The Divisiveness Continues

February 26, 2005 7:56 AM

Republican Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney - a likely contender for the Presidential Race in 2008 - pulls out the "gay marriage" card in two recent speeches: one in South Carolina; the other in Utah. Forget the fact that Romney seems to be spending most of his tenure as governor traveling outside the state, campaigning and not dealing with the affairs of the State, but he has now flip-flopped on his stance...and now continues the use of "gay marriage" and "civil unions" as a divisive political ploy on a national stage.
posted by ericb (26 comments total)

Last March, Romney's staff told House Republicans he supported the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, but would allow civil unions

But, in South Carolina last weekend, Romney said "From day one I've opposed the move for same-sex marriage and its equivalent, civil unions…Some are actually having children born to them." He further "lamented the [Supreme Judicial Court's - which by the way consists of a majority of Republican-appointed justices; and not "out-of-touch", "activist liberal judges"]...ruling on same-sex marriage. "The fundamental building block of American society is the family. Through the family we prepare the next generation. America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home.'"

Last night in Utah Romney "linked gay marriage with U.S. prestige", saying 'America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home."

BTW – It’s nice to see that Governor Romney holds his Massachusetts' constituents in such high regard: “Romney smiled as Republican speakers poked fun at the Bay State. US Representative Rob Bishop of Utah called Romney's home state the '’People's Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ and joked that it '’has a tax rate lower than Sweden's, kinda.’ Picking up on the theme, Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. welcomed Romney and his family to ‘a roomful of good Republicans, which is something I know they never see at home.’ He called Romney 'the most exciting and impressive leader in the Republican Party today’ and joked about his full head of hair, full bank account, and blonde wife. "
posted by ericb at 7:58 AM on February 26, 2005

*Last night in Utah Romney "linked gay marriage with U.S. prestige", repeating the line*
posted by ericb at 8:15 AM on February 26, 2005

Sounds like he's doing exactly what he's told.
If that's the case, then I'm sure he won't be held responsible.

Or maybe flip-flopping just comes natural to to politicians from Massachusetts.

And why does the USA think that we are the bright shining pillar of truth that has to show other countries how their families should be put together?
posted by Balisong at 8:27 AM on February 26, 2005

America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home.

Dad, can we talk? Put down the bottle.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:35 AM on February 26, 2005

America is leading the family of nations around the world? Sweet!

*buckles up for the ride*
posted by slater at 8:37 AM on February 26, 2005

Apart from the issue of gay marriage, can we please stop using the phrase "flip-flopping" pejoritively? As far as I'm concerned, smart and thoughful people are constantly "flip-flopping" their stance on various issues... It comes naturally from thinking and learning new information -- something I hope we want our leaders doing.

It's those who feel they've got it so figured out that they will permanently refuse to change their mind that worry me...
posted by chasing at 8:39 AM on February 26, 2005

The problem, chasing, is that being stubborn proves more vote-worthy than admitting to past mistakes.
posted by Maxson at 8:42 AM on February 26, 2005

He has no chance in 08, unless Bush and Congress implode between now and then--say "Massachusetts" to most Republicans and you get a Teddy Kennedy joke, and they've been too successful at equating Mass with Liberals. That said, i wish him well in the race (the 2-faced bastard) --the more people running in 08, the better.

chasing, if you go south and trash something you don't dare trash at home, it's pure opportunism--which stance does he really have? how can any voter decipher? i prefer hypocrisy myself, but flip-flopper has entered the vocab, unfortunately. Has Romney changed his stance based on what happened in Mass? Has society been hurt there? I think not.
posted by amberglow at 8:46 AM on February 26, 2005

Chasing - I would say it depends on the circumstance. I agree absolutely that people will change their views over time. And if, say, he was a supporter of gay marriage 10 years ago, but had changed his mind somewhere in between, then I wouldn't say that's "flip-flopping."

But taking two stances on the same issue within a few months, depending on what sort of crowd you're talking to? I'd call that the very definition of the term.
posted by InnocentBystander at 9:00 AM on February 26, 2005

I think it's called "pandering."

I'm not defending Romney at all, by the way, just the ability of public figures to evolve their opinions over time in good faith. We need much more of that in the United States right now.
posted by chasing at 9:08 AM on February 26, 2005

I guess Massachusetts is only a bedrock of commie pinko fags when it suits the President.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:24 AM on February 26, 2005

ssdd *Same Shit Different Day*
posted by Edible Energy at 9:28 AM on February 26, 2005

*cough*

...being stubborn proves more vote-worthy getting...
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 9:56 AM on February 26, 2005

We are family!
I got all my sisters with me
We are family!
Get up everybody and sing

Everyone can see we're together
As we walk on by
(FLY!) and we fly just like birds of a feather
I won't tell no lie
(ALL!) all of the people around us they say
Can they be that close
Just let me state for the record
We're giving love in a family dose!
posted by matteo at 10:16 AM on February 26, 2005

I have a completely unresearched and unproven theory that says if the gay marriages in San Francisco thing never happened, then the Dems just slightly edge out the Republicans instead of the other way around in '04.

It should be entirely obvious after such a close result last time that both parties will be moving toward the political center. What will be interesting is what the brains on either side perceive to be their best opportunities to do so.

For the Republicans gay marriage is a no-brainer, of course they're going to have to careful not to overplay it, but it really is solid election currency for them and no one should be surprised to see early indications of the advantage they're going to take with it.

The Democrats are going to have to be even more careful. Being politicians, I think we'll see them stepping, ever so carefully, away from the issue, or at least working hard to lower it's political profile.

I'm not talking about whether gay marriage itself is good or bad here (however you want to define it), I'm making a political observation since the post is about politics. I think for undecided swing voters, the more the gay marriage issue is in the news, the better it is for the Republicans so that's why this guy is talking about it. It's more or less being kept simmering on the back burner for now but will be moved forward to some extent or other when the time is right, for them.

And, being politics, it won't matter so much who's talking about it or even what they're saying, just keeping it in the news will be the basic strategy.
posted by scheptech at 10:29 AM on February 26, 2005

I have a completely unresearched and unproven theory that says if the gay marriages in San Francisco thing never happened, then the Dems just slightly edge out the Republicans instead of the other way around in '04.

I love how the Democrats blamed teh gays after the '04 election. Even Barney Frank joined in on the pileon(!). Why can't the Demo elite just admit they fucked up with choosing Kerry? I feel like I wasted my vote even more than ever, now.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:44 AM on February 26, 2005

What Alex said--the marriage thing has been bubbling up for years, even if the wider world wasn't aware. And even if SF hadn't done what it did, the Massachusetts case still would have happened the same way. Are you going to blame the couples that brought that case years ago, not knowing when it would finally be over?
posted by amberglow at 12:09 PM on February 26, 2005

In other words, people don't stop fighting for their rights based on what the other side will do with any given issue. That's not how progress happens, and God forbid if it was.
posted by amberglow at 12:11 PM on February 26, 2005

I think the reason the democrats lost was that they were not republicans.
posted by srboisvert at 12:49 PM on February 26, 2005

for those - on either side of the issue - who think we shouldn't have been talking about gay marriage before the election, and shouldn't be talking about gay marriage now, when do you expect it will become an appropriate topic for discussion? i'm having trouble understanding this political stragety.
posted by scottreynen at 1:37 PM on February 26, 2005

Romney is ALMOST as dynamic and exciting as Kerry. I hope he gets the nomination in '08.
posted by MillMan at 2:34 PM on February 26, 2005

i'm having trouble understanding this political stragety

Right or wrong, gay marriage is apparently a more powerful negative issue for those who are against than it is a positive issue for those who are for.

For Republicans just about any time is going to be a good time to discuss the issue because on balance they figure they're getting more votes out of it than they're losing. The more it's in the news the better. The strategy is talk about it since for them the issue is attracting swing voters.

For Democratic politicians no time may be good for discussing the issue. All it seems to be doing for them is reinforcing the allegiance of folks who are already with them.
posted by scheptech at 2:49 PM on February 26, 2005

He has no chance in '08

I agree that Romney has no chance in 2008. He is being promoted by the same half-witted talking-heads who think Giuliani has a chance, and that Dean was going to run away with it. People, who despite their awful track record, continue to get paid to pontificate on politics.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 5:50 PM on February 26, 2005

He has no chance in '08

Not after I leak my photos of him wearing funny Mormon underwear.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:32 PM on February 26, 2005

Steve, you betting on Frist? (who profits mightily from abortion money while being a pro-life and godly doctor in public?)
posted by amberglow at 6:34 PM on February 26, 2005

Right or wrong, gay marriage is apparently a more powerful negative issue for those who are against than it is a positive issue for those who are for.

It's as easy to claim that the dem's biggest problem was not taking clear and distinct stances on things. Gay marriage was a sucky issue because everyone was trying to please everyone - depending on their audiences, both candidates tempered their statements to meet expectations or preferences of those present. Unlike that recentish canadian speech, no one made real efforts to clarify why a position should be held or what the issue means in the long term; it was always just "don't worry, I'm the guy who will do what you want done, whatever that is."

Anyway, I don't think this will be a negative issue for the dems for that long more, actually. Younger people are increasingly growing up with a normalized idea of homosexuality, and a more personal/less societal idea of what "marriage" means (that a marriage would be 'invalid' if no kids were produced would be nonsense to people now, but once was the norm). I don't think conservatives will be able to put this one back in the bottle. The dems should take a stand and become the party of the future, not nervously hedge their bets so that some people feel they can hardly distinguish them from the right...
posted by mdn at 7:27 PM on February 26, 2005