« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


We agree about opposing Mitt, but for very diff. reasons

by Jeremy Hooper

 Good As You Images Picture-27-6Yesterday, while you were busy returning sh*tty gifts and stocking up on half price peppermint bark, professional anti-gay Peter LaBarbera was busy trying to convince folks that GOP contender Mitt Romney is WAY too gay-friendly for his team's needs. The whole thing stems from comments that Romney made on the 12/16 edition of "Meet The Press," on which he shared this exchange with host Tim Russert:

RUSSERT: You said that you would sponsor the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it?

ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.

RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level.

ROMNEY: 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.

LaBarbera, never one to accept even the slightest bit of support for queer nondiscrimination, offers the following histrionics via press release:

"Mitt Romney's Christmas present to the homosexual lobby disqualifies him as a pro-family leader," LaBarbera said. "Laws that treat homosexuality as a civil right are being used to promote homosexual 'marriage,' same-sex adoption and pro-homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren. These same laws pose a direct threat to the freedom of faith-minded citizens and organizations to act on their religious belief that homosexual behavior is wrong.
"In Romney's own state of Massachusetts, the state 'sexual orientation' nondiscrimination law laid the groundwork for homosexual activists' campaign to legalize 'same-sex marriage' –– which then-Gov. Romney brought to fruition with his unnecessary and illegal directive granting marriage licenses to homosexual partners," LaBarbera said. "The same pro-gay state law also forced Boston's Catholic Charities to shut down its century-old adoption agency because it would not pledge to place children in homosexual-led households against Catholic teaching.

"Given Romney's extensive pro-homosexual record and willingness now to depart from principle on this crucial issue, should we trust a 'President Romney' not to reverse course again on federal pro-homosexual laws such as 'Hate Crimes' and ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act)?" LaBarbera said.

Now first up, let's just be honest. The so-called "pro-family" movement has been uncomfortable with Mitt since day one because of his Mormon faith. They were willing to give him some version of chance, but they've been looking for a reason NOT to like him since he announced his candidacy. The simple truth is that the faults they might perceive in someone like Huckabee do not carry the same weight as the ones they might see in Romney. With the latter (day saint), an eyebrow-raiser becomes a third rail.

That being said -- IN WHAT SORT OF NUTTY WORLD IS ROMNEY "GAY FRIENDLY"?!?! In terms of both marriage equality in Massachusetts and the situation with Catholic Charities' adoption services, Romney has offered up some of the most queer-hostile comments of anyone! Sure he might not have thrown down the sort of gauntlet that would've stopped gay activist in their tracks, as governors are not dictators with tyrannical control over their people and courts. However, he certainly didn't sit back and applaud the fact that he was the elected head of a state where civil rights history was being made. He gave bias and discrimination the old college try, but was only able to take his agenda so far.

So looking back at Pete's cited "MTP" quotes: Yes, Mitt has flip-flopped on loads of issues. That should certainly be a cause for concern for anyone looking seriously as this particular candidate. However, in case Pete hasn't noticed, his turn has been towards the anti-gay, not the other way around! And he has said that rather than "flip-flop," what he has actually done is reconsider his stances and come to a new place in his mind. So if there is any group that should be protesting the metamorphosis from the 1990's "I was sorta okay with gays" Mitt to the 2000's "Wow, this anti-gay thing seems to have political legs, so let me see if I can ride queer bias all the way to the White House" Romney, it is the LGBT community! After all, isn't the reason folks like Pete do their work so that they can bring people over to their someday-to-be-recogniozed-as-discriminatory side? He and his ilk should be happy to have Mitt dignifying and even emboldening their work!

The bottom line for us is this: Romney might offer limited support to some measures like, say, employment nondiscrimination. He might have even fully supported such as one time. But he has revealed himself to be either (a) someone who's willing to sell out a population sect in order to gain political ground, or (b) someone who's truly been convinced that gays are not, in fact, worthy of equality. Either are reasons to disqualify his from your realm of consideration, as one is a sh*tty quality in a leader, and the other is a sh*tty quality in a human. However, don't go and paint it as if he's been sending gays any Christmas presents in the past decade or more. Because if those have been gifts that he's been sending, then he knows us even less than the distant cousin who bought us the year supply of Axe body spray!

Mitt Romney's Christmas Present to the 'Gay' Lobby Should End Pro-Family Leaders' Support for his Candidacy [Christian News Wire]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails