The Real Mitt Romney

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Adak

...Read "The Naked Constitution" by Friedman, and you'll get past this "every generation should blah, blah, blah", progressive idiocy...

Seriously? Now progress is bad? You CAN'T be THAT stupid.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

Seriously? Now progress is bad? You CAN'T be THAT stupid.

Not "progress", the word was "progressive", which is pretty much a synonym for liberal ideology.

Apart from the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, (like inalienable rights), once you try changing the Constitution, you can quickly run into trouble. Most of the time, those who want to change it (or ask you to believe their new and subtle interpretation of it), do so only to benefit either themselves, or their party, at everyone else's expense.

[Sheldonrs]

Well, then, I guess I should vote for Romney and the GOP because they would never dream of changing the constitution. Oh, wait! What's this?


http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/0...nal-amendment/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...he-presidency/

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...arty-platform/

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

Well, then, I guess I should vote for Romney and the GOP because they would never dream of changing the constitution. Oh, wait! What's this?

The subject of gay or homosexual marriage, was not mentioned in the Constitution. So any amendment would be an addition, not a change in any existing part of the Constitution. Similar to the 14th amendment, etc.

Again, this is political posturing to get his conservative base more motivated to support him and come on out and vote!

Romney wasn't even in Congress, so the writer is making a huge flight of fancy that Mitt was serious about a Federal Constitutional Amendment.

I thought a good way to go was to have civil unions with full marriage rights, for gay couples. Thus "protecting" the word "marriage", for those more likely to produce the next generation.

That term "marriage" seems to be a huge sticking point, so I'm looking for a compromise here that gives our gay brothers and sisters full marriage rights, but provokes the least angry backlash from our hetero brothers and sisters.

I'm not sure this is the best compromise, but I'm thinking it's one of the better ones and could be done.

Mormons are strongly against abortions except for medical necessity or rape. I don't believe Romney will budge on his anti-abortion stance.

That one is NOT a political posture.

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Adak

...That term "marriage" seems to be a huge sticking point, so I'm looking for a compromise here that gives our gay brothers and sisters full marriage rights, but provokes the least angry backlash from our hetero brothers and sisters...

Because "Separate But Equal" worked so well before.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

Because "Separate But Equal" worked so well before.

Point taken, but I'm in Calif., and here, we HAD a gay marriage law passed, but then there was a backlash, and now we have NO gay marriages allowed by law. (A judge has held up it's implementation, but that's what has been passed by the electorate).

So I don't believe (surveys show slightly more than 55% don't want Gay marriage), that the Feds can force it through as a a law, at this time. Whatever party did it would be in for a beating at the next voting cycle. That leaves it up to the states, to sort it out, as best they can.

Do you believe the Feds can pass a Gay marriage law in 2012-2014 time frame? I don't believe that is possible. Change my mind.

@DanaC: "hetero" sounds more descriptive than "religious (usually)". I agree that it's certainly not a strictly hetero position at all.

[Stormieweather]

~snip~

Originally Posted by Adak

...gives our gay brothers and sisters full marriage rights, but provokes the least angry backlash from our hetero brothers and sisters.

from some of our hetero...