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
I don't agree that the number one issue is the economy. I think it's the relationship between the individual and the federal government. It's about our national identity and our fundamental liberties.
Nothing is more important in that regard than protecting marriage. Also, there is no more sure guarantee of ultimate economic collapse than further moral corruption. See ancient Rome.
Regardless, the media chooses what will be the debate. Republicans can only choose how to handle it. We can turn it to victory, or we can nervous and defensive.
Edited on May 10, 2012 at 6:53pmApr '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
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. Everybody has there own sexual peccadillo's , Both hetero and homo, Not sure for what purpose it should be "unhidden" For the world to see.
Apr '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
I think it's the relationship between the individual and the federal government. It's about our national identity and our fundamental liberties.Yet you still seem to imply that gubment should have a role in defining marriage...... How much more intrusive can ca gubment get than to tell us who we can and cannot have as life partners?
Feb '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Peter, those supporting same sex marriage are attempting to use government to change marriage. No one is trying to tell anyone who they can or can't take as life partners. Marriage is what it is, government only recognizes it and decides to interact with it in specific, formal ways; you don't need "official" marriage to take a life partner, do you? Government (the practical arm of the public) does this because marriage promises strong benefits to the public when it goes right and threatens heavy costs and burdens when it goes wrong. There is only one relationship form that fits here. Individuals sign up for the "official" version because they get the added protection (at least they used to) of enforcement and ease of legal maneuvering; individuals are free to avoid the official version and have their "life partnership" with whomever and however many whomevers they wish - but the public is not obliged to recognize or interact with such entities.
Edited on May 10, 2012 at 7:45pmApr '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Peter, those supporting same sex marriage are attempting to use government to change marriage. No one is trying to tell anyone who they can or can't take as life partners. All the state laws and changes to state constitutions (nc on tuesday) have been done to restrict who can marry whom. As for your second sentence, perhaps I should have specified "life marriage partners".
Feb '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Are you saying that same sex marriage has always been legal, and these current laws are an attempt to restrict something that has heretofore been unrestricted? I take the defense of marriage laws to be clarifications meant to fend off people willing to use courts or one-in all-in methods of changing what marriage is for all of us.
Why do you think that a person has the right to have their relationship recognized and protected by the state? If the government stopped recognizing any relationships as marriage, I would still be "married" in the religious and personal sense anyway. The question is, why would government bother to recognize any relationships in the first place? katievs has provided many articulate responses to this question, as have other posters. What benefit does ssm provide that government (society) should recognize it in any way?
Feb '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
dittoheadadt: Look, we in the Stupid Party continue to let the Left decide and define the terms of the debate. It was that way with contraception, and it's happening again now with SSM. As the WSJ wrote today, "Everyone agrees that the election's number one issue is the U.S. economy. Insofar as it's not really possible for Mr. Obama to change that subject, he can at least give the chattering classes something else to write about."
So let's NOT, for once, step to the plate in a game fixed by the Left and the media. No matter how Romney and the Right try to argue our point (and NR does a good job here and here), the media won't report it properly.
Let's not engage when the Left sets the trap. Let's keep our eye on the ball, and the ball is the economy and Obambi's abysmal record. · 3 hours ago
I'm glad you cited the NRO articles. I was going to cite those myself. Good editorial today over there, and the accompanying article is also good.
Feb '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
dittoheadadt
Yes, agreed. But that's why I think Romney and the Right should brush it off for now. Don't let the Left and the media redefine the election away from the primary focus - the economy and Obambi's record. There's plenty of time to deal with the SSM issue, but we should do it on OUR terms, on OUR timetable, based upon OUR election strategy.
Not the Left's and not the media's. · 3 hours ago
I agree we should be prudent about it, just as you say, so long as we do actually talk about it and don't simply postpone discussion indefinitely (as has been done previously).
Feb '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Ed G.
Peter, those supporting same sex marriage are attempting to use government to change marriage. No one is trying to tell anyone who they can or can't take as life partners.... Government (the practical arm of the public) does this because marriage promises strong benefits to the public when it goes right and threatens heavy costs and burdens when it goes wrong. There is only one relationship form that fits here. Individuals sign up for the "official" version because they get the added protection (at least they used to) of enforcement and ease of legal maneuvering; individuals are free to avoid the official version and have their "life partnership" with whomever and however many whomevers they wish - but the public is not obliged to recognize or interact with such entities. ·
Perfectly put, Ed.
May '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Not everybody has sexual peccadilloes. Nor should violence and perversity be classed as peccadilloes. This is a lie being perpetrated to make homosexuality appear perfectly normal when it's not.
The left, abetted by Hollywood and academia, has aggressively propagated the illusion that there is no important difference between homosexual liaisons and marriage. They do this in two ways.
1) By reducing marriage to nothing more than (as Joe Biden put it) a contract expressing love and loyalty, rather than a vital social institution founded in human nature as male and female and indispensable to the common good.
2) By hiding all kinds of "inconvenient truths" about homosexuality, including, for instance, the physical brutality of sodomy, its relation to AIDS and other terrible illnesses, the rampant promiscuity, anonymity and drug use common in "the gay community", the frequency of abuse of minors, and so on.
I don't say that every homosexual is guilty of these things. Not at all. I don't say that there aren't elements of genuine love and friendship and mutual concern to be found among them. Of course there are. They're human beings too.
Oct '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
katievs
I don't agree that the number one issue is the economy. I think it's the relationship between the individual and the federal government. It's about our national identity and our fundamental liberties.
Regardless, the media chooses what will be the debate. Republicans can only choose how to handle it. We can turn it to victory, or we can nervous and defensive.
It's the Democrat view of "...the relationship between the individual and the federal government...(and)...our national identity and our fundamental liberties" that is primarily responsible for the terrible economy. They're inextricably linked, and that's what we need to make sure is the front-and-center issue of this election. It's not SSM that imminently threatens the aforementioned relationship, our national identity, or our fundamental liberties.
And it's not "nervous and defensive" to refuse to play by the Dems' rules, to refuse to accept their false premises. It's nervous and defensive to LET them define the rules and premises, and then to engage on their terms.
May '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
I think Romney's position is fine--and politically astute. There are enough otherwise sane people who are pro-gay marriage that it's not worth th alienation of spelling it out a la Dennis Prager.
May '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
dittoheadadt
It's the Democrat view of "...the relationship between the individual and the federal government...(and)...our national identity and our fundamental liberties" that is primarily responsible for the terrible economy.
I agree they're linked, though I think the causes are deeper down than politics. In any case, would you agree that if we try to address the effects, while letting the causes escalate, we won't succeed?
I don't agree there. They are pushing aggressively, right now, to have marriage legally redefined. If they succeed, no economic measures will suffice to undo the damage that causes.
They have put the issue front and center. It seems to me our choice is to fight it or not fight it. If we back away from it as "a distraction", we're leaving the field to them.
Dec '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Exactly. Not to mention the federal govt doesn't have the luxury of spending time on this issue. Hey folks- Rome is burning- let Ryan and Rubio and (hopefully) Romney focus on getting the financials back on track. In the meantime, the states are perfectly capable of calling the shots on this particular issue (see NC). You want to be married in Vermont? Fine, but sure hope you don't want to move to Texas...
Dec '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
katievs
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.
In light of the Protestant work ethic on which this country was founded, I'd say you cannot have the latter without the former.
See: the Congo, North Korea, both Sudans, etc. There is a reason the poorest countries in the world are also the most corrupt.
Edited on May 11, 2012 at 1:21amApr '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Healthcare was a state issue. LBJ "fixed" that, such that healthcare now dominates the Federal budget. Reagan entrenched it further (EMTALA), and Clinton further still (HIPPA), such that a large portion of healthcare regulation and most of the economics spring from federal law. Social Security and Welfare, even more so. Education is more a state matter, as is abortion.
Hence, when Santorum, for instance, talked about education, his response was mostly that it's a state and local matter. Likewise, I don't think he had much of a plan for abortion reform, other than undoing Obama reforms.
Federal involvement in marriage is more recent and less deep than federal involvement in healthcare, welfare, and education. The Constitution as manifested in America today is still closer to its platonic form on the matter.
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Leporello
Ed G.
Peter, those supporting same sex marriage are attempting to use government to change marriage. No one is trying to tell anyone who they can or can't take as life partners.... Government (the practical arm of the public) does this because marriage promises strong benefits to the public when it goes right and threatens heavy costs and burdens when it goes wrong. There is only one relationship form that fits here.....
Perfectly put, Ed. ·
I agree, with one quibble; the government does dictate who can be your life partner; if I get divorced and in love with my sister and we wish to marry, I am in the same boat as if I fall in love with a boyfriend; we can do what we like, but the government will not offer tax benefits.
If I wish to marry her without divorcing, the government dictates my life partner; even de facto bigamy is criminalized. Likewise for Romeo and Juliet.
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
Leporello, do you believe that if Romney had come out with a powerful, stirring, and strong statement on SSM, that statement would be being linked with homophobic bullying today, and that SSM would be be more effectively portrayed as hateful homophobia as a result? Combined with the Grenell condemnations reminding people that some of the leading lights of the traditional marriage movement are simply vile homophobic bigots, it would have been devastating.
We can be confident that the issue will be discussed, as the DOMA case and Perry are both Federal issues (Perry because it's the federal Constitution being defined). Both of those are strong battlefields for us, particularly if we win in court, which I believe we will. NC was not a federal matter, did not feature an example of vivid liberal wrongdoing, and was wrongly believed by some to have all kinds of weird impacts.
We'll also have other events occur, news stories, etc. The trick is not to talk often, but to make it count when you do, and that involves getting the context right.
Feb '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Defense of Marriage
James Of England: ...some of the leading lights of the traditional marriage movement are simply vile homophobic bigots, it would have been devastating.
...
The trick is not to talk often, but to make it count when you do, and that involves getting the context right. · 5 minutes ago
Your first statement above is not just mistaken, but so biased, ignorant, and downright nasty, that I do not see the point in debating.
If the "trick" you describe is the standard, then Romney still failed abysmally.
Jan '12
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. · May 9 at 4:07pm
Yes, in today's political contests, the man who takes the wrong stand on a serious but not immediately devastating ethical invasion most likely will prevail over the man who takes no stand at all.
In time all this gleeful license will destroy the culture, but imps of that sort, being sterile, take a few decades to bring their mischief to completion. And who, since Keynes, cares about the long run anymore?
On that day moral traditionalists will know more tranquility absent than present. Whether in heaven or the void, they will not be slaves.
Edited on May 11, 2012 at 5:01am