“And The Next Question Is For Governor Romney…”

“Do you support equality?”

He’s going to get the question, and he’s going to have to know how to answer it.

Whether Mitt Romney likes it or not, gay marriage is now an issue in this election.  Sure, give it a week and it won’t be monopolizing every headline anymore, but it’s not going away as an issue.  The media will make sure of that.  Because the media knows, just as well as Biden did when he made his latest “gaffe,” and just as well as Obama did in yesterday’s interview, that what the President needs for the next five months is distractions and sideshows, bright lights and candy.

Indeed, the Wild and Wonderful Obama Distraction Carnival has already opened.  No tickets, no lines.  Just pony rides and funnel cakes.  And of course, we all now what we are supposed to be distracted from.  The economy, stupid.  And stupid is exactly what he hopes we are.

Crippling debt?  What debt?  Look over here, we have birth control!  And crazy Catholics!  And Sandra Fluke!

Staggering unemployment?  What unemployment?  But wait, what’s this?!  Step right up!  It’s Afghanistan!  And Osama!  Dead!  Remember how awesome that was?

The unfortunate thing about bread and circuses is that they tend to be very effective in what they are designed to do, which is to stop the seething masses from seething too much and leave them as just masses.  Happy, fat, and stupid masses.  A long time ago it was the Colosseum.  Today it’s called Reality TV, but it basically consists of the same things:  sex, violence, and degenerate Italians.  Are you not entertained?

And now Obama is using the same tried and true methods to take the focus away from where Romney wants it and put it…anywhere else.  First contraception, then Osama, and now gay marriage.  Like so much glitter being thrown in the eyes of the American electorate. 

Mitt and Ann Romney

Anyway, the issue of gay marriage is going to keep coming up, in interviews, debates, and what have you, and Romney needs to solidify his position.  He is by no means wishy-washy in his tone when he speaks of his support for traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

But so far, Romney hasn’t seemed to articulate a very strong foundation for his views.  He leaves us with no doubt as to where he stands, but do we know why he stands there?  Does he?

Saying you believe something because you have always believed it is not a reason for believing something.  Just the same, stating that marriage should be between a man and a woman because that’s the way it has always been is by itself not a good reason.  Not necessarily bad, just not necessarily good either.

The reason this is important for Romney is because he is going to get nailed with questions on this from the media, and it will be on their terms.  And their terms, wonder of wonders, are those of President Obama and the gay marriage movement.  It is the hallowed language of civil rights, and equality, and the “right side of history,” and once your opponent sets the field in that context, you best know what you’re talking about and be able to state not only your convictions but the principles from which they derive.

Yesterday, Obama marched right out and grabbed the moral highground.  During the interview, in which he stopped just short of declaring “If I had a husband he would look like Freddie Mercury,” the President stated that he “stood on the side of broader equality for the LGBT community” and that therefore, in his view, gay couples should be able to get married.

Romney needs to be able to defend his views on traditional marriage in clear and principled terms.  Someone on his staff needs to sit him down on his next flight from here to there, put some writings of Robert P. George or Steve White in his hands and say “You need to read this.”

We know that Romney opposes same sex marriage.  America needs to know why.

2,165 views

Categories:Uncategorized

17 thoughts on ““And The Next Question Is For Governor Romney…”

  1. Sir Robert says:

    “Sex, violence, and degenerate Italians.” Wow, this was a funny line! I laughed at this! (But I did not know the guys from “Sons of Guns” were Italians!?!)

  2. GREG SMITH says:

    John – He can’t. He won’t focus his mind on rather sophisticated arguments from people like George or White. He doesn’t give a hoot about gay marriage or for that matter abortion. As for contraception, his church leaves it to the conseince of each couple. If the GOP wanted someone consistant and electable, they shouldn’t have ignored the other Mormon in the race. ~ Greg

    1. Joe M says:

      Greg. Even if your accusation were true, isn’t it better to have a leader who “doesn’t give a hoot” about gay marriage or abortion instead of one who gives a hoot in the wrong direction? — Consistency is a bad thing when the person is consistently wrong. For example, Obama, consistently supporting Planned Parenthood, violations of religious liberty and gay marriage (only now officially).

      1. GREG SMITH says:

        Joe -My question is why didn’t responsible, Republican Catholics (including the writers at AP/CV) give serious consideration to Jon Huntsman who is sincere, is competent and importantly is electable. I believe President Obama will be re-elected and there may be a weak democratic field in 2016. Hopefully, Huntsman will run then. I’d like to think the group here will take a good look at him. ~ Greg

        1. Joe M says:

          Thank you Greg. It seemed like your comment was mostly a criticism of Romney. — I’m not so certain about who will win this years presidential election. But, based on polls, for now, the momentum appears to be in Romney’s favor. — I would agree that Huntsman is sincere and competent. However, he was soundly defeated in the primary. If he couldn’t come close to winning the primary, why would he do better in the general election against Obama?

  3. mominvermont says:

    Here’s what Romney can say: “Heck yes I believe in equality. I believe all children have equal rights to both a mother and a father.”

    Go pro-gender marriage!

    1. Westone says:

      That (like most of the reasons for supporting “traditional marriage”) doesn’t make logical sense. Banning gay people from marriage doesn’t prevent them from having or adopting children. Plus, if you really believed that gay couples raising children puts those children at a disadvantge, then depriving that gay couple of marriage does even MORE harm to those children they are raising. That’s mighty cold when you actually bother to think about it

      1. pault says:

        Thanks for making this point. I’ve often noted this as well when I discuss this issue with other Catholics. It makes no sense to make life even harder on a child that you think is already disadvantaged because their parents are the same gender! We should be supporting laws that make these children’s lives better, not worse.

      2. Joe M says:

        Westone. Your argument doesn’t really stand up to what has already occurred. The gay marriage movement has already begun to use gay marriage laws as a means to force private businesses to adopt children to gay couples. So, the definition of marriage certainly does affect who children are adopted to. — Your argument about relative harm doesn’t stand to reason since, if children were not adopted to gay couples in the first place, we wouldn’t have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

  4. Brian C says:

    Unfortunately, the reason Romney opposes same sex marriage is because that is what the establishment has told him he needs to say he believes to appease a portion of the electorate (us) just enough so that we tolerate him. If Santorum had become the nominee, the reason would have been much more pleaseing to us.

  5. Joe M says:

    The Etch-A-Sketch president: Barack Obama. See Obama’s flops on military surges, super PACs, Guantanamo bay, military tribunals, rendition, military action without congressional support, spiking the football and now gay marriage.

  6. andrew says:

    As a Catholic, I love this post. As a proud Italian-American…ehhh. Shouldn’t we be sticking together here?

    1. Jason Phillips says:

      lol it was clearly a joke

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.