Mitt Romney has joined Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum in signing the National Organization for Marriage pledge:The three have now promised to not only support amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage but also to nominate judges who say the Constitution doesn't guarantee marriage equality.Romney refused to sign the earlier Iowa Family Leader pledge because it was, "undignified and inappropriate". Bachmann and Santorum had signed that pledge as well.
The to-do list doesn't stop there. As part of the pledge, they swear to put gay marriage up to a vote in the District of Columbia, where local lawmakers made it legal. They promise to fight for the Defense of Marriage Act in court — something President Barack Obama isn't doing.
The Full story is here.
Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.
Let the spin begin.
ReplyDeleteHe signed: He's pandering,
He makes no comment: His finger is in the wind,
He doesn't sign: He never was a real conservative.
Ha ha. Romney can't win with some people.
-Martha
Oh, I'm sure we'll even see some flip-flopping allegations. "First he's against signing a marriage pledge and now he's for it." Yawn.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, he throws the Martha-Doug wing of his camp under the bus. Oh what fun.
ReplyDeleteWhat wing would that be, OJ?
ReplyDeleteUnlike Palin-drones, who can't think for themselves or dirgress from her sacred scroll dictate,I don't need to agree with Romney on each and every issue.
ReplyDeleteI respect his support for marriage, but I don't share the idea of banning gay marriage or a Constitutional Admendment doing such a thing.
But if it tickles you to see folks who support a candidate have differing views, have at it.
Actually OJ, you youself may want to try it sometime. I'd be interested in knowing on what issues you disagree with the Artic Fox...er Palin (I've been reading too much Tex lately, apologies).
I have a different view on this.
ReplyDeleteIf gays want to wed in civil unions, I have no problem. Even give them the same legal rights of a standard marriage. JUST DON'T CALL IT, "MARRIAGE". Call it something else.
By definition, "Marriage" is the civil union between a male and female. I would be for a federal law/act protecting that definition.
Government only gets in the marriage business because it has a vested interest in reinforcing institutions that propagate the next generation. It has no business getting involved in whatever other romantic situation anybody else wants.
ReplyDeletemikeZ
And Martha, great comment!
ReplyDeletemikeZ
arctic fox? Doug how dare you talk down to the queen! Off with his head!
ReplyDeleteLittle testy again, Doug?
ReplyDeleteOJ,
ReplyDeleteI was not being testy. :)
I was just get amused at some of your claims. The "Martha-Doug" wing? LOL
I'm not important or influencial enough to warrant a wing named after me.
I'm one who thinks 'marriage' should be between one man and one woman. HOWEVER, I also side with Bosman, that there needs to be something else in place (not called 'marriage') that gives the same rights and protections to those who choose a different lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteAh heck. forget to sign in. 12:59 was me. Ellie.
ReplyDeleteChanging the definition of "marriage" to include gays is just the next step to allowing polygamous unions and all other types of redefinitions. Pretty soon, the term "married" will have no definition at all. I am like many of you, I believe we need to protect traditional "marriage," but I am not opposed to trying to make sure that people who live other lifestyles have legal remedies for their situations.
ReplyDeleteWhen we allow the definition of marriage to be changed, we will also be forced to change all teachings in textbooks, and public places, and schools. It will become more important to teach children about gender and gender deviations than it will be teach them math, reading and writing. We cannot afford to be distracted by social issues in the schools. We need to stay focused on preparing our children to compete in a world economy. "Gender education" will not help them do that.
AZ
You are so right! We can be sensitive to other choices while
ReplyDeletenot fundamentally changing a tradition that has been recognized
for 1,000's of years. Marriage between a Man and a Woman
is the foundation for any culture, and one in which Children
are born. So many words today have become meaningless, that
we are finding harder and harder to communicate with each
other, because we aren't quite sure what someone else means,
so let's not let Marriage as has been traditionally understood
be one of them.
Anonymous said...
Changing the definition of "marriage" to include gays
is just the next step to allowing polygamous unions and
all other types of redefinitions. Pretty soon, the term
"married" will have no definition at all. I am like many
of you, I believe we need to protect traditional "marriage,"
but I am not opposed to trying to make sure that people who
live other lifestyles have legal remedies for their situations.
When we allow the definition of marriage to be changed,
we will also be forced to change all teachings in textbooks,
and public places, and schools. It will become more important
to teach children about gender and gender deviations than it
will be teach them math, reading and writing. We cannot afford
to be distracted by social issues in the schools. We need to
stay focused on preparing our children to compete in a world
economy. "Gender education" will not help them do that.
AZ