Mitt’s “Gay Support” Taking Its Toll
Mitt Romney’s Meet The Press appearance continues to cost him friends. The Republican presidential candidate raised a few eyebrows when he tacitly endorsed state-sponsored Employment Non-Discrimination Laws. Said Mitt, “I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level.”
First Matt LaBarbera came out against Republican Romney, calling his pussy-footing a “Christmas present” for the gays. LaBarbera said such a stance “disqualifies him as a pro-family leader”. Now Renew America pundit Grant Swank’s making a similar argument…
Writes Swank,
Mitt Romney endorses state laws supporting homosexual practice.He says that he does not support the federal government passing these laws. But it is fine for the states to pass these laws.
That makes Romney anti-family, anti-conservative, anti-biblical morality.
He is truly a phony. He will do anything to get to the White House. He has been salivating for Pennsylvania Avenue for years. Therefore, he is one of the most opportunistic candidates on the list.
We’ve been saying that for years. Nice to see the conservative camp isn’t completely daft.
Meanwhile, on a related note, Romney’s currently the fourth favorite Republican nationally, according to Rasmussen Reports.
To the wingnuts, saying, “No, I would not hit a gay person in the face with a shovel” equals anti-family and anti-morality. They accept nothing short of full-fledged hate.
Timothy, not getting hit in the face with a shovel is a “special right.” Naturally, Republicans would be against it, and Democrats would be silent.
“He has been salivating for Pennsylvania Avenue for years.” Duh, that’s why people run for President because they want the job!
this is my favorite picture of mitt.
Hmm, in the picture it looks like Mittsy might be getting ready to do some fudge packing. Why is it that the Republicans are all for “states rights” and eliminating the Federal Government. It seems to me they tried to do that by secession from 1860-65 and failed. If some states got to decide today the questions of voting and civil rights, the African-American would be back at the back of the bus and the 40 hour work week, Social Security, and many other proven and worthwhile programs would cease to exist. The Republicans, through “state’s rights” would move this nation back a couple hundred years. Mittsy better be careful what he hopes for, Mormon’s were freely killed back then.
Timothy says the wingnuts will accept nothing less than full-fledged hate from their candidate, and that seems true enough. Too many of us queers feel compelled to trash anyone who won’t give us – all lgb and t of us – unconditional love. In an election where (I believe) the likelihood that the next President will be a Republican is now about 50-50, and the chance that the Republican nominee will be Rudy G. is well below that, we might want to be a bit more tolerant of Mitt’s nuanced view of gay rights. We could do worse.
Put on the latex babe! Mormons always make the best FF’ers. All that pent-up sex drive! Oh yeah, baby! Joseph Smith! Brigham Young!!!!
We need a President who will continue to protect marriage between a woman and a man the way it is supposed to be.