Gay Patriot Header Image

Will contrast with Santorum help Romney among gays?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:54 pm - March 29, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Gay Politics

Among my gay friends and acquaintances, all but the most partisan Democrats have expressed dissatisfaction with the president, with some moderates deeming him a failure, others seeing him not up to the task of running the federal government and serving as the nation’s chief of state.

Now, to be sure, some will end up voting for Barack Obama this fall largely because he is the leading non-Republican candidate for president, but others have shown an openness to supporting Mitt Romney, some of them (entrepreneurs themselves) citing his experience in the private sector, others because he strikes them as relatively moderate . . . particularly in comparison to his chief opponent for the Republican nomination.

In some ways, that is perhaps the greatest irony of the Santorum surge these last seven weeks.  Contrasting that former Senator’s strange statements on homosexuality to Mitt Romney’s muted expressions of tolerance makes that latter appear more compelling by contrast.  Recall the former Massachusetts governor’s answer (in the ABC/Yahoo!/WMUR New Hampshire debate) to Diane Sawyer’s question about what he would say to a gay couple “sitting down in your living room” about the longing for “gay people to form loving, committed, long-term relationships”:

Well, the answer is, is that’s a wonderful thing to do, and that there’s every right for people in this country to form long- term committed relationships with one another. That doesn’t mean that they have to call it marriage or they have to receive the — the approval of the state and a marriage license and so forth for that to occur.

There can be domestic partnership benefits or — or a contractual relationship between two people, which would include, as — as Speaker Gingrich indicated, hospital visitation rights and the like. We can decide what kinds of benefits we might associate with people who form those kind of relationships, state by state.

Certainly not the ideal answer nor even the good compromise his fellow former governor Jon Huntsman articulated, but a decent answer nonetheless.  And one which recognized the capacity of gay men and women to form loving and lasting relationships.

NB:  My suggestion that a good number of gay people are open to Mitt Romney is not based on polling data, but anecdotal evidence.  Still, that some gays in Los Angeles express openness to the Republican frontrunner upends the left-wing gay narrative of an anti-gay GOP.

The irony here is that notion is bolstered by Santorum’s surprising surge, a surge which has given open-minded gays a better chance to appreciate Mitt Romney.

Share

48 Comments

  1. Until his alliance with NOM is brought up.

    Comment by rusty — March 29, 2012 @ 6:59 pm - March 29, 2012

  2. Alliance, rusty? Or signing a pledge as a matter of political convenience? I don’t like that he signed that — or that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage — but he’s not Rick Santorum and did express an openness (as the above quote makes clear) to a state-by-state approach.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 29, 2012 @ 7:01 pm - March 29, 2012

  3. Not aying Romney is a bit close to Santorum. Hell he has his history with Massachusett’s gay folk. But BDB, Romne’s sugnature is flying about and NOM is not looking very pretty. Right now

    Comment by rusty — March 29, 2012 @ 7:06 pm - March 29, 2012

  4. I’m still highly suspect of an individual participating in collusive litigation to impose homosexual marriage regardless of his current position. Where were his principles then?

    Gay ‘marriage’ not a right, prohibiting gay adoption not ‘discrimination’: European Court of Human Rights (REJECTION OF THE SOCIAL ACTIVISM OF THE APAs/ABA)

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-marriage-not-a-right-prohibiting-gay-adoption-not-discrimination-europe#

    “When Truth Becomes a ‘Crime Against Humanity”

    http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/newsarchives.php?id=1560293

    Sometimes you have to fight them on their terms……………..know your adversary

    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/12a/lively_ccr_lawsuit/index.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFIelKC_1V4 (the religious argument…………)

    Comment by rjligier — March 29, 2012 @ 7:42 pm - March 29, 2012

  5. The thing that bothers me about, Romney, is that after taking office he is going to become democrat light/RINO and work with democrats and democrat light republicans to bring us more of the same social bilge after the economy gets rolling, tax revenues go up and business feels “safe” again.

    Comment by Richard Bell — March 29, 2012 @ 7:46 pm - March 29, 2012

  6. In my view, the appearance of being “gay friendly” is not an asset for Romney. This is just a guess, but I would think the number of people that wouldn’t vote for Romney for that reason outnumbers the number of people that would vote for him for that reason.

    As for the narrative that the Republicans are anti-gay, Santorum is a good example of how that narrrative is bunk. I have seen no evidence that Rick Santorum is actually anti-gay. I have seen evidence that he is not (for example, his treatment of Robert Traynham). So, if one of the most allegedly viciously homophobic Republicans isn’t actually anti-gay, so much for the narrative. Of course, there are people that will view Santorum as anti-gay now matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented to them. But I’m not sure why the opinions of irrational people that won’t vote for the Republicans anyway would matter.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 29, 2012 @ 7:52 pm - March 29, 2012

  7. At this point I think GLBTs have decided if they can vote Romney. It’s a matter of turnout.

    Romney does not need to Sister Souljah – Santorum to get more gay votes.

    Romney needs to Sister Souljah – Obama.

    Comment by Geena — March 29, 2012 @ 8:30 pm - March 29, 2012

  8. While Romney is dull and not advocating large changes in the fed govt., he is the only chance at winning in November, so I support him. He’ll also get my monetary contributions.

    Comment by davinci — March 29, 2012 @ 8:47 pm - March 29, 2012

  9. Not as much as campaigning in tight jeans will.

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2012 @ 9:20 pm - March 29, 2012

  10. Richard, please provide your evidence that Romney is going to do that. And bear in mind that when he governed in Massachusetts, he faced an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature. Should he win this November, he will face a Republican Congress.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 29, 2012 @ 10:08 pm - March 29, 2012

  11. Alliance, rusty? Or signing a pledge as a matter of political convenience?

    There does seem to be a lack of introspection here. I easily can imagine someone here defending a Democratic politician with a similarly weak excuse and you laughing them of as being delusional if they actually believe such nonsense.

    Hell you lambasted me a while back over President Clinton’s support of DADT (including a certain 1996 radio ad), which I thought was a “matter of political convenience” myself, which you certainly didn’t believe.

    Richard, please provide your evidence that Romney is going to do that.

    Didn’t George W. Bush do pretty much exactly what he’s saying Romney will? Again, I recall you proudly talking about how much you criticized what Bush did while he was President. Bush was a Texas Republican too, not a Massachusetts Republican, and he had a Republican Congress to work with, which (despite your insistence) you simply cannot guarantee a potential President Romney would.

    Comment by Serenity — March 30, 2012 @ 3:26 am - March 30, 2012

  12. Absence of introspection, Serenity? Did you read the post or just the comments?

    I quoted what Mitt Romney actually said when asked about gay relationships in a debate and granted that while he was not the ideal answer, it was at least a decent response.

    And there is a difference between signing a pledge and running a radio ad. And please note I do criticize Romney for signing that pledge. The point I made above is that signing an outfit’s pledge doesn’t mean he’s forming an alliance with said outfit.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 30, 2012 @ 3:34 am - March 30, 2012

  13. Romney doesn’t have a conservative core. He doesn’t say “I’m a conservative,” He says, “I’m *running as* a conservative.” We all know Obama was ‘running as’ a moderate in 2008, but he has governed as a liberal progressive, if not a radical.

    The gravitational pull of Washington is to the left. It takes a strong core to resist it.

    Comment by V the K — March 30, 2012 @ 6:09 am - March 30, 2012

  14. Absence of introspection, Serenity? Did you read the post or just the comments?

    Well I just re-read it and it’s a lot of you talking about other people. That’s the opposite of introspection.

    I quoted what Mitt Romney actually said when asked about gay relationships in a debate and granted that while he was not the ideal answer, it was at least a decent response.

    Just like DADT was not an ideal policy but it was a decent piece of progressive legislation compared to the draconian total ban on gays and lesbians in the military that came before and Bill Clinton should be praised for the baby steps he took towards equality by enacting it. Glad to see we agree.

    And there is a difference between signing a pledge and running a radio ad.

    Oh yes, a very big difference! A pledge is meant to be binding! Mitt Romney should be criticized by all sides if he deviates from what he pledged to do if he deviates from it, because a pledge is a promise and to break that indicates both a lack of judgement and trustworthiness.

    A radio ad on the other hand is not a firm promise and while deviating from it is far from a good thing, it is not a serious as breaking an actual pledge that commits to a specific set of policies. Also Clinton’s ad was about what he had already done, not what he was going to do, so there were no promises to break. Finally his ad was about the enactment of DADT which, as I already stated, is something he was right to be proud of. Again, glad to see we agree.

    The point I made above is that signing an outfit’s pledge doesn’t mean he’s forming an alliance with said outfit.

    What does it mean then?

    I found an article talking about Romney signing the pledge, and it summed up what he agreed to do in five short points.

    #1: Sending a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman to the states for ratification.
    #2: Defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which includes the traditional definition of marriage and bans states from recognizing gay marriage, in court.
    #3: Appointing federal judges and an attorney general who are opposed to a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
    #4: Appointing a commission to investigate claims of harassment against those people who support marriage as being only between a man and a woman.
    #5: Supporting legislation that would give people living in the District of Columbia the right to vote on marriage.

    Aside from the fact that this pretty much automatically makes Mitt Romney considerably worse on SSM than Barack Obama (particularly point #1, where Obama has been in consistent opposition), isn’t this pretty much NOM’s entire federal agenda in one pledge? With the constitutional amendment, DOMA as a backup, and anti-SSM judges as a second backup, that would be the SSM issue pretty much wrapped up in NOM’s favour. So isn’t talk of an ‘alliance’ just semantics? Romney has pledged to support NOM’s full agenda, that’s the bottom line here.

    Comment by Serenity — March 30, 2012 @ 6:22 am - March 30, 2012

  15. We all know Obama was ‘running as’ a moderate in 2008, but he has governed as a liberal progressive, if not a radical.

    Yes, I agree, a lot of things people ‘know’ are indeed complete and utter horse crap of the highest degree. I rarely find myself in such total agreement on this blog. Most unusual.

    Comment by Serenity — March 30, 2012 @ 6:26 am - March 30, 2012

  16. In concluding his post, Dan states:

    Certainly not the ideal answer nor even the good compromise his fellow former governor Jon Huntsman articulated, but a decent answer nonetheless. And one which recognized the capacity of gay men and women to form loving and lasting relationships.

    Immediately Rusty brings a rejoinder which is not really contradictory, so much as shifting the point:

    Until his alliance with NOM is brought up.

    This is shifting the point, because it was made clear in the Romney quotes to Diane Sawyer that Romney does not favor SSM, but is fine with the states working out civil unions, as each of the states might determine.

    It is also clear that Dan was praising the answer as a “decent answer” that falls short of the compromise articulated by Jon Huntsman.

    Dan responded to Rusty:

    Alliance, rusty? Or signing a pledge as a matter of political convenience? I don’t like that he signed that — or that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage — but he’s not Rick Santorum and did express an openness (as the above quote makes clear) to a state-by-state approach.

    There is, of course, some practical difference of opinion as to whether Romney aligned himself with NOM or merely agreed with their petition. Is Romney a card carrying NOM activist or is he just of a mind to oppose SSM as NOM does? It is a difference without a distinction, unless you are an opponent striving to paint Romney is the boldest possible colors.

    Romney opposes same sex marriage. He favors civil unions on a state by state basis. (According to the quotes given Diane Sawyer.) Dan sees that a “decent answer” that moves the gay agenda forward in terms of recognizing “the capacity of gay men and women to form loving and lasting relationships.”

    What happens next is that Serenity charges Dan with a lack of “introspection” and relates it to some arcane foolish inconsistency she has found in the way Dan responded to some DADT issue with Clinton in the past and his comments above.

    I, for one, have no long blades out for Dan. I understand what he wrote in his post and I, for one, believe it is crystal clear and holds together, logically, like glue.

    However, there are those who think that Dan must reject everything short of SSM as the litmus test for speaking of gays being able to support Romney.

    That is a clear difference of opinion. It is not arguable. To continue on the course of argument is to do a piety dance and demand applause.

    Comment by heliotrope — March 30, 2012 @ 10:08 am - March 30, 2012

  17. What happens next is that Serenity charges Dan with a lack of “introspection” and relates it to some arcane foolish inconsistency she has found in the way Dan responded to some DADT issue with Clinton in the past and his comments above.

    What I want Dan to see is the way he lambastes liberals commenters for pivoting about, trying to find reasons why their preferred candidate is still the best option for LGBT voters even as it becomes obvious their record on LGBT issues is less than stellar, and relate it to the way he’s pivoting about right now trying to downplay the significance of Romney’s pledges against SSM (especially the constitutional amendment, at least admit that would be several steps back if he actually followed through with it) and portray him as a friend of the LGBT community.

    He’d not stand for this from anyone else, yet he’ll do it for his own preferred candidate without hesitation.

    Comment by Serenity — March 30, 2012 @ 10:42 am - March 30, 2012

  18. Pomposity, you yourself have stated that your only reason in coming to this blog is to antagonize and to troll.

    If you think I’m enjoying this, I am. A lot. No matter who wins the next election, everyone else in this thread will have multiple reasons to hate them. As for me, I stopped caring about two months ago. Makes very little difference to me either way, so I intend to antagonize all of you as much as possible and have some fun.

    Comment by Serenity — November 5, 2011 @ 6:40 am – November 5, 2011

    Therefore, Dan need prove nothing. You have stated that your only purpose is to anatagonize, so no one need review or take your statements seriously or as any demonstration of intelligence. Nor should anyone presume you are interested in honest debate, as your own words make clear.

    You are acting out of irrational hate, Pomposity, as you yourself have stated. Why, then, should anyone bother with rationality? You have no interest in, or capability to, accept it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 30, 2012 @ 10:54 am - March 30, 2012

  19. relate it to the way he’s pivoting about right now trying to downplay the significance of Romney’s pledges against SSM (especially the constitutional amendment, at least admit that would be several steps back if he actually followed through with it) and portray him as a friend of the LGBT community.

    Which part of….

    Well, the answer is, is that’s a wonderful thing to do, and that there’s every right for people in this country to form long- term committed relationships with one another. That doesn’t mean that they have to call it marriage or they have to receive the — the approval of the state and a marriage license and so forth for that to occur.

    There can be domestic partnership benefits or — or a contractual relationship between two people, which would include, as — as Speaker Gingrich indicated, hospital visitation rights and the like. We can decide what kinds of benefits we might associate with people who form those kind of relationships, state by state.

    ….these Romney quotes do you not understand?

    Which part of…

    Certainly not the ideal answer nor even the good compromise his fellow former governor Jon Huntsman articulated, but a decent answer nonetheless. And one which recognized the capacity of gay men and women to form loving and lasting relationships.

    ….Dan’s comment immediately following the Romney quotes do you not understand?

    And where is Republican Dan who is well to the right of liberal elevated to the level of speaking to the entire LGBT community? Of course, Serenity, Romney is never, ever, no way, uh-uh, going to be adopted as a “friend of the LGBT community” which is a permanent cabin holder on the Democrat plantation. Dan and his band of Uncle Tom’s are in a permanent underclass of lepers in the LGBT community.

    You pose a fact of status as some sort of argument. If Romney were to marry two men and a goat on MSNBC with Andrew Sullivan officiating and lead a gay pride parade across America, he would still not be “a friend of the LGBT community.”

    You want an intellectual argument? Then lay off shifting the topic and skewing the issue with broad bush claims.

    Comment by heliotrope — March 30, 2012 @ 11:08 am - March 30, 2012

  20. Will contrast with Santorum help Romney among gays?

    No.

    Mormons are EVIL. Period!!!!!! (as shown here)

    Even though he may not have meant it, he DID sign the NOM pledge non-the-less.

    Many moderates and independents will be able to vote for Romney, but there are very very few moderate gays who would be able to vote for Romney over Obama, especially since Obama did help end DADT.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 30, 2012 @ 11:46 am - March 30, 2012

  21. You pose a fact of status as some sort of argument. If Romney were to marry two men and a goat on MSNBC with Andrew Sullivan officiating and lead a gay pride parade across America, he would still not be “a friend of the LGBT community.”

    Comment by heliotrope — March 30, 2012 @ 11:08 am – March 30, 2012

    This, heliotrope, is the salient point.

    Republicans realized long ago that 75% of the gay and lesbian community, like Serenity, was completely in the tank for the Obama Party for reasons completely unrelated to their sexual orientation — and that the remaining 25% were viewed as race traitors by Serenity and its ilk.

    Hence why Republicans don’t bother pandering. As Pomposity and its ilk have demonstrated, party affiliation, not stances, are what drives their love and hate. They are aware that Pomposity and its ilk have no problem with “discrimination” and “harassment” as long as it’s the correct people doing it.

    Why should Romney demean himself with a piety dance for irrational idiots like Pomposity, for whom what he does will never be outweighed by the fact that he isn’t an Obama Party member?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 30, 2012 @ 11:56 am - March 30, 2012

  22. Sonic, I do disagree. A good number of moderate gays vote on other issues than gay ones. Once some see that he’s not anti-gay (as per his comments in the WMUR debate), they weigh other considerations. It will not likely not be a majority (of moderate gays), but it it will be much (much) more than a very very few.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 30, 2012 @ 12:00 pm - March 30, 2012

  23. Many moderates and independents will be able to vote for Romney, but there are very very few moderate gays who would be able to vote for Romney over Obama, especially since Obama did help end DADT.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 30, 2012 @ 11:46 am – March 30, 2012

    F*ck them.

    I mean, seriously? Why would any sane “moderate” vote for Obama, who is about as left-wing as you can get on the economy, defense, health care, etc., and who is outright SAYING that he will move even more hard-left once he has “flexibility” after the election?

    Answer: Because gays and lesbians overwhelmingly will vote themselves into slavery for a gay-sex marriage certificate.

    Which should do wonders in protecting them when the dirty bomb goes off, when terrorists take down the power grid, when your health insurance premiums triple, when inflation runs rampant, when gas hits $8 a gallon, when food costs quadruple, when their companies are forced out of business by crazy regulation and their jobs are lost, and when “justice” is being doled out based on skin color and minority status.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 30, 2012 @ 12:02 pm - March 30, 2012

  24. I mean, seriously. This is why Republicans do not bother with gays and lesbians. They realize that gays and lesbians overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly do not care about ANYTHING other than having their sexual orientation pandered to, and are nothing more than little plantation slaves who are just elbowing others to get farther forward in the welfare line.

    Show me a “moderate” gay who is going to vote for Obama. I will shred them. I will force them to admit that they don’t care about what Obama does to the economy, what he does to taxes, what he does to defense, how he destroys race relations, how he abuses his power, all these things — as long as he gives them a gay-sex marriage certificate.

    Which he’s already stated he’s not doing.

    This is bullsh*t. Any time, I repeat ANY time, a gay or lesbian person whines about how they won’t vote for Romney because of this, I will respond, “Oh, so you’re OK with having your taxes hiked 40% for a gay-sex marriage certificate?”

    Spoiled little worthless brats. That’s all the vast majority of gay and lesbian people are.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 30, 2012 @ 12:09 pm - March 30, 2012

  25. Sonic, I do disagree. A good number of moderate gays vote on other issues than gay ones. Once some see that he’s not anti-gay (as per his comments in the WMUR debate), they weigh other considerations. It will not likely not be a majority (of moderate gays), but it it will be much (much) more than a very very few.

    I don’t think so.

    The problem is – in politics – perception is EVERYTHING. Now, I know from personal experience that Mormons and Mormonism are not the anti-gay bookeyman Satan they are made out to be. But, with the Mormons heavily funding Prop 8 and other opposition to gay marriage, it’s very very difficult for people to not view Mormons and Republicans in a bad light, even if gay marriage is not your top concern. And seeing that Romney’s image with many, including many of the GP’ers here, is that of a man who will say anything or change a position depending on who he happens to be courting at the time, a nice speech my Romney just doesn’t carry very much weight.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 30, 2012 @ 12:52 pm - March 30, 2012

  26. Dan,

    You’ve stated that Romney is “not anti-gay”. This implies that you believe Santorum is anti-gay. How do you come to this conclusion? I’m not saying I agree nor disagree with you. I just wonder what criteria makes one candidate “anti-gay” and another candidate “not anti-gay”.

    When both candidates are on record as being in favor of (and therefore have the potential to) enshrining discrimination into our constitution, how does that translate one as “anti-gay” and the other “not anti-gay”?

    For the record I would tend to think that they are either both ‘anti’ or neither of them are ‘anti’. And furthermore (for the record), for me it doesn’t matter either way. I just don’t see a disparity between them. Agreeably, Romney is more passive to gays then Santorum, but that doesn’t make Santorum ‘anti-gay’ and not Romney.

    My inclination to Romney, and my vote for him should he win the nod, will be based on him as a whole and the political/economical situation as it stands today. But from my perspective, judging either candidate on his social policies would be like judging which cow pie has less steam rising off of it.

    I say that because in the end, I see little difference in either candidates overall social policies. And again, I just don’t care. I do not now and never will look to any president, would be president or governmental entity for my moral compass, nor for my personal security. I don’t believe any administration has ever had my best interest in mind nor could it ever.

    Since most politicians are ‘career politicians’, they are not our neighbor, and they don’t live the struggles or triumphs of the average citizen.

    As far as I am concerned, if more religiously fundamental voters want to vote for ANY candidate because of his or her religious/social stance, then I fully anticipate the gnashing of teeth that will follow when that winning administration decides this same religiously fundamental voting block is participating in something contrary to a ‘righteous’ and ‘virtuous’ life. Because that administration will be as good at that as every other thing a governmental agency is good at.

    But I digress.

    What defines one candidate as “anti-gay” and the other “not anti-gay”?

    Comment by Sandhorse — March 30, 2012 @ 1:11 pm - March 30, 2012

  27. F*ck them.

    I mean, seriously? Why would any sane “moderate” vote for Obama, who is about as left-wing as you can get on the economy, defense, health care, etc., and who is outright SAYING that he will move even more hard-left once he has “flexibility” after the election?

    Answer: Because gays and lesbians overwhelmingly will vote themselves into slavery for a gay-sex marriage certificate.

    No, it’s because many who are moderates and independent voters, tend to none-the-less vote typically and consistently either Conservative or Liberal. They are, for all intents and purposes, moderates or independents in name only. Don’t have time to find it, but there was a very interesting study last year that showed just this. Now, if you get something like the phenomenon that Obama created, even if it was manufactured on the vacuous premise of “Hope and Change”, that can change some votes. But we have nothing here in Romney that comes close to being someone who can persuade someone with liberal tendencies to cross ideological lines and vote Republican instead. He’s just not that convincing.

    Which should do wonders in protecting them when the dirty bomb goes off, when terrorists take down the power grid, when your health insurance premiums triple, when inflation runs rampant, when gas hits $8 a gallon, when food costs quadruple, when their companies are forced out of business by crazy regulation and their jobs are lost, and when “justice” is being doled out based on skin color and minority status.

    Because none of the above would happen when Republicans are in power.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 30, 2012 @ 1:14 pm - March 30, 2012

  28. Remember, Sonic, not all gays are as politicized as HRC folks would like and as my anecdotal evidence (provided above) indicates.

    Remember, they’re not voting for Romney in the abstract, but considering voting for him as an alternate to Obama. And sometimes in seeing someone in light of his comparison to another (i.e., the point of this post), we can better dismiss some of his imperfections.

    Romney’s faith will certainly hurt him with the most politicized gays, but many gays have more pressing financial concerns. And they’ll measure him not against the ideal, but against his fall opponent.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 30, 2012 @ 1:17 pm - March 30, 2012

  29. Because none of the above would happen, Sonic?

    Anything can happen. But the Obama Party’s policies and goals involve essentially precipitating and facilitating all of those things.

    Your argument is that, because Republicans are imperfect, I should instead support those who are malicious. No sale.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 30, 2012 @ 1:26 pm - March 30, 2012

  30. Your argument is that, because Republicans are imperfect, I should instead support those who are malicious. No sale.

    No, I’m not telling you how to vote. Just saying that a vote for Republicans doesn’t mean that those things don’t happen anyway.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 30, 2012 @ 3:42 pm - March 30, 2012

  31. Romney’s faith will certainly hurt him with the most politicized gays, but many gays have more pressing financial concerns. And they’ll measure him not against the ideal, but against his fall opponent.

    Agreed. But the other stuff – lack of historical solid stands on a variety of issues, unfortunately religion – will dissuade many moderates. I know Obama has not exactly been Mr. Consistent either, but he has the HUGE advantage of actually being in office. The known is often less scary than the unknown. As I’ve said before, above all else, it will be the economic trend that will ultimately determine this election. Remember, one of the strong factors that helped Reagan win in 1980, was that the economy was completely stagnant, not much of anything was moving or trending in a positive direction. If things seem like they continue to improve, and gas prices follow the typical trend and fall in October / November, then Obama is back in.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 30, 2012 @ 3:51 pm - March 30, 2012

  32. Any time, I repeat ANY time, a gay or lesbian person whines about how they won’t vote for Romney because of this, I will respond, “Oh, so you’re OK with having your taxes hiked 40% for a gay-sex marriage certificate?”

    Shouldn’t this be “Oh, so you’re OK with having your taxes hiked 40% for a gay-sex marriage certificate that Obama won’t give you anyway?” (Unless you live in one of the states that offers them, but I assume Obama wouldn’t have any control over that).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 30, 2012 @ 3:54 pm - March 30, 2012

  33. You’ve stated that Romney is “not anti-gay”. This implies that you believe Santorum is anti-gay.

    As I said in comment #6, I don’t think Santorum is anti-gay. Anti-gay meaning having animus against gay people strictly for their homosexuality, or wishing for them to be second-class citizens (and my definition of a second-class citizen is vastly divergent from the typical gay activist’s). This definition isn’t very clear, but hopefully it is good enough. As I said, the evidence I have seen indicates that Santorum is far from being anti-gay. As for his “strange statements on homosexuality,” I believe the notion that they have an inherent anti-gay sentiment has been largely debunked. I really don’t know why so many gay people viscerally hate Santorum so much (although, I have my suspicions as to why that is). I am not really a fan of Santorum’s (as a politician), but that is because of his “compassionate conservatism” (i.e. big government “conservatism”).

    Anyway, I agree that there isn’t much discernable difference between Romney’s and Santorum’s views of homosexuality, and, in my view, neither of them are anti-gay.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 30, 2012 @ 4:09 pm - March 30, 2012

  34. The known, Sonic, may be less scary than the unknown, but many people don’t like what they now know about Obama, now that he can no longer hide behind his campaign bromides.

    You’re right about economic trends. And unless we see a major uptick in income and a downtick in inflation, the economy won’t help this failed incumbent.

    If the election is a referendum on Obama, Republicans will win.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 30, 2012 @ 5:50 pm - March 30, 2012

  35. Until his alliance with NOM is brought up.

    Comment by rusty — March 29, 2012 @ 6:59 pm – March 29, 2012

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2012/03/30/Mitt_Romney_Is_a_NOM_Donor_Document_Shows/

    Comment by rusty — March 30, 2012 @ 6:56 pm - March 30, 2012

  36. a donation four years ago constitutes an alliance, rusty?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 30, 2012 @ 6:57 pm - March 30, 2012

  37. guess not. . .

    but BDB wanna post on this

    The leading national organization opposing same-sex marriage has sought to split the Democratic Party base by pitting African-Americans and Hispanics against gay-rights groups, according to confidential strategy memos made public by court officials in Maine.

    “The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks – two key Democratic constituencies,” says one of the memos. It also suggests “interrupting” the process of cultural assimilation for Hispanics in hopes of curtailing support for same-sex marriage.

    The documents, dating from 2009, were written by the National Organization for Marriage and had been kept from the public until Monday, when they were unsealed by court officials in Maine.

    They were part of a two-pronged legal challenge of Maine’s financial disclosure laws. Still unresolved is whether the NOM will have to release the names of donors to its successful 2009 campaign to ban same-sex marriage in Maine.

    Comment by rusty — March 30, 2012 @ 7:08 pm - March 30, 2012

  38. I intend to post on it, rusty, with a piece referencing this post–GOP Shift on Gay Marriage Opposition. More on this anon. The pink bowling ball story was too funny to pass up so I hit that first.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 30, 2012 @ 7:16 pm - March 30, 2012

  39. The leading national organization opposing same-sex marriage has sought to split the Democratic Party base by pitting African-Americans and Hispanics against gay-rights groups, according to confidential strategy memos made public by court officials in Maine.

    “The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks – two key Democratic constituencies,” says one of the memos. It also suggests “interrupting” the process of cultural assimilation for Hispanics in hopes of curtailing support for same-sex marriage.

    What, does this surprise anyone. Advocacy groups of all stripes do this kind of thing all the time.

    As they say…. It’s not a bug…. It’s a feature!

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 30, 2012 @ 7:24 pm - March 30, 2012

  40. And, for something completely different…. olbermann got the boot from Current TV.

    Man. If he can’t get along with people there, where the hell is he going to work…. Or is he going to launch his own network, like Glenn Beck did. Wouldn’t be a bad move. He does have a built-in audience.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 30, 2012 @ 7:40 pm - March 30, 2012

  41. BDB, link doesn’t work, but I think I know what you be talkin’ ’bout.

    Republicans retreat on gay marriage
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74661.html

    Comment by rusty — March 30, 2012 @ 8:23 pm - March 30, 2012

  42. Sorry link at 38 doesn’t seem to work

    Comment by rusty — March 30, 2012 @ 8:23 pm - March 30, 2012

  43. Fixed the link in comment #38.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 30, 2012 @ 8:29 pm - March 30, 2012

  44. Sonic >>> http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/3f6b83a7.jpg

    Comment by rusty — March 30, 2012 @ 8:41 pm - March 30, 2012

  45. and now Fred Karger, Thomas Roberts and Maggie.

    http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc-tv/46905649/#46905649

    Comment by rusty — March 31, 2012 @ 2:58 am - March 31, 2012

  46. Rusty,

    You posted the MSNBC clip without commenting. That is always confusing to me, especially when the the post is as blatantly biased as this one.

    Roberts clearly believes that “marriage equality” is noble and just and that N.O.M.’s Maggie Gallagher is a bigoted woman who is involved in a conspiracy of hate to divide gays from the Hispanic and blacks. She is fighting to undermine the civil rights of gays. She is collecting dirty money and hiding it to carry out her conspiracy of bigotry and hate.

    Fred Karger is simply the champion of truth, justice and the American Way.

    What confuses me is what MSNBC through Roberts is trying to say. If it is the policy of MSNBC to present SSM as a civil right and an immutable fact of social justice, then this report is just feeding pablum to children who need reassuring affirmation. Such reporting is useless in any way as a vehicle to reeducate those who do not support SSM. So, it is possible that the mission of MSNBC is to play to the various cabins on the Democrat plantations to keep them appeased.

    On the other hand, perhaps MSNBC is such an echo chamber that it is full of apostles all spreading the “good news” of social justice and the coming state of egalitarianism where every single soul is taken care of and every single soul is in a state bliss. But, until the promised land is reached and secured, MSNBC must beat the drums and sound the trumpets and organize the army of righteousness to defeat the existing order of evil and greed.

    Either way, Roberts is a perfect Baghdad Bob for the Bureau of Demagogic Doublespeak.

    Comment by heliotrope — March 31, 2012 @ 10:45 am - March 31, 2012

  47. No, heliotrope, Roberts is just ‘so damn cute’

    Comment by rusty — March 31, 2012 @ 11:45 am - March 31, 2012

  48. [...] an issue I’d been meaning to address about the National Organization for Marriage (yes, rusty, that’s the post I indicated here that intended to write) which helps show one trend [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Slow Blogging–Romney Becomes Presumptive GOP Nominee — April 12, 2012 @ 12:47 pm - April 12, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.