Presidential candidate Mitt Romney made gay headlines last week in two separate, but equally unflattering instances. One involves a 2002 gay pride endorsement and the other declares Romney’s anti-gay marriage politics. Taken together, these news bytes make Romney look like a liar in desperate need of a vocabulary lesson.
The initial headlines started on September 17, when a Democrat-run website Romney Facts, posted a gay pride flyer bearing Republican Romney’s endorsement. Reportedly from 2002, the pink paper reads like a note from fun-loving uncles, “Mitt and Kerry wish you a great pride weekend!” Kerry refers to Romney’s then-gubernatorial running mate, Kerry Healey. The politicians were on such good terms with the gays that they apparently earned first name status, like Liza.
During that 2002 campaign, Romney made a concerted effort to court the gay vote. And, as part of his mobilization mission, Romney emphasized that he would not oppose a pending court decision allowing gay marriage. The NY Times article reports that Romney told gay group The Log Cabin Republicans that he would remain neutral on the matter. That article reads, “[Romney] said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman. But, according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue.” Unfortunately, Romney lied.
Three years later, after the Massachusetts Supreme Court passed gay marriage and Romney had won the election, Romney supported a conservative group’s petition to ban gay nuptials. This exclusionary stance became a cornerstone in his presidential campaign.
Much of Romney’s anti-gay politics stem from archaic images of the nuclear family. In June of this year, a lesbian mother asked Romney why he won’t stand up for her marriage rights to which Romney replied: “Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child… There are other ways to raise kids that’s fine: single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That’s the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice.“ Obviously Romney’s not taking about the choice to marry.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
On September 19, two days after the gay pride flyer made its way around the world wide web, Romney released a radio ad endorsing a federal ban on gay marriage. Says a robotic Romney, “As Republicans, we must oppose discrimination and defend traditional marriage: one man, one woman.” Perhaps Romney needs a little reeducation on discrimination.
There are two popular meanings of discrimination, both of which come from the Latin, discriminare – to divide. The first and more flattering definition involves examining and drawing distinctions between an object or subject. Oxford’s online dictionary offers this, “Recognition of the difference between one thing and another.” That difference could refer to anything from apples and oranges. Or, more appropriately, Democrats and Republicans.
Discrimination’s second meaning, the one with which Romney’s having the most trouble, boils people down to divided groups. Another online source, the conveniently named Dictionary.com, offers this particularly fitting definition, “Making a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs…” Politically speaking, citizens become social categories, rather than singular subjects.
If Romney had his way, the constitution would favor heterosexuals as a category of people. His rule of law would preserve “traditional marriage”. In the radio ad, Romney asserts, “Defending marriage is the right thing to do”. Apparently in Mitt’s tortuous mind, marriage needs protection.
Protection. Now that’s a word. From protegere, to protect, means, literally, to cover in the front. To shield. The imagined need to protect marriage comes up often in the right wing’s short-sighted rhetoric.
In a December, 2006 interview with conservative website Human Events, Romney invokes the right wing’s rationale behind anti-gay marriage policies. He says, “I’m very much opposed to discrimination. I also recognize that it’s not wise to create a special class and establish new rights for any particular group. But I’m opposed to discrimination. At the same time, I’m opposed to same-sex marriage.” In the months between that interview and last week, one would think Romney would realize the contradiction of his policies, but that may be expecting too much.
Romney doesn’t seem to understand that passing a law banning gay marriage makes heterosexuals a special, protected class. Protection tacitly implies a favoritism. Thus, Romney’s politics favors straight people at the expense of gay rights, but still insists he’s anti-discrimination. It seems to me that before Mitt Romney continues down the campaign trail he needs to take a more discriminating look at his gay game plan.
[Note: Our editor, Andrew Belonsky, who wrote this piece, will be appearing on Scott Walterman’s XM radio show on Thursday: 7:30am. Better listen in!]
dfrw
Log Cabin Republicans do not favor equal marriage rights for gays through judicial intervention…and possibly also not through legislative action, so Romney should be another good candidate for them.
Bill Perdue
Mitt Romney is your typical politician. During the Massachusetts gubernatorial race he pandered to the GLBT communities to get votes. When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court granted marriage rights to same sex couples he turned on us with a fury, trying to distance himself from us. Bill Clinton did something similar. He asked for and got votes from our communities and he also turned on us and enthusiastically signed the federal DOMA bill, giving bigotry the force of federal law. He and the Democrats in Congress who supported this Republican bill were pandering to the bigot vote, hoping to undercut Republican efforts to do the same.
That was eight years ago and the question of samesex marriage is still in the news, still determining the strategies of the twin parties, still the focus of the bigots, and still the most effective weapon used against our GLBT communities. Recently Hillary Clinton, like most candidates of the Democratic and Republican Party adopted a curious position on samesex marriage – claiming it’s a question of state rights. Hillary and Bill are from Arkansas, once the bastion of States Rights Dixiecrats opposed to equality for African Americans. Should we call her a Dixiecrat now that she’s suddenly for states rights? States Rights began with Southern claims that the Federal government had no right to regulate them on the question of slavery. The Civil War settled that question but ever since states rights have been advocated by national politicians who want to avoid taking a position on questions of equality and state politicians who want to deny rights to this or that group; now it’s our turn.
Like many others, I don’t count samesex marriage as my central issue. I’m for it but I think campaigns to get a strong ENDA and a Matthew Sheppard bill with harsh penalties for those who commit OR incite violence are more important. I also favor a campaign to end tax exemptions and federal handouts for cult churches. (The English Labour Party recently passed anti-bias legislation that’s light years ahead of anything we have. Employers and businesses that discriminate are fined, if memory serves, about $28,000.00. Church cultists and politicians who use antigay tactics aren’t exempt.)
I don’t think that gay and lesbian questions should be our one and only focus. The fight to end the oil piracy in Iraq is the number one issue with most people and that will intensify until the day the troops are safely home. Union busting, immigrant rights, protecting the right to abortion, a steady decline in the standard of living, attacks on the Bill of Rights; these and many other questions are vitally important to the GLBT communities as well. Fighting for them gives us valuable allies and connections.
But having said that, the question of samesex marriage remains vital for another reason; the Republicans and the cults use it to IMPOSE second class citizenship on us. The 2008 elections, like 2000 and 2004, will focus on denying us equality under the law. We’ll be scapegoated by the Republicans and their cultist allies. At the same time the Democrats are hustling around saying they agree that we shouldn’t have the right to marry. The harsh Republican message and the softer Democratic message are the same. They’re saying that we’re an inferior class of citizens who aren’t worthy of equality.
That message comes through loud and clear for antigay bigots and thugs. It’s a red flag in the bullring. Watch for spikes in beatings and lynchings just like 2000 and 2004. If you recall the attacks and killings of the last month or so, you can see it’s already starting. That’s why same sex marriage is vital, not because most of us are going to go out and get married – what a harebrained idea – but because they use it to inflict second class citizenship on us. And that sends the thugs into a frenzy.
Romney knows that and so do the Clintons. They’re playing a very sick game with our lives, our families, our futures, and our security.
We have to send our own message to these politicians; abandon us, turn on us, and you’ll regret it to the end of your days. We can’t afford to be meek or timid about this. Too much is at stake. We need to step out of that final closet, the political closet, and into the fight for our lives.