The Candidates
Featured Archives
Below are remarks by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney yesterday in which he declares his unequivocal support for a Federal Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as exclusively restricted to the union of one man and one woman as the only way to effectively protect the institution of marriage.
While some conservatives favor a state’s rights approach to the issue coupled with appointment of non-activist judges to the U.S. Supreme Court that would uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, such approaches would not prevent states from allowing gays to marry.
For most conservatives, that is unacceptable.
The only way to absolutely protect the institution of marriage is?via a?constitutional amendment. There has been much speculation that Rudy Giuliani, who personally favors gay rights, will pledge to appoint justices like John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But it is beyond belief that he would move so far to the right as to favor the amendment Romney is advocating.
Romney is making this issue one of the defining issues of his candidacy. This issue?has a powerful appeal to the base and could make it impossible for Giuliani to get off the ground before he even starts.
http://www.mass.gov/Agov2/docs/20061015_liberty_sunday.doc
Liberty Sunday: Defending Our First Freedom
October 15, 2006
“Welcome to this historic city. The authors of liberty recognized a Divine Creator who bequeathed to us certain inalienable rights. They affirmed freedom of religion and proscribed the establishment of any one religion. Today, there are some people would like to establish a single religion for America . . . the religion of secularism. They not only reject traditional religious values, but also the values of the founders. And they set aside the wisdom of the ages. Their allies are activist judges. Here in Massachusetts, activist judges struck a blow to the foundation of civilization, the family. They ruled that our constitution requires same sex marriage. I believe their error occurred because they focused on adult rights. If adult heterosexual couples can marry, they reasoned, then to have equal rights, adult homosexual couples must also be able to marry.
?
But marriage is not primarily about adults. Marriage is primarily about the nurturing and development of children. A child’s development is enhanced by the nurturing of both genders. Every child deserves a mother and a father. Of course, the principal burden of the Court’s ruling doesn’t fall on adults. It falls on children. We are asked to change the state birth certificate. To prevent #quot;heterocentricity,#quot; mother and father would become parent A and parent B. An elementary school teacher reads to her 2nd graders from a book titled #quot;The King and King#quot; about a prince who marries a prince. And a 2nd grader’s father is denied the right to have his child removed from class while that book is being read. Our state’s most difficult-to-place adoptive children may no longer be placed by Catholic charities because they favor homes where there’s a mother and a father.
?
The price of same sex marriage is paid by children. Our fight for marriage, then, should focus on the needs of children, not the rights of adults. In fact, as Americans, I believe that we should show an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people, regardless of their differences or their different choices. We must vigorously reject discrimination and bigotry. We are all God’s children. He abhors none of us.
?
Massachusetts is the front line on marriage, but unless we adopt a federal amendment to protect marriage, what is happening here will unquestionably enter every other state. The spreading religion of secularism and its substitute values cannot be allowed to weaken the foundation of family or the faith of our fathers who more than life their freedom loved.”
October 16th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Personally, I am utterly unconvinced that Giuliani will be ultimately found acceptable by the Republican base. I think all the speculation about triangulation is interesting at best, but simply not feasible.
While I personally was not there, I have several friends who went and saw Rudy speak in Concord. While Rudy apparently focused mostly on taxes and terrorism from what I hear, my friends tell me that they were unimpressed with Giuliani’s attempts to appeal to conservatives. Much like myself, almost all conservatives really like Rudy Giuliani a lot, and would undoubtedly vote for him if he were running for mayor of our respective towns. However, when it comes to President, almost every grassroots conservative I’ve found says that they can’t support him in ‘08 after learning about his liberal views on so many issues.
Rudy’s poll numbers are high right now because a lot of people A). Don’t like John McCain and B). Don’t know who Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, etc. are and C). Everybody knows who Rudy Giuliani is, he’s really likeable, and he’s a Republican.
But starting in 2008, I expect to see a huge drop in Rudy’s support in the polls. I just can’t see him really taking off except among moderate-liberal Republicans, a voting bloc that holds negligible sway in GOP primaries.
October 16th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
There is a lot to respond to here.
First, I think it would be imprudent to discount the chances of Mayor Giuliani. While it is likely his GOP poll numbers go down once his positions on social issues are revealed and debated, I think it is a huge and inaccurate stretch to claim that he is going to be unacceptable to conservatives even once his positions are well known. Conservatives are going to support Mayor Giuliani in significant numbers for the same reason Democrats did the same thing vis-a-vis Ronald Reagan – they respect his conviction to do what he says he will do even while they do not agree with him on every issue. Such a person may be especially welcome to GOP voters if the party takes a bath on November 7, as it appears, because of their lack adherence to principle.
Second, as to Governor Romney, while I agree with his conclusion, I think his reasoning is flawed. Marriage is certainly about adults, it is a legal definition only applicable to adults. Not all marriages result in children and many states allow gay adoption already, so that train has left the station. The children angle panders, in my view, and is transparent. And Mayor Giuliani does believe in preserving traditional marriage, though the means by which he would protect it remain to be seen.
October 16th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
A “Federal Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as exclusively restricted to the union of one man and one woman” is the most anti-conservative piece of legislation one could possibly propose. We can’t advocate smaller government with the intent of making it just small enough to fit inside of the bedroom…
“While some conservatives favor a state’s rights approach to the issue coupled with appointment of non-activist judges to the U.S. Supreme Court…” some conservatives are conservative, yes, “…such approaches would not prevent states from allowing gays to marry.” Since when did we start believing that conservatism was actively preventing states from making decisions?
What ever happened to the proponents of states’ rights in the GOP that could disagree with gay marriage but still recognize a government overstep when they saw it? Oh, right, they all decided to run for president.
That said, this is a site about the 2008 election, and Romney’s stand will certainly help his standing in the primaries, and Rudy’s hurt his, but neither will be the end-all deciding factor.
October 16th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Zach, what happened to most proponents of states’ rights is that they realized because of the issue of civil rights that the states cannot be trusted to do the correct or legal thing in every instance. The sanctity of traditional marriage is a lot like segregation, if the U.S. Supreme Court and/or Congress does not step in then the right thing is not going to happen.
October 16th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Final thought for Zach. Not only does states’ rights not always result in conservative results – and I woud argue that the dignity of the individual regardless of race is a conservative result as is the sanctity of traditional marriage – it is a term like liberal that damages those who embrace it. States’ rights is interpreted by too many people to harken back to the days of segregation. George Wallace and David Duke have always been big on states” rights, and the Republican Party does not need that association.
October 16th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
I really don’t see this threatening Giuliani’s candidacy. He is popular now for two things. (1) He cleaned up NYC. (2) He did a heroic job on 9/11. Same-sex marriage doesn’t threaten that.
Having said that, Romney is drawing yet another social conservative line in the sand. He is clearly marking out his territory, and what he stands for. He is defining himself before others have the chance to.
Is this smart politics? Most people do say they want clear choices, and leaders who stand for something, but what people say they want and what they really want is often two different things. We shall have to wait and see.
October 16th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Romney is essentially a federalist (strong states rights supporter) . . . but he sees the importance of a federal amendment in this instance. He’s expained this before, that Marriage is a “status” that transfers from state to state and a gay couple marrying and adopting in Massachussetts and then moving to Wisconsin would be recognizxed as a family unit by the government. It all gets too messy and the right thing must be done at the federal level to ensure that it’s “bullet proof”.
October 16th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
I think this works out to a huge negative for Mitt Romney. You heard me right, a huge negative.
Whether we can construct a firewall against gay marriage in the United States depends chiefly on what happens in Massachusetts, not just now, but over the next few years. Will it spread beyond its current boundaries? Recent court decisions on recognizing MA marriages across state lines, as well as the current legislative fight, makes this very much a live issue.
As you note, Romney has been an impressive advocate for marriage as governor. But what does he do with the outcome uncertain? He quits to run for President. As a result of that decision, the MA Governor’s office will be surrendered to Deval Patrick, a liberal Democrat Clinton appointee who will almost certainly veto any legislative move to overturn the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision.
Mitt was the only one who could have held on to the governor’s seat at this critical moment and had the personal magnetism to possibly bring with him more Republican state legislators who could have tipped the scales for marriage. Instead, he chose to quit and run for President.
Mass. will now elect its first Democrat governor in 16 years. As a consequence of Romney’s decision the floodgates are now open for gay marriage to spread to other states.
October 16th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
The comparison between the fight to end segregation and the fight to prevent gay marriages from ever happening is just ludicrous. African Americans were demonstrably being discriminated against by unwritten Jim Crow laws in clear violation of the reconstruction amendments to the Constitution. Gay marriage has never been remotely addressed in the Constitution, with the full faith and credit clause being the closest thing touching it – and said clause supports it.
I’m a heterosexual, I’ll never enter into a gay marriage or civil union. I simply do not, however, understand how another couple doing so devalues my relationship or lessens my love. As for Romney’s children argument, I’m opposed to gay adoption, and I haven’t heard Giuliani say he wasn’t.
All of this is really a moot point, however. As of right now, I plan on voting for Romney in the 2008 primary. I am a social moderate on most issues, but I’m willing to merely appreciate some of Romney’s views while fully embracing his more substantive foreign and economic ones. I only wish that some of the more socially conservative members of my party would do the same for candidates more in line with my views.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
RB,
Now I’ve heard it all. You’ve spun Romney’s firm leadership for traditional marriage into a negative amongst social conservatives. I suppose by your logic social conservatives will now line up behind the cross-dressing pro-gay Giuliani since he obviously never did anything for their cause.
????
October 16th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
I’ll address all of your excellent and thoughful comments on Tuesday.
October 16th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Zach, people in the 1960s were saying that the Constitution did not remotely address the issue of segregation. And the larger point is that states’ rights is not a panacea, nor is it a conservative cornerstone. Conservatives now believe in a strong chief executive for the purposes of peace through strength; they believe in federal rights to won guns; they believe that returning the issue of abortion to the states would be a disaster because it would legalize the procedure in too many places; and they believe in federal prevention of taxing the Internet. All of these convervative positions are on the opposite side of states’ rights.
October 17th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
It doesn’t matter when they were saying that the Constitution didn’t address segregation, so long as it was after the 1860’s, they were wrong. And while I believe that the list you produced contains many valid generalizations about the Republican base (and myself), it certainly does not define conservatism.
October 18th, 2006 at 8:42 am
Giuliani’s candidacy never had viability. Neither does Romney’s. This is all just self-masterbatory fantasy.
October 22nd, 2006 at 6:57 am
I suspect Woodrow may be right on Giuliani, but I’m not utterly convinced due to Republius’s points. I have seen Rudy speak quite eloquently about the war and conservative values.
Zach Mayo (did you know there is a town named Mayo in SC?) Some issues are rightfully deemed so fundamental to the well-being of the Union, that they cry out for a federal remedy. The definition of the fundamental institution of civilized peoples for 5 millenia is one of them. See also Utah.
I am a big proponent of having most issues decided at the most local possible government entity, but that principle has major exceptions. After all, we are one nation.
Rudyblogger, I actually do think that Romney should have gone further in confronting the Mass Sup Ct. He should have defied them and refused to issue licenses to same sex couples. But to fault him for what he didn’t do given what he has done would be making the perfect the enemy of the very good. The issue is a huge positive for Romney. It will carry him to the nomination given his strong stand on national security and domestic policy. The one stumbling block I see would be if his health care plan in MASS shows major problems before or during 2008.
December 8th, 2006 at 3:33 am
rape porn films
Blog Records:pictures of gay rape pornComments…