Doing my mid-morning blog read and caught this in presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s speech this morning to the “annual NAACP convention in Houston”:
With 90 percent of African-Americans voting for Democrats, some of you may wonder why a Republican would bother to campaign in the African American community, and to address the NAACP. Of course, one reason is that I hope to represent all Americans, of every race, creed or sexual orientation, from the poorest to the richest and everyone in between.
Emphasis added. Interesting that he chose to add in “sexual orientation.” Good sign that he chose to include that expression.
Related: Emanuell Cleaver tweeted that Obama should not critize Romney in front of whites.
The Log Cabin Republicans released a statement saying they were ‘heartened” by Romney’s “inclusive tone, and added Romney “deserves credit for taking the step to include sexual orientation by name.” But R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director, also noted:
That said, it is unfortunate that he countered his outreach to gay and lesbian Americans with a gratuitous attack on the freedom to marry. If Governor Romney truly desires to represent all Americans, Log Cabin Republicans encourages him to avoid divisive social issues and focus on jobs and the economy.
Problem with Log Cabin’s analysis, rusty, is that Mitt Romney didn’t make an attack on the freedom to marry. He made clear his support for state recognition of traditional marriage, but didn’t attempt to prevent gay couples from defining their unions as marriage or see church/synagogue sanction as such.
Clarke has done a lot of good at Log Cabin, but when it comes to some issues, he still borrows the lingo of the gay left.
Will be interested to see what the baroness and his hubby would have to say. Of course Chris and his partner certainly wouldn’t barrow lingo from the left, nor would Ric Grennell
No politician–conservative or liberal–cannot expect to be called out on the “leave it to the states” argument when it comes to marriage equality, as long as DOMA is on the books. “Leaving it to the states” means very little in that context. However, distinctions can be made between two people who make the same argument:
Romney: is willing to “defend traditional marriage.”
Obama: “I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”
Cinesnatch, Barry O, in his “historic” declaration, said it should be left to the states. Obviouly, he’s an evil homophobic Tea Partier.
Cinesnatch you’re slightly wrong there.
Obama: “I think the states should decide.”
Fixed that for you.
“but didn’t attempt to prevent gay couples from defining their unions as marriage or see church/synagogue sanction as such.”
Are you saying Romny deserves credit for not attempting to dictate the content or gender make-up of religious ceremonies, something politicians can’t do anyway?
The issue is not private religious ceremonies, as you well know, BDB. Romney is on record as opposing civil marriage equality and wanting to amend the Constitution, which would not only ban state-recognized civil marriage for same-sex couples (and all the legal benefits and family protections and obligations which flow from a marriage license) but forcibly divorce all those married in states which already do allow it. And he *does* oppose civil unions which offer the same benefits as marriage. He also would continue to defend DOMA. Link
I don’t expect you to throw all your conservative principles out the window just because Obama is “better” than Romney on gay marriage – that is but one issue out of the many challenges our country is facing – but please don’t minimize or evade how extreme Romney’s position truly is.
Hmm, so he pledges to uphold and faithfully execute the laws of the united states.
Though I am amused you fully support it if a President Romney decided to not pursue hate crimes laws, or crimes against abortion clinics, contrib
The “…leave it to the States” argument would be more convincing if it were not for DOMA, since Federal Statute trumps even a State’s Constitution.
Livewire, you have your talking points thrown off by your ODS.
Obama is upholding and executing DOMA, as he is bound to do. He even defended DOMA in court, as he is bound to do, until it was held to be unconstitutional by several federal courts; regardless, he is still upholding it until SCOTUS makes a final ruling. (The GOP is still spending taxpayer dollars on defending it, though)
And are your fabricated accusations as to my positions on other issues just your way of saying you can’t address Romney’s positions and want to change the subject?
There is still no law anywhere that prevents Same Sex Coupes from forming committed relationships, or having ceremonies to mark those relationships; nor are there any plans to implement such laws.
RE: #6, #7 :
“leave it to the states” is weak, but a distinction is made between someone from that camp who openly supports gay marriage and someone who vows to protect traditional marriage.
I’m sorry the nuance isn’t glaring enough for you to to see.
But there are laws, and Romney supports those laws and amending the Constitution to go even further on, restricting those same-sex couples and their families from having the legal protections and obligations which straight couples and their families have access to.
Your position, vtk, amounts to, “Well, no one will throw in jail for dating or having a legally-meaningless ceremony with your boyfriend.” Sure, and no one would throw an interracial couple in jail for dating, but they were barred from receiving a marriage license.
awww, isn’t it amusing how contrib tries to ignore facts?
Obama is not defending nor enforcing all the law.. So if you’re fine with him doing that, I’m pointing out you wouldn’t have an issue with Romney doing the same thing. Thank you for conceeding that point.
Sorry that my talking points are facts. You may choose to aquaint yourself with them.
Forgot the link here
What? Obama lied? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.
Livewire, you didn’t read the whole article. I’m shocked, shocked, etc.
I left in the inflammatory language for your sake.
So, IOW, the Obama administration is complying with a non-stayed federal court order regarding one specific case. You would have them defy a court and continue to screw over a worker because the whole law hasn’t been struck down yet? With respect to this one worker and her case, the government lost. Why should they defy a court? Just to prove they don’t like gays?
And since you haven’t addressed any of Romney’s positions here, I am assuming you agree you can’t defend them?
Shorter Hmm: “My relationship means nothing if I’m not receiving state benefits.”
The Leftists will find any reason to be against Romney because he is a Republican. Logic has nothing to do with the debate; he’s a Republican–the enemy. And, to Democrats, he must be destroyed.
Sebastian, the gay left won’t stop hating Republicans or supporting the Demosocialists even if Republicans support gay marriage; so what, politically, is in it for Republicans?
Here is a msg I sent earlier this week to the Romney campaign HQ. Maybe they considered the proposition:
I am a gay republican. Please don’t alienate me and other similar individuals.. .. .. Grant me one brief indulgence. Pretend that you were sitting with family for breakfast this morning and one of your sons spoke up and said “Mom, Dad, I think you should know by now I like guys. I thot I’d better mention it because it is likely to be discovered in the coming weeks of the DNC blitzkreig of our family life.” This scenario, sans the DNC implications, plays out “live” in the homes of many, many families, American and otherwise. Since our families don’t go on TV with it, our presence and numbers are hard to measure. None the less, millions of republican voters are gay themselves or have children or siblings or cousins who are. Note that according to most New Testament stories, Jesus told us he did not come here to condemn anyone. If Jesus hesitates to condemn, what fool would rush to do so? Why should republicans adopt positions condemning me? Or deny me a marriage license only on the basis of the sex of my would-be spouse? .. .. .. How would you and your family treat your gay son? I can tell you how my family teats me. .. .. .. If you can publicly state that the federal government should treat its gay citizens the same way you would treat your gay son then I will send you my $$$. And my vote. Remember, not all gays are willing to let the liberal left do their thinking for them.
Best Regards, Matt
So, I notice Mittens got a big applause line praising traditional marriage in front of the NAACP
[Insert photo of Willy Wonka]
That must be pretty awkward for you gay libs.
So in other words… he’s not enforcing the law.
Like I said, you might want to get to know facts.
No, it’s okay as long as the NAACP is opposed to Republicans. That’s all that matters.
Former Alabama congressman Artur Davis, who recently switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican, said that Romney isn’t likely to change many minds but that the GOP must think about the party’s path “post-Obama, when the intense attachment that African Americans feel towards Barack Obama is not going to be a factor.
“I don’t know that Mitt Romney is going to the NAACP to get votes, and I don’t know that he is going there to persuade any sizable numbers of black voters to vote for him. I don’t see any realistic chance of Romney doing any better than John McCain, and it’s not a terribly important question,” Davis said. “The more relevant test is whether a President Mitt Romney is going to govern in an inclusive way. There is a group of white voters who don’t want to vote for a party that is racially exclusive . . . so Mitt Romney reaching out to African Americans is perhaps a statement to those group of voters.”
Since when has the law mattered a damn to the lawless regime? He ignores congress and has ignored federal bankruptcy laws so why would he let some court get in his way? If he were truly interested in doing the right thing (or even politically expedient) he would’ve done so.
And you know he’s not going to be anywhere near gay folks for next few months. So why the continuing circle jerk about how much he just loves gays?
So flip-flopping worse than a Kerry on the campaign trail is better?
“That must be pretty awkward for you gay libs.”
I don’t know what you mean, so please amplify.
But clearly you do let the gay left do your thinking for you, Matman, so who cares?
I mean, seriously. You do nothing in your “statement” other than whine about gay-sex marriage and call anyone who disagrees with you a hater.
Nowhere do you talk about jobs, the economy, national defense, taxes, or anything else. It’s all liberal talking points, gay-sex marriage, whine whine whine, if you don’t give me gay-sex marriage it means you hate your gay children, etc.
Romney would be patently stupid to change for you. You’re just throwing a temper tantrum, screaming and whining and stomping your feet about how mean he is and how he hates gay people — unless he gives you what he wants. It would be delusional for Romney to pander to a spoiled brat like yourself; all that would happen is that you would find something else to demand, and start screaming and calling him a hater unless he gave it to you.
Romney has raised children. He recognizes childish games and tantrum-throwing. And that’s exactly how he sees the gay community because of leftist idiots like yourself who can’t grow up and act like adults.
Seems to be no problem elsewhere.
So perhaps you desperate gay-sex liberal Obama supporters can explain that one. Better yet, why don’t you elucidate to us exactly why using executive orders to ignore Congress and overturn established laws was worthy of impeachment previously, but not when your racist Messiah is in power?