Say Anything
May. 12th, 2012 12:38 pm![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
giandujakissMitt Romney, Thursday:
Mitt Romney, Friday:
To put it another way:
I believe that marriage has been defined the same way for literally thousands of years by virtually every civilization in history, and that marriage is literally, by its definition, a relationship between a man and a woman. And if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, or even to adopt a child -- in my state individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view, that’s something that people have a right to do. But to call that marriage is something that in my view is a departure from the real meaning of that word.
I know for many people, the issue of marriage is going to be a defining issue, and they will make their decision on that basis. That is their right. But you don’t change your position to try to win states or certain subgroups of Americans.
Mitt Romney, Friday:
On Friday,he was asked, in an interview with CBS affiliate WBTV in Charlotte, N.C., how his opposition to gay marriage “squared” with his support for gay adoptions. Romney told anchor Paul Cameron, “Well, actually I think all states but one allow gay adoption, so that’s a position which has been decided by most of the state legislatures, including the one in my state some time ago. So I simply acknowledge the fact that gay adoption is legal in all states but one.”Actually, all states but one permit (in theory) gay adoption by an individual; very few permit gay adoption by couples, or, as Mitt Romney originally put it, by "people of the same gender [who] want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, or even to adopt a child."
To put it another way:
no subject
Date: 2012-05-12 07:55 pm (UTC)(and further to the his first sentence in the first quotation, AUGH. Could someone shove a copy of Marriage: A History (or, if there's an even better book on the subject, that) into his hands and make him read it? And ditto for everyone else arguing for "traditional" marriage? Because that is PATENTLY untrue; and also, discussion of historical facts is not something that should be couched in language of "belief", what the hell.)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-12 11:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-12 11:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-13 03:29 am (UTC)HE'S A MORMON.
HE'S A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS.
The man can almost certainly trace his ancestry back to polygamists in the last 200 years.
Holy fucking Christ.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-13 01:04 pm (UTC)