E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Updated 5:31 p.m. - Mitt Romney reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage on Wednesday but declined to condemn President Obama's endorsement of gay marriage, noting the sensitivity of the issue.
Following a campaign speech in Oklahoma that focused primarily on energy, jobs and the economy, the presumptive Republican nominee reaffirmed his opposition to same-sex marriage in light of Obama's announcement today.
"I have the same view on marriage that I had when I was governor," he said. "I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."
It was an opinion that Romney had voiced earlier in the day to television affiliates in Colorado, when the former Massachusetts governor faced questions amid growing speculation that Obama would announce his support for same-sex marriages.
But while Romney's position contrasted with Obama's, he declined to sharply criticize the president -- saying he would leave it up to the media to parse out Obama's "evolution" on the issue.
"This is a very tender and sensitive topic as are many social issues, but I have the same views I've had since running for office," he said.
Earlier: Romney renews opposition to same-sex marriage
Romney has previously backed certain benefits for gay couples -- for instance, the right to visit with a sick partner in the hospital -- but said each state should be free to determine their own laws.
It was a markedly more subdued reaction by Romney compared to some conservatives, who condemned Obama's support for gay and lesbian couples' ability to marry.
"The announcement today by President Obama should come as no surprise to the American public," said Rick Santorum, Romney's erstwhile conservative challenger in the Republican primary. "President Obama has consistently fought against protecting the institution of marriage from radical social engineering at both the state and federal level."
"While President Obama has played politics on this issue, the Republican Party and our presumptive nominee Mitt Romney have been clear," said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. "We support maintaining marriage between one man and one woman and would oppose any attempts to change that."
Obama: 'I think same-sex couples should be able to get married'
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who passed up an opportunity to run for president in 2012 but maintains a reservoir of support among social conservatives, also condemned Obama's announcement.
"Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats have been a complete failure on economic issues so now they are going to focus on issues that will rile up their base," Huckabee wrote in a statement released by his PAC. "Well, Mr. President it's going to rile up our folks also. Men and women who support traditional marriage."
A spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry said: "Election year politics will never change Gov. Perry's unwavering commitment to the sanctity of marriage, defined as a union between one man and one woman. He is proud of North Carolina voters who last night elected to enshrine that definition in their constitution, joining Texas and an increasing number of states in the ongoing effort to defend marriage. Once again, it's clear that President Obama's political ideology doesn't line up with the will of the voters."
Romney campaign reckons with gay rights after aide's exit
But for as many conservative voices decried the president's announcement on Wednesday, many more Republicans kept their silence, including most GOP leaders in both houses of Congress.
"Well I think he made his position pretty clear. I've always believed that marriage is between a man and a woman," House Speaker John Boehner said on the Fox Business Network. Boehner said he wasn't familiar with a proposed amendment to the Constitution to define marriage, but said Obama's announcement was a "very controversial" notion.
By contrast, Democratic supporters of the president could, for the most part, hardly contain their jubilation for Obama's decision.
"Today marks progress for the civil rights of LGBT Americans and all Americans," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). "With President Obama's support, we look forward to the day when all American families are treated equally in the eyes of the law."
New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who endured her own shift toward supporting gay marriage, also hailed the president's announcement as "a watershed moment in American history."
Leave a Comment:
The moral decay of the country starts at the top. Stick to your beliefs Mitt. If everybody else wants to co-habitate let them as long as I'm not responsible for the expenses if they get pregnant. There are plenty of heterosexuals for the rest of us.
Sure, but which ones?
Not being concerned about the very poor.
And corporations are people too, my friend.
The moral evolution of a country does not start at the top, but it is cemented there. Evolve!
This stance will hurt Obama. That much is clear. There are states Obama is going to win and states Romney will win. It is going to come down to the battle ground states to decide this race. I think there are more people in those states who will consider this an issue and side with Romney.
First off - Gays are able to have civil unions like all other non-religious folk. Marriage is legally and spiritually recognized as the joining of one man and one woman. Second- If I were gay, I would be insulted that Obama is just using this as a political ploy to get more votes. Did he not make certain promises to gays? Well here we are 4 years later and that was put on the shelf with all the other promises he made. Now he's dusting you off and checking your stupidity factor...
FALSE. I'm an atheist and damn well married. It is a binding contract, NOT a religious institution in the US.
No youre an atheist and you are in a civil union. Check it out- the term "marriage" has be so generalized that heterosexual civil unions were grouped. And like you said , you are in a binding contract which is the definition of a "Civil Union"
No, I have a MARRIAGE certificate, not a "civil union" one. Gays aren't allowed to enter "civil unions" either. Marriage is a legal term, not a religious one.
Here we go, cannot win on real issues like economy, jobs, middle east, so he is going whip, yes whip the minorities into a frenzy on social crap. Did nothing for Illinois, has done nothing for U.S. or us, lol. Added 5 trillion in debt and played lots of golf. OMG Obama must go.........
Hey Susq, Romney has never waivered on Gay Marriage, never. Unlike Mr. Obama, (ever notice he is never called President Obama) well I guess its ok now that I am screwed and going to get my butt whopped. Now if only more of you were gay you would vote for me. lol.......
Get ready for the landslide Mr. Obama....
Anyone who is against equality under the law is stubbornly unAmerican.
Quite the contrary. Anti-black, anti-semite, anti-just about everything else has at one time or another been the way of Americans. It's just that today, we consider those people to be jerks. Another 10, 20 years, and the anti-gay bigots will also be considered jerks.
IF all those opposed to gay marriage would stop having gay children...problem solved!!!
True. Because unlike sexual orientation, bigotry is taught.
Ok that made no sense.. So if only people who supported gay marriage had gay children the problem would be solved? What is solved?
So can someone explain how they can be for gay marriage and be against polygamy? Or are those who support gay marriage also support polygamy? Seems if we are going to respect the civil rights of one group we need to do it for EVERY group.
I was also wondering about the age old question as to whether or not on CHOOSES to be gay or is it just that people who are gay....it's just they are attracted to members of the same sex? One of my best friends in highschool was gay but he didn't "come out of the closet" untill we were both in college. I couldn't get him to answer it and I didn't push it either.
You ask like this hasn't been explained to you a thousand times over (I know I've responded to a similar post of yours before).
Polygamy as practiced is currently with people who are not truly consenting. These girls are married off young (often underage) in circumstances where the are given no real options. Secondly, our legal structure is unable to deal with the end of polygamous marriages in the event of death or a party, or divorce.
If the law evolves to handle these cases, and if the inherent abuse of most polygamous marriages is resolved, then many of us would consider recognizing this institution.
"(I know I've responded to a similar post of yours before)."
I have never seen one of you posts responding to mine. Your are definitely mistaken.
"Polygamy as practiced is currently with people who are not truly consenting"
Not in every instance. Where is your evidence that in ALL cases of pologamy that the adults are not consenting?
"These girls are married off young (often underage) in circumstances where the are given no real options"
Well that would just have to be written into the law that your must be of age to be a consenting adult now wouldn't it? You can do better that that.
"Secondly, our legal structure is unable to deal with the end of polygamous marriages in the event of death or a party, or divorce."
Well maybe it should. If we can figure out how to put a man on the moon I am sure we can produce some laws regarding multiple wives/husbands who are consenting adults.
"...and if the inherent abuse of most polygamous marriages is resolved,"
Their is abuse in EVERY type of marriage. Nice try.
I don't have to show "all". For the government to impinge a right they require strict scrutiny. Assuming polygamous marriage were considered a true right (which it currently isn't, but lets make that assumption because it is the highest standard) then the government needs a "compelling interest" in order to meet strict scrutiny standards. If the vast majority of these relationships are thus flawed then this constitutes a compelling interest in any court's eyes.
Maybe it should. However, there has not been a push or desire to change the laws to figure this out. Clearly there is little interest in even the polygamous societies to change the laws. It's probably because it would merely bring to light the underage sexual abuse.
I'm clearly talking about the underage/non-consent issue that exists rampantly within the vast majority of these situations. See above.
"If the vast majority of these relationships are thus flawed then this constitutes a compelling interest in any court's eyes."
Again your are comparing apple to oranges by using the underage part as justification for the court to throw out laws that might be written for polygamists. Just because not ENOUGH consenting adults engaging in it we should disregard their rights as CONSENTING adults? Again laws can be written to limit participants to adults only as they currently do legally (taxes, ect...) for all marriages. You need to stop suggesting that laws, that don't exist yet BTW, cannot be treated with the same scrutiny.
Tracy the Supreme Court settled the issue on Polygamy over a hundred years ago. And, all the gays I know don't say they decided to be gay, they will tell you they realized they were gay.
They decided the case based on the defense that Renyold's saying it was his religious obligation to have multiple wives, but considering he was already married to another woman he was violating the bigamy laws that prohibit marrying another woman while still being married to another. If a man and several women want to be married, just as a man and another man or woman and another woman want to get married you can't discriminate just because you think that marriage is only between two people.
"And, all the gays I know don't say they decided to be gay, they will tell you they realized they were gay."
I agree that it's just the way the feel about members of the same sex for the most part, but I am sure that for others it is a choice. Maybe they are just hostile towards others of the opposite sex because of what the other men or women have done to them in their previous relationships.
A life Long Democrat - Today I am a Republican. I am voting for Romney, because Obama finally came out in support of Gay marriage (I am fine with civil liberties to all including to Gay, but no way the definition of marriage, pizza is a vegetable?). Obama compromised with republicans in 2010 and extended the tax-cuts to wealthy (he talks something and does exactly the opposite). He complained about Bush tax cuts and spending - during 08 campaign. What did he do? he did exactly what Bush did - Spend the heck out, print new notes, get rich fat people such Tim Geit (the Treasury Secretary who is an agent of and for Big banks) run the show. Now in this election year suddenly he supports Gay marriage to get votes. It is shame when the President of the country says he supports Gay marriage (my view).
At least Romney is clear - Do not support Gay marriage. I will vote for him, in spite of his remarks, corporations are people, I do not care about poor people etc. At least he has the guts to say what he says and he will not approve of gay marriage.
So not caring about poor people is less of an issue for you than gay people getting married?
You are full of love for your fellow man, aren't you.
Thank you for taking the right stand Mitt...maybe I will vote for you after all!
Yes, I am full of love. I donate at local soup kitchen. Make sandwiches and contribute. I plan to teach free to poor people as I believe that poor people's biggest weapon against poverty is education.
The greater goal of a country is to lift the life the downtrodden and help everybody. The goal that Obama is just pursuing if an "inferior goal". He has very little to show as a record, now he comes up with a stance on gay marriage most likely driven by polls and some garbage advice (hopefully not his wife). This should be an irrelevant issue and a back-burner. This should NOT be a mainstream social issue. Who cares if Homosexual union is called marriage or not. They already have civil liberties. They already have union in the most unnatural way, yet the majority such as we tolerate, but a country's leader coming up with such statements (as Obama made) -shows that he is sinking to some silly matters, and is pursuing vote bank politics, rather than focus on bigger issues that country is facing.
Then clearly, if this is your stance, voting for Romney is a horrendous idea. He has been consistently good at one thing:screwing people. He did so when he defunded education as Governor, and he was masterful at it at Bain Capital.
If you feel this way why base a vote on it?
Not the same as you and I enjoy however.
EngEsq you obviously did not follow up on the comment about the poor - in clarification Romney said he wasn't worried about the poor because of the standards set in place to help the poor out. Its amazing how people love to paraphase to prove their point.
EngEsq
I know homosexuals and many sympathizers of homos are a majority in places such as this (MSNBC) and I know that many TV anchors are gays in MSNBC and its affiliate stations. USA as a country has given homosexuals the right to civil liberties. Still there is so much fight to change the definition of marriage (lobbying, influence peddling by homo groups). Why can't these homos relax and be happy? Mover to Canada or Denmark, why create a ruckus here in the USA.
Though I did not vote for Bush - he was a strong and passionate leader. His mistake about Iraq war cost us a trillion dollars. What did Obama do? Same thing -spend another trillion here and there, extend the tax-cuts to wealthy again (no difference with Bush), use more Drones than Bush did to kill people (where are the human rights people? why are they not complaining). So bottom line he (Obama) is same as Bush in many many respects.
After today with Obama's pursuit of "inferior goal" for the good of country. I am ready to vote for Romney and give him a chance. Let us see if he can help the economy and rebuild our defense rather than waste money like Bush and Obama did.
Since when did it become OK for the slur "homo" to be used so flippantly? The only thing to be gathered by your ranting is that Romney supporters are bigots...and we already know that, so your ranting is worthless.
Is "lord of the universe" your Klan title? I thought they only went as high as wizards...maybe it's different in the Aryan Nation...
I understand how blacks are comparing persecution to persecution; after all, you can still be arrested for walking while black.
But--gays used to be burned at the stake for centuries and were murdered by the Nazis in death camps during WWII. And gays and lesbians are often raped 'to teach them a lesson'.
How about we call this one even?
Morally I have no objection to polygamy. I think there are plenty of case studies where it works nicely for gay and straight relationships. I think the problem lies in the thing that same sex couples want more than recognition, the tax code. The American tax code is just not set up for more than two people.
ChefMaddog - I think your moniker is right. How is having marriage open to same sex couples set up for more than two people? You smoking those funny cigarettes again???
LOL Someone had asked that if we okay same sex marriage, why shouldn't we allow polygamy. I was telling him that morally I had no issue with polygamy, but it shouldn't be legal because of the tax code.
STOP calling them GAYS ! They are NOT gay.....they're just borrowing that word (it used to mean something else) because it "sounds" more tolerable.
They are HOMOSEXUALS.......got that. Repeat after me, HOMOSEXUALS
Right, and stop saying COOL for things that are NEAT... Wait, I mean for things that are RADICAL...?! Wait, for things that are interesting or fascinating... That's what I meant to say.
Because, dammit, I'm a STUD, that is manly guy, who can't handle that words constantly change meanings. DIG what I'm saying, DOG?
you are right! If they were gay ( happy ) they wouldn't be belly aching all the tiem would they?
I can, by the same arguement, tell you to stop using the word chipper unless you show all of the signs of being chipper.
Cool. Now we all know who claims ownership of the English language. Webster was an idiot..."chipper" knows all....
At least you agree, here in San Diego we refer to them as what they are...HOMOSEXUAL.
HOMOSEXUAL.............HOMO-SEXUAL.....HOMO for short.....you guys can't stand that word can you.
HOMOSEXUAL..................EEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, ICKY, YUKKY, ISHY, me either
Thank you, not-so-chipper, for demonstrating the emotional maturity of the average teabagger. Please keep posting so that everyone can see what the Republican party has turned in to.
I'm a Democrat that knows the difference between the new word GAY and HOMOSEXUAL. NEVER call me a REP. again or we will have problems
Oh Chipper! The mere word HOMOSEXUAL makes you get all excited and hateful? Is that all it takes for you to get hot and bothered? LOL Life must be hard for you if all it takes to make you lash out against other people is a word. Be careful or you will find yourself so outraged that you will commit a crime against a HOMOSEXUAL and end up in jail. Remember you can hate but you can't touch. lol HOMOSEXUAL HOMOSEXUAL HOMOSEXUAL hahahah
Chipper the Republican, Chipper the Republican, Chipper the Republican....
GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY.......
.....now we wait for the fireworks....why do I feel like we're going to be reading about this little dude in the paper tomorrow?? Creepy....
I think what @JustSayin22 had in mind is there is a natural order to things and
then there is an unnatural choices people make. Defining marriage as one man
and one woman will keep the natural order of things intact. If we start sliding
to the left with baby steps what is to keep things from totally falling over?
Should it be okay in the future to have people choose to marry their pets -
that is a public display of affection I can live without? Maybe a future
president will support reducing the age that defines statutory rape - Will that
be ok? Why not? If it feels good do it
right?
..."Romney has previously backed certain benefits for gay couples -- for instance, the right to visit with a sick partner in the hospital -- but said each state should be free to determine their own laws".
Way to go Mittwad. No blood on your hands, right? Let the states do your dirty work.
And no vote from me.
Personally I don't give a rat's behind what goes on behind closed doors among consenting adults. As long as they don't try and involve me I really don't care. I also don't care about the opinion of either candidate on this issue. There are much more important things to worry about than same sex marriage.
"There are much more important things to worry about than same sex marriage."
Yes there is, but it's pretty obvious why the Obama administration making such a big deal about this now....otherwise we would have to pay attention to his pathetic record on the economy.
I hope all the gays, women, latinos are watching and realizing this great GOP party that is inclusive to all and equal rights for all is so full of BS I'm amazed they can give a speech with a "straight" face.
This rights crap is getting out of hand. Is it someone's right to move into your house because they want to have what you have? No, that house belongs to you. Marriage is between one man and one woman - stick to your own house - a civil union.... How exactly are women and latinos being abused by the GOP? You are a ripe candidate to follow like a lemming to vote for your pride and joy again.. sorry to disappoint you that your buddy is going down in flames (no puns intended) hehe
lulu98 - ???????
Updated 5:31 p.m. - Mitt Romney reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage on Wednesday but declined to condemn President Obama's endorsement of gay marriage, noting the sensitivity of the issue
seriously? This issue is too tender? so are MY FEELINGS about Romney's tax agenda, but that doesn't stop him from telling me I can shell out a whopping 67% more to add to his coffers!
Like him or not at least Obama has taken and stated his feelings PUBLICALLY! C'mon Romney put on your big boy panties and man up will ya?
It does look like a war of values is about or is taking place in the US. On one side are the social conservatives living in the 1950's and on the other are the progressives that see life as always evolving. On one side you have poorly educated folk and on the other the majority of well educated people. By income you have the conservatives that tend to be of lower socio economic levels and the progressives on the other end. A sociologists dream study.
Marriage is a civil matter not a religious one. It has many legal implications for benefits, and rights.
It is not a "sacred bond" since that implies some degree of religion.
If it were a religious one then athiests couldnt marry, and a justice of the peace couldnt marry people. The JOP cares not a bit what your religion is.
So to stop same sex marriages on religious grounds is inappropriate, since the constitution separates church and state, religious and civil matters.
The Bible says a man should be with a woman and not a man, but this only applies to people who believe in the Bible. If people dont believe in the Bible, then this resriction shouldnt matter.
"While President Obama has played politics on this issue, the Republican Party and our presumptive nominee Mitt Romney have been clear," said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.
So according to Mr. Priebus being opposed to gay marriage (an opinion) is being "clear" and being in favor of gay marriage (just another opinion) is "playing politics".
Utter rubbish.
federal govt has no right to change the definition of marriage. it is a state issue. more attempted distraction from obamas horrible fake "recovery". tell borders and sears how good things are getting.
if the libs were sincere about rights, they would stop with the homo pandering and have equal rights for men and women regarding custody after divorce. GASP, A REAL ISSUE?!
"homo pandering"???? Did you really think that you were making your side look good when you wrote that?
shocked, i am just amusing myself. dont be so serious. could you imagine actually saying something like that out loud? its too funny to even think!
homo pandering! it is kinda funny no?
Exlax ETCH-A-SKETCH couldn't figure out his stance on IMMIGRATION and NOW he can't figure out his stance on gays, but he did blow our illustrious President a kiss for stickin' up for 'em!!
tr, could you remind everybody what the etch a scketch thing is, cause it sounds a little reaching, and childish. thanks!
i keep seeing the reference, from libs. ahh, must be some stupid inside joke of someone making more of a silly statement than they should.
I LOVE my president, more and more every day! God Bless AMERICA!!!!!
hmmm, mama sue, what would yo DADDY think?! lol
Hmmm...racial slurs AND gay slurs...You certainly are a true Republican, aren't you, right.
Now who doesn't look "fabulous"? Says Mitt Romney: "I fundamentally disagree with the President, as well as with my grandfather who thought that marriage should only be between a man, a woman, another woman, and so on." Boy, I love this man. Every day another nuanced teachable moment. For "3 Things I've Learned from Mitt Romney," check out this funny YouTube video:
if the real issue is the sanctity of marriage...why isn't more being done to outlaw the ease of divorce?
nothing wrong with 2 people getting married.
its not a federal issue
laws would have to be rewritten due to the corruption from ssi benefits, retirement, inheritance, custody after divorce etc. its a huge issue, one most people couldnt understand.
has nothing to do with anti gay. its anti law. state by state issues, like romney said. but how do you explain these things to antagonist haters? you dont.
So...we can not institute marriage equality because we can't be bothered to rewrite laws?? Is that difficult because Republicans are to stupid to write the laws, or are they just to lazy to do their jobs? I would argue for the stupid and lazy.
When you use slurs like "homo" and "yo mama", it would becomes a compliment to be called an "antagonist hater".
Do you share these posts with your therapist? You should....
homo and yo mama are terms of endearment. nothing but love for homos and yo mama. lol! jk. lighten up francis
I'm glad you think you're funny.