: I don't care if he needs to open mouth kiss Elton John to get this commie out of the white house.
Romney is a finger in the wind guy. Expect nothing better. Sadly, this is what we get to vote for but vote I will. · 4 minutes ago
The economy cannot be repaired, nor our liberties preserved, if marriage and the family continue to fail.
Dec '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Leporello
DocJay: I don't care if he needs to open mouth kiss Elton John to get this commie out of the white house.
Romney is a finger in the wind guy. Expect nothing better. Sadly, this is what we get to vote for but vote I will. · 4 minutes ago
The economy cannot be repaired, nor our liberties preserved, if marriage and the family continue to fail. · 4 minutes ago
Perfectly stated.
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
katievs: This is my worry too. I just posted a comment about it on TR's thread on the home page.
I am very worried that this was a diabolically clever move by Obama. He is pressuring Romney on a point where Romney is weak. He's weak both in his support of marriage and in his willingness to take a strong stand on a controversial question. Plus he's surrounded by Establishment types who want the social issues to go away.
Way to put a wedge between the candidate and the base. · 3 hours ago
Cross-posted from my response on your thread there: Why do you think that he'd have fought for marriage so hard in Massachusetts, and then not fight when faced with a much more conservative electorate, judiciary and legislature? His Massachusetts record includes vigorous promotion of a failed constitutional amendment (amassing 170k signatures for a petition and successfully litigating when the legislature tried to block it), limitation of SSM to Mass. citizens, and a leading role in promoting the FMA and various state amendments. Maritally, how are Ryan or Walker better?
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Leporello gives an answer to that. It's my instinct, though, that Mitt was saying that, with the exception of the DOMA, which he would protect, and the FMA, which he led the fight on and continues to support, it's a state matter. He supports state efforts to pass amendments like North Carolina's, but he does so with persuasion only. It's easy to get overexcited by brief, out of context, quotes, but Mitt's got an immense record on one of the defining issues of his governorship, and it's one of fighting hard on the issue.
May '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
James Of England
Why do you think that he'd have fought for marriage so hard in Massachusetts
He failed there, though, didn't he? He fought like someone who wants to make sure he can say he fought, not like someone who intends to win the fight.
They're much more articulate, and much more convinced, in their gut, that restoring fiscal sanity to America means restoring moral sanity.
May '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
But, James, I hope you're right. I hope Romney vindicates and more than vindicates all your best hopes for him. Maybe he will.
May God give him strength and courage and clarity for the battle ahead.
Feb '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
If I argue a case badly in front of the Supreme Court, I can hardly excuse myself by saying that I argued the case well before the district and circuit judges.
If Mr. Romney fought for marriage in Massachusetts, he should be able to remember some of the reasons and provide them now. In fact, he should be able to do it on the spur of the moment. And he should be able to speak confidently. Instead, he melted. It wasn't merely a matter of awkwardness or ineloquence, where the ideas are there but the words aren't quite right. It was a complete failure.
Apr '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
We are losing because we have not fought enough - not intelligently enough, bravely enough, doggedly enough. Mr. Romney's sensitive relativism will not reverse the tide of battle.The issue is losing because people, unlike 30 years ago, work with, socialize with and pray with openly gay individuals. People see first hand that gays have the same dreams and aspirations as hetero's.. Hence it is harder and harder to rationalize unequal treatment.
Oct '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Gay marriage is not going to hurt obama with his base or with independents.
But it will hurt moderate Mitt with his social conservative base.
Feb '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
There are many reasons for the change in attitude, not least of which is Hollywood's constant marketing in favor of same-sex couples (as our sage vice-president himself pointed out the other day).
Also, for decades, marriage has been denigrated as feminists and other leftists assaulted it as stifling for women and unnecessary for children. Since we have treated marriage as unworthy of respect, we find it difficult to explain why others should not share in it.
Above all, as Robert Lux wrote on Ricochet not long ago, there is the embrace of libidinal satisfaction - of any sort - as a fundamental right, in fact as the fundamental right, and as the key to a happy life.
This two-page article by Maggie Gallagher summarizes our predicament very well.
Edited on May 10, 2012 at 5:20amMay '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Precious Peter:
...People see first hand that gays have the same dreams and aspirations as hetero's.. Hence it is harder and harder to rationalize unequal treatment.
You know what else accounts for the shift in opinion? A massive propaganda effort, including a lot of lies and distortions and hiding of truth, design to convince the public that there's no difference at all between homosex and sex between husband and wife.
May '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Jinx.
Feb '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Same-sex couples are not the same as male-female couples. Are you aware of the much higher rate of infidelity, especially among male same-sex couples? There is also a higher rate of abuse.
You might take a look at pp. 466-67 of this article by Prof. Wardle for some interesting statistics based on a number of different studies.
But this sort of information is not disseminated. (Indeed, merely raising it for discussion brands one as a bigot.)
Edited on May 10, 2012 at 5:29am