Gay Patriot Header Image

Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:45 pm - May 12, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Strong Women

“Boys,” Anne Moir and David Jessel in Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women, “tend to seek out dares or challenges to flex their adolescent muscles in obedience to the dictates of their adolescent hormones.”  They seem particularly unruly in all male environments without the tempering influence of girls.

So Mitt Romney’s adolescent antics seem par for the course.  He was, after all, a student at an all boys school.  Whether or not it is true that he bullied a classmate, cruelly cutting his hair, he doesn’t seem to have kept up with his antics in the past 47 years, particularly in the past 43, that is, since March 21, 1969, a few days after celebrating his 22nd birthday, when he married his high school sweetheart, Ann Lois Davies.

Maybe it was dating her in 1965 that caused him to clean up his act.  Women do have that effect on men.

The prankster Mitt knew he needed to become a better person in order to merit the fetching Miss Davies.  And given that Ann had broken up with Mitt after they had “informally agreed to marriage after his senior prom in June 1965“, he knew he’d have to be on his best behavior to win her back.

Mitt very much seems devoted to Ann.  Just watch him when they’re on stage together and she’s introducing him; he’s got this goofy affectionate look, as if he can’t believe this woman would, of all the men in the world, choose him — and stick with him for more than four decades:

So perhaps Romney bullied a classmate.  The story, if true, paints a picture of a callous, insensitive young man.  But, things have changed for that young man in the intervening forty-odd years.  The adolescent Mitt Romney, however, is not running for president.  The former Ann Davies’s husband is.

GOProud, Log Cabin deliver stern warnings to Mitt Romney

What Log Cabin Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper giveth in one release on Thursday, with his strong statement on Obama’s fundraising pitch to the gay community, he taketh (partially) away in another that very day with a threatening language  directed against his own party’s presidential nominee:

Marriage equality has captured the nation’s attention, and the response to President Obama’s announcement is evidence of the tide turning in favor of equality for all. . . .

Governor Mitt Romney’s statement in opposition to not just marriage but civil unions jeopardizes his ability to win moderates, women and younger voters, especially as a large majority of Americans favor some form of relationship recognition for their LGBT friends and neighbors.

Equality for all?  What’s that mean?  It’s certainly not a conservative slogan, but one more familiar to a Mr. W. Smith.

Clarke is right to criticize Romney for his “opposition to not just marriage but civil unions”, but his tone is counterproductive.  Moderates, women and younger voters won’t vote against him because of his stand on gay marriage.  They will, however, vote against him if he makes that stand central to his campaign.  They’re not going to decide their vote exclusively on gay marriage.  He would have served himself (and the cause of his organization) better had he merely expressed disappointment with Romney’s position.

Clarke is not the only non-left gay leader to offer intemperate remarks about Romney this week.  Our pal JimmyLaSalvia, Executive Director and Co-Founder of GOProud, “With his speech at Falwell’s Liberty University, it is clear that Governor Romney’s message to Goldwater conservatives is: drop dead.”  Earlier today, Governor Romney delivered the commencement address there.

While we would rather the Republican nominee not have to make a courtesy call at Jerry Falwell U (as have all Republican candidates “in recent years“), Romney’s speech hardly amounted to a repudiation of Goldwater’s small government ideals.  Indeed, his talk barely touched upon government’s role in society, save to remind the graduating students that “Religious liberty is the first freedom in our Constitution“. He focused instead on the importance of family and faith.

And he did say, what we already know him to believe, “Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.” He offered nothing new on social issues — and didn’t attack gay people or advocate policies anathema to libertarians. (more…)

Don’t Blame Me, Jerry, I voted for Meg

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:18 pm - May 12, 2012.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,California politics

California deficit has soared to $16 billion, Gov. Jerry Brown says:

Gov. Jerry Brown announced on Saturday that the state’s deficit has ballooned to $16 billion, a huge increase over his $9.2-billion estimate in January.

The bigger deficit is a significant setback for California, which has struggled to turn the page on a devastating budget crisis. Brown, who announced the deficit on YouTube, is expected to outline his full budget proposal on Monday in Sacramento.

“This means we will have to go much further, and make cuts far greater, than I asked for at the beginning of the year,” Brown said in the video.

Good.  Jerry, you also might want to consider repealing the Dills Act. That could go a long way to cutting the costs of state government.

Gay marriage won’t decide the 2012 election . . .

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:18 pm - May 12, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Gay Marriage

Gay marriage will not decide the 2012 election unless either major party candidate makes it the focus of his campaign. The one that does that will indeed decide the election — for his opponent.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, for the record supports gay marriage; the presumptive Republican opposes it.

Ed Morrissey contends that the manner in which the Democratic candidate came out for gay marriage could hurt him:

When a President goes out of his way to support a position that state after state opposes — same-sex marriage — it’s not going to have a positive result on polling.  It helps even less when (a) no one really believed Obama’s stated former position, and (b) the President has to get pushed into telling the truth, by his own admission, by a Vice President stumbling his way off the reservation.  No matter what the White House wants to claim as courage in this decision, it hardly looks like leadership.

It goes to Obama’s approach to the issue.  People do see it as a pandering political move.  This may excite a lot of left-of-center, but most were already favorably disposed to the Democrat anyway.  This decision will, to be sure, help in Obama’s fundraising — the likely reason for the sudden shift.

The bottom line is that, cultural issues in general (including gay marriage) “rank low”, as Morrissey reports, on voters’ lists of priorities.  If either candidate dwells on the issue, voters may wonder about his commitment to address the nation’s more pressing problems.