« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
01/16/2008
Video: But Mitt, what makes you so different?
In response to Mike Huckabee's revelatory comment that we need to "amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family," fellow federal marriage ban supporter Mitt Romney this morning said the following to Meredith Vieira:
But here's the thing: Where, exactly, is the line between "amend the Constitution to please God" and "amend the Constituion on the basis of my religious views"? Because let's be honest here -- both Mike and Mitt want things like a federal gay marriage amendment either because they (a) truly do have strong faith beliefs against gay marriage, or (b) want to act as if they have such beliefs in order to appease and impress religious social conservatives. And amendments, not a radical overhaul of the current document, are the ways Huckabee is suggesting that he wants to make the Constitution more in line with his view of God. So how the hell can Mitt, the only other viable candidate who's explicitly calling for a federal marriage ban, sit there and make it seem as if his views are so dissimilar from Mike's?! At the end of the day (or in MIke's view, possibly the end of times) both men do, in fact, want to write into the Constiution the sort of discrimination that would drastically alter its current guarantees. And neither have even the slightest problem putting their desires in the context of God when they are in an arena where such would serve as a coup (ex.: see Mitt and Mike at the so-called Values Voters Summit).
What people must realize is that while Mike's church/state-marrying comments may come across as shocking, they are not all that different from what so many other "pro-family" types have been saying for years. Mike is just more likely to put it out there for all to see rather than hide it behind code-wording. We have to wise up and realize that any and all attempts to impose personal faith views on civil equality are great threats to our freedom, whether they are blatant or veiled. God told us so.
Mitt on 'Today', 1/6/08 [YouTube]
Your thoughts
Jeremy,
I have to disagree with you on this one.
While I am no fan of Romney, I think that the distinction he is making between his approach and Huckabee's approach is a good one.
Yes, Romney would like to amend the Constitution to deny you and I rights that he delights in for himself. But I do think that his intentions and reasons are different and more measured than Huckabee's.
Romney wants to make a specific change on a specific issue (or perhaps a few specific issues). He is not proposing that the Constitution be changed to reflect "God's Standards". I think the idea of placing religious dictates as higher than the protected freedoms in the Constitution would give Romney chills - just as it does us and did the writer at Christianity Today. Romney knows full well that if Huckabee's vision of "God's Standards" were the law of the land, Romney's own faith would soon be feeling persecution.
I believe, however, that Huckabee envisions a world whereby The Kingdom of God determines social, political, and religious policies and freedoms and where Jesus is King. And if Huckabee is Regent, that's just fine with him.
Posted by: Timothy | Jan 16, 2008 4:48:21 PM
Timothy: I don;t think we disagree all that much actually. I agree that there are differences and that Huckabee would likely want to go further if given the opportunity. But in terms of the issues in which this conservation was framed (abortion and gay marriage), they both are backing bans on the basis of their personal faith. Their God. That's all I was trying to say -- that Mitt's "I don't want to change the constitution" schpiel to Meredith is a little hypocritical, since he too wants to amend the constitution so that it is more pleasing to those who use God to deny gays equality.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 16, 2008 5:20:03 PM
comments powered by Disqus
