Cognitive Dissonance

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather boa!" - Allen Ginsberg

Posts tagged marriage

52 notes

amedio3k:

This just came up on my FB feed because an acquaintance “liked” it. My head just about exploded.I suppose I’m not terribly surprised, since the image was posted by an account called “Catholic Church” (their info states: ‘This is not an official page approved by the Catholic Church. It is a lay initiative and has no approval from any Ecclesiastical Authority.”), and links to uCatholic (motto: “Catholic Traditions in the Modern World”.I’m not even surprised that the acquaintance “liked” the image, since she’s a devout LDS, married with three kids. I really don’t care about someone else’s religious belief, or sense of morality.What has me raging, however, is the blatant misinformation…the generalization…and the projection of one group’s sense of morality onto others.Not only is this a slap in the face to those who don’t want to get married or can’t get married , but it’s an incredibly dangerous assertion when you consider the truth about HIV and other STIs. I’m sorry (not really), but a ring on your finger and a signed marriage license aren’t going to protect your health.Fidelity won’t necessarily protect your health.Sex is not the only way that HIV is transmitted…and the idea that marriage and/or fidelity equates “safe” sex is just one of many myths that has allowed for the rapid spread of HIV infection, particularly among couples in sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, about one out of every ten couples living in Kenya has at least one partner who is HIV+. Among married people who are living with HIV, 45% have a partner who is uninfected.According to Population Action International: 
“In a study of five African countries, two thirds of HIV-infected couples are serodiscordant (one partner is HIV-negative, while the other is HIV-positive). 
In Rwanda and Zambia, it is estimated that over half of new infections occur within marriage or in cohabitating relationships, and just under half in Uganda.
 While risk of transmission in discordant couples can be drastically reduced, this can only happen when partners are tested, disclose their results, and use condoms. “There’s really nothing righteous about lying and promoting ignorance. This sort of bullshit “wishful thinking” is killing people. It’s beyond infuriating. It’s despicable. 

amedio3k:

This just came up on my FB feed because an acquaintance “liked” it. My head just about exploded.

I suppose I’m not terribly surprised, since the image was posted by an account called “Catholic Church” (their info states: ‘This is not an official page approved by the Catholic Church. It is a lay initiative and has no approval from any Ecclesiastical Authority.”), and links to uCatholic (motto: “Catholic Traditions in the Modern World”.
I’m not even surprised that the acquaintance “liked” the image, since she’s a devout LDS, married with three kids.

I really don’t care about someone else’s religious belief, or sense of morality.

What has me raging, however, is the blatant misinformation…the generalization…and the projection of one group’s sense of morality onto others.

Not only is this a slap in the face to those who don’t want to get married or can’t get married , but it’s an incredibly dangerous assertion when you consider the truth about HIV and other STIs. 

I’m sorry (not really), but a ring on your finger and a signed marriage license aren’t going to protect your health.
Fidelity won’t necessarily protect your health.

Sex is not the only way that HIV is transmitted…and the idea that marriage and/or fidelity equates “safe” sex is just one of many myths that has allowed for the rapid spread of HIV infection, particularly among couples in sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, about one out of every ten couples living in Kenya has at least one partner who is HIV+. Among married people who are living with HIV, 45% have a partner who is uninfected.

According to Population Action International

“In a study of five African countries, two thirds of HIV-infected couples are serodiscordant (one partner is HIV-negative, while the other is HIV-positive). 

In Rwanda and Zambia, it is estimated that over half of new infections occur within marriage or in cohabitating relationships, and just under half in Uganda.

 While risk of transmission in discordant couples can be drastically reduced, this can only happen when partners are tested, disclose their results, and use condoms. “

There’s really nothing righteous about lying and promoting ignorance. This sort of bullshit “wishful thinking” is killing people. It’s beyond infuriating. It’s despicable. 

Filed under HIV AIDS Catholic Catholicism Religion Faith Safe Sex Sex STIs Health Truth Marriage Fidelity

52 notes

While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads. In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage. Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview.

Bristol Palin, lecturing the world on the sacredness of marriage.

For fuck’s sake…

So, to paraphrase Tina Fey on SNL, should marriage be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers? Far be it for me to judge here, but if we’re looking for guidance on the “traditional family” and the role of fathers, I do believe the last stop on the advice train is Teen Mom prototype Bristol Palin.

Filed under Bristol Palin marriage politics seriously same-sex marriage you are hurting my brain

43 notes

Upon the occasion of President Obama’s gay marriage news-making today, the always reasonable Fox Nation essentially put out a call to arms, declaring in an all-caps headline, “OBAMA FLIP FLOPS, DECLARES WAR ON MARRIAGE.”

But so much for brand unity, because Fox News anchor Shep Smith was not shy on-air about his agreement with the president’s stated belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. "The president of the United States, now in the 21st century," Smith said dryly after airing Obama’s historic announcement. He then asked Fox host Bret Baier, with some attitude, if the Republicans would dare make marriage equality a campaign issue "while sitting very firmly, without much question, on the wrong side of history on it."

Baier responded soberly, “I don’t know about that, Shep,” pointing to close opinion polls and state referendums banning same-sex unions. Smith went on to note that Obama’s position “makes no legal change for now, which may sound familiar to a couple of generations ago, but that’s where we are.”

I ♥ you, Shep Smith. Truly.

Filed under Shep Smith Obama GLBTQ Politics GLBTQ Rights gay rights marriage marriage equality same-sex marriage

867 notes

stfuconservatives:

bitchhofliving:

This literally made me sick.

The right to… not be grossed out by gay people? What right was stripped away? Seriously, somebody explain to me how a law that allows people to get married “strips away” rights from others.

Oh, hello there Rick Santorum. Did you read the decision? You might be interested:
Proposition 8 worked a singular and limited change to the California Constitution: it stripped same-sex couples of the right to have their committed relationships recognized by the State with the designation of ‘marriage,’ which the state constitution had previously guaranteed them, while leaving in place all of their other rights and responsibilities as partners—rights and responsibilities that are identical to those of married spouses and form an integral part of the marriage relationship…
By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the People of California violated the Equal Protection Clause. We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground. We do not doubt the importance of the more general questions presented to us concerning the rights of same-sex couples to marry, nor do we doubt that these questions will likely be resolved in other states, and for the nation as a whole, by other courts. For now, it suffices to conclude that the People of California may not, consistent with the Federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the State and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED

Sounds like some people got their rights stripped, and it wasn’t the people who voted for Prop(H)8. But I can see how you’d get confused, Rick. With your head so far up your own ass, I bet your view of the world around you is rather limited.

stfuconservatives:

bitchhofliving:

This literally made me sick.

The right to… not be grossed out by gay people? What right was stripped away? Seriously, somebody explain to me how a law that allows people to get married “strips away” rights from others.

Oh, hello there Rick Santorum. Did you read the decision? You might be interested:

Proposition 8 worked a singular and limited change to the California Constitution: it stripped same-sex couples of the right to have their committed relationships recognized by the State with the designation of ‘marriage,’ which the state constitution had previously guaranteed them, while leaving in place all of their other rights and responsibilities as partners—rights and responsibilities that are identical to those of married spouses and form an integral part of the marriage relationship…

By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the People of California violated the Equal Protection Clause. We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground. We do not doubt the importance of the more general questions presented to us concerning the rights of same-sex couples to marry, nor do we doubt that these questions will likely be resolved in other states, and for the nation as a whole, by other courts. For now, it suffices to conclude that the People of California may not, consistent with the Federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the State and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED

Sounds like some people got their rights stripped, and it wasn’t the people who voted for Prop(H)8. But I can see how you’d get confused, Rick. With your head so far up your own ass, I bet your view of the world around you is rather limited.

(Source: taylorareyouokay, via stfuconservatives)

Filed under conservative rick santorum santorum liberal prop 8 gay marriage freedom marriage

5,316 notes

Some people think that you can’t let same-sex couples get married without changing the definition of the word “marriage.” When we let openly gay people join the army, did we have to change the definition of the word “Army”? Did Rosa Parks make us change the definition of the word “bus”?

It’s one thing to blame the Bible for your bigotry, but don’t blame the dictionary.
California attorney and semi-professional cynic Bill Smith on today’s Ninth Circuit decision regarding Proposition 8. Read the full decision here.

Filed under Bill Smith Proposition 8 Prop 8 Prop H8 politics GLBTQ GLBTQ Rights US Constitution religion bigotry marriage marriage equality lulz snark

168 notes

cognitivedissonance:

This flyer is from when Mitt Romney was running for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. It states, “All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference” and wishes folks a great pride weekend.
As governor, he backed that statement up. From Joe Sudbay at AMERICA blog:

While running for governor in 2002, Romney and his running mate, Kerry Healey, distributed pink fliers at a Gay Pride parade, declaring “Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend.” He backed domestic partner benefits for public employees, winning the endorsement of the national Log Cabin Republicans. In his inaugural speech, he promised to defend civil rights “regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or race.”
As governor, he appointed openly gay and lesbian people to high-profile administration positions. He doubled the budget line item for the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, until he tried to disband it last May — more political theater for the Republican right.

And now? Well, he’s changed his mind. The gays are no longer A-OK for Romney:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has joined Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Sen. Pennsylvania Rick Santorum in signing a pledge to oppose same-sex marriage on a number of specific fronts.
The three candidates signed the pledge advanced by the National Organization for Marriage, which has led national and state campaigns to limit marriage to a man and a woman. The signature of the front-runner, Romney, is a bit of a coup for the group, as he’s been careful about committing to other pledges, including a broad promise to a socially conservative Iowa group that caused trouble for other candidates.
Romney, Bachmann and Santorum signed on to support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, to appoint federal judges who don’t see a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and to back the Defense of Marriage Act.
They’ve also pledged to support a referendum on marriage in Washington and to establish a “presidential commission on religious liberty” aimed at protecting the rights of marriage foes to speak out.

Here’s the pledge, with Romney’s signature. 

Civil rights for all Americans just aren’t politically expedient for today’s GOP. However, Romney has never been a huge supporter of marriage equality - only civil unions, and reluctantly so. From a (rather internally contradictory) 2004 press release:

Same sex marriage doesn’t hurt my marriage, or yours. But it may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole. Until we understand the implications for human development of a different definition of marriage, I believe we should preserve that which has endured over thousands of years.
Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing… There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding.
But there is a difference between individual rights and marriage. An individual has rights, but a man and a woman together have a marriage. We should not deconstruct marriage simply to make a statement about the rights of individual adults. Forcing marriage to mean all things, will ultimately define marriage to mean nothing at all.
Some have asked why so much importance is attached to the word “marriage.” It is because changing the definition of marriage to include same sex unions will lead to further far-reaching changes that also would influence the development of our children. For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same sex practice. It is inconceivable that promoting absolute indifference between heterosexual and homosexual unions would not significantly effect child development, family dynamics, and societal structures.
Among the structures that would be affected would be religious and certain charitable institutions. Those with scriptural or other immutable founding principles will be castigated. Ultimately, some may founder… Society can ill afford further erosion of charitable and virtuous institutions. For these reasons, I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment.

Romney saw civil unions as the compromise of protecting marriage and individual rights; however, his latest signing of this pledge indicates his complete shift to the far right on this issue, and is nothing more than political pandering by a floundering candidate.

Bringing this back because of Romney’s waffling on same-sex marriage yet again… Click here to view full coverage of this and other issues from the debates last night and this morning.

cognitivedissonance:

This flyer is from when Mitt Romney was running for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. It states, “All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference” and wishes folks a great pride weekend.

As governor, he backed that statement up. From Joe Sudbay at AMERICA blog:

While running for governor in 2002, Romney and his running mate, Kerry Healey, distributed pink fliers at a Gay Pride parade, declaring “Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend.” He backed domestic partner benefits for public employees, winning the endorsement of the national Log Cabin Republicans. In his inaugural speech, he promised to defend civil rights “regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or race.”

As governor, he appointed openly gay and lesbian people to high-profile administration positions. He doubled the budget line item for the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, until he tried to disband it last May — more political theater for the Republican right.

And now? Well, he’s changed his mind. The gays are no longer A-OK for Romney:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has joined Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Sen. Pennsylvania Rick Santorum in signing a pledge to oppose same-sex marriage on a number of specific fronts.

The three candidates signed the pledge advanced by the National Organization for Marriage, which has led national and state campaigns to limit marriage to a man and a woman. The signature of the front-runner, Romney, is a bit of a coup for the group, as he’s been careful about committing to other pledges, including a broad promise to a socially conservative Iowa group that caused trouble for other candidates.

Romney, Bachmann and Santorum signed on to support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, to appoint federal judges who don’t see a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and to back the Defense of Marriage Act.

They’ve also pledged to support a referendum on marriage in Washington and to establish a “presidential commission on religious liberty” aimed at protecting the rights of marriage foes to speak out.

Here’s the pledge, with Romney’s signature. 

Civil rights for all Americans just aren’t politically expedient for today’s GOP. However, Romney has never been a huge supporter of marriage equality - only civil unions, and reluctantly so. From a (rather internally contradictory) 2004 press release:

Same sex marriage doesn’t hurt my marriage, or yours. But it may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole. Until we understand the implications for human development of a different definition of marriage, I believe we should preserve that which has endured over thousands of years.

Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing… There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding.

But there is a difference between individual rights and marriage. An individual has rights, but a man and a woman together have a marriage. We should not deconstruct marriage simply to make a statement about the rights of individual adults. Forcing marriage to mean all things, will ultimately define marriage to mean nothing at all.

Some have asked why so much importance is attached to the word “marriage.” It is because changing the definition of marriage to include same sex unions will lead to further far-reaching changes that also would influence the development of our children. For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same sex practice. It is inconceivable that promoting absolute indifference between heterosexual and homosexual unions would not significantly effect child development, family dynamics, and societal structures.

Among the structures that would be affected would be religious and certain charitable institutions. Those with scriptural or other immutable founding principles will be castigated. Ultimately, some may founder… Society can ill afford further erosion of charitable and virtuous institutions. For these reasons, I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment.

Romney saw civil unions as the compromise of protecting marriage and individual rights; however, his latest signing of this pledge indicates his complete shift to the far right on this issue, and is nothing more than political pandering by a floundering candidate.

Bringing this back because of Romney’s waffling on same-sex marriage yet again… Click here to view full coverage of this and other issues from the debates last night and this morning.

Filed under Mitt Romney marriage National Organization for Marriage NOM politics GLBTQ GLBTQ Rights LGBT gay rights same-sex marriage flip flop civil unions 2012 republican republicans

119 notes

From ThinkProgress:

A website that promotes adultery has endorsed Newt Gingrich for president, and even erected a giant billboard in Pennsylvania to announce it. Next to a picture of Gingrich making a “shhh” gesture, the billboard reads: "Faithful Republican, Unfaithful Husband". Ashleymadison.com, a dating website for people looking to cheat on their spouses, welcomes visitors with the tag line, “Life is short, Have an affair.” Gingrich has admitted to cheating on his wives, and Noel Biderman, the founder of the cheaters website explained, “Now that Newt is the leading contender in the race for the GOP nomination, we felt compelled to make a point to illustrate how times have changed when a serial divorcee/adulterer is capturing the hearts of the American people.”


Oh, Newt, you scumbag. I think your ass got trolled. Ashley Madison should put these up all over the country.
On the heels of this endorsement for Gingrich comes the endorsement of Pastor Jim Garlow, a chief proponent of Proposition 8. Garlow is famous for comparing children losing their parents on 9/11 to the consequences of same-sex couples adopting. In a completely serious, non-ironic email, Garlow endorses Gingrich because, wait for it, he’ll protect marriage:

"Destroying the definition of marriage is not merely ‘left.’ It is wrong. It is sin. Stealing funds from future generations and spending it so that they will be closer to slavery than freedom is not merely ‘left.’ It is wrong. It is sin. Although Mr. Gingrich is not running for ‘Theologian-in-Chief’ but ‘Commander-in-Chief,’ he grasps these issues. He understands the moral component."

Yep. Gingrich understands the moral component of protecting marriage. He’s so good at it, he’s pledged to do it three times. He loves his country so much, he had to cheat on his wife. TRUE PATRIOT, Y’ALL.

From ThinkProgress:

A website that promotes adultery has endorsed Newt Gingrich for president, and even erected a giant billboard in Pennsylvania to announce it. Next to a picture of Gingrich making a “shhh” gesture, the billboard reads: "Faithful Republican, Unfaithful Husband". Ashleymadison.com, a dating website for people looking to cheat on their spouses, welcomes visitors with the tag line, “Life is short, Have an affair.” Gingrich has admitted to cheating on his wives, and Noel Biderman, the founder of the cheaters website explained, “Now that Newt is the leading contender in the race for the GOP nomination, we felt compelled to make a point to illustrate how times have changed when a serial divorcee/adulterer is capturing the hearts of the American people.”


Oh, Newt, you scumbag. I think your ass got trolled. Ashley Madison should put these up all over the country.

On the heels of this endorsement for Gingrich comes the endorsement of Pastor Jim Garlow, a chief proponent of Proposition 8. Garlow is famous for comparing children losing their parents on 9/11 to the consequences of same-sex couples adopting. In a completely serious, non-ironic email, Garlow endorses Gingrich because, wait for it, he’ll protect marriage:

"Destroying the definition of marriage is not merely ‘left.’ It is wrong. It is sin. Stealing funds from future generations and spending it so that they will be closer to slavery than freedom is not merely ‘left.’ It is wrong. It is sin. Although Mr. Gingrich is not running for ‘Theologian-in-Chief’ but ‘Commander-in-Chief,’ he grasps these issues. He understands the moral component."

Yep. Gingrich understands the moral component of protecting marriage. He’s so good at it, he’s pledged to do it three times. He loves his country so much, he had to cheat on his wife. TRUE PATRIOT, Y’ALL.

Filed under Newt Gingrich Infidelity GOP Conservative Conservatives Republican Republicans 2012 Election 2012 Ashley Madison affair marriage morality politics

72 notes


Navy officer weds partner as gay ban ends
When Navy Lt. Gary Ross and his partner were searching for a place to get married, they settled on a site in Vermont, in part because the state is in the Eastern time zone.
That way, the two men were able to recite their vows before family and friends at the first possible moment after the formal repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Just after midnight Tuesday, the partners of 11 years were married.
"I think it was a beautiful ceremony. The emotions really hit me…but it’s finally official," Ross said early Tuesday.
Hours before the change was to take effect early Tuesday, the American military was also making final preparations for the historic policy shift. The Pentagon announced that it was already accepting applications from openly gay candidates, although officials said they would wait a day before reviewing them.
Ross, 33, and Dan Swezy, a 49-year-old civilian, traveled from their home in Tucson, Ariz., so they could get married in Vermont, the first state to allow gays to enter into civil unions and one of six that have legalized same-sex marriage.
Ross wore his dress uniform for the ceremony beginning at 11:45 p.m. Monday at Duxbury’s Moose Meadow Lodge, a log cabin bed-and-breakfast perched on a hillside about 15 miles northwest of Montpelier.
The lodge says it hosted the state’s first gay wedding in 2009.
Justice of the Peace Greg Trulson proclaimed the marriage at exactly midnight.
Read more

Congrats to the happy couple! And America, we still have a long way to go for full equality.

Navy officer weds partner as gay ban ends

When Navy Lt. Gary Ross and his partner were searching for a place to get married, they settled on a site in Vermont, in part because the state is in the Eastern time zone.

That way, the two men were able to recite their vows before family and friends at the first possible moment after the formal repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Just after midnight Tuesday, the partners of 11 years were married.

"I think it was a beautiful ceremony. The emotions really hit me…but it’s finally official," Ross said early Tuesday.

Hours before the change was to take effect early Tuesday, the American military was also making final preparations for the historic policy shift. The Pentagon announced that it was already accepting applications from openly gay candidates, although officials said they would wait a day before reviewing them.

Ross, 33, and Dan Swezy, a 49-year-old civilian, traveled from their home in Tucson, Ariz., so they could get married in Vermont, the first state to allow gays to enter into civil unions and one of six that have legalized same-sex marriage.

Ross wore his dress uniform for the ceremony beginning at 11:45 p.m. Monday at Duxbury’s Moose Meadow Lodge, a log cabin bed-and-breakfast perched on a hillside about 15 miles northwest of Montpelier.

The lodge says it hosted the state’s first gay wedding in 2009.

Justice of the Peace Greg Trulson proclaimed the marriage at exactly midnight.

Read more

Congrats to the happy couple! And America, we still have a long way to go for full equality.

Filed under Navy US Navy DADT Don't Ask Don't Tell politics congrats! marriage GLBTQ GLBTQ Rights

168 notes

This flyer is from when Mitt Romney was running for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. It states, “All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference” and wishes folks a great pride weekend.
As governor, he backed that statement up. From Joe Sudbay at AMERICA blog:

While running for governor in 2002, Romney and his running mate, Kerry Healey, distributed pink fliers at a Gay Pride parade, declaring “Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend.” He backed domestic partner benefits for public employees, winning the endorsement of the national Log Cabin Republicans. In his inaugural speech, he promised to defend civil rights “regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or race.”
As governor, he appointed openly gay and lesbian people to high-profile administration positions. He doubled the budget line item for the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, until he tried to disband it last May — more political theater for the Republican right.

And now? Well, he’s changed his mind. The gays are no longer A-OK for Romney:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has joined Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Sen. Pennsylvania Rick Santorum in signing a pledge to oppose same-sex marriage on a number of specific fronts.
The three candidates signed the pledge advanced by the National Organization for Marriage, which has led national and state campaigns to limit marriage to a man and a woman. The signature of the front-runner, Romney, is a bit of a coup for the group, as he’s been careful about committing to other pledges, including a broad promise to a socially conservative Iowa group that caused trouble for other candidates.
Romney, Bachmann and Santorum signed on to support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, to appoint federal judges who don’t see a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and to back the Defense of Marriage Act.
They’ve also pledged to support a referendum on marriage in Washington and to establish a “presidential commission on religious liberty” aimed at protecting the rights of marriage foes to speak out.

Here’s the pledge, with Romney’s signature. 

Civil rights for all Americans just aren’t politically expedient for today’s GOP. However, Romney has never been a huge supporter of marriage equality - only civil unions, and reluctantly so. From a (rather internally contradictory) 2004 press release:

Same sex marriage doesn’t hurt my marriage, or yours. But it may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole. Until we understand the implications for human development of a different definition of marriage, I believe we should preserve that which has endured over thousands of years.
Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing… There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding.
But there is a difference between individual rights and marriage. An individual has rights, but a man and a woman together have a marriage. We should not deconstruct marriage simply to make a statement about the rights of individual adults. Forcing marriage to mean all things, will ultimately define marriage to mean nothing at all.
Some have asked why so much importance is attached to the word “marriage.” It is because changing the definition of marriage to include same sex unions will lead to further far-reaching changes that also would influence the development of our children. For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same sex practice. It is inconceivable that promoting absolute indifference between heterosexual and homosexual unions would not significantly effect child development, family dynamics, and societal structures.
Among the structures that would be affected would be religious and certain charitable institutions. Those with scriptural or other immutable founding principles will be castigated. Ultimately, some may founder… Society can ill afford further erosion of charitable and virtuous institutions. For these reasons, I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment.

Romney saw civil unions as the compromise of protecting marriage and individual rights; however, his latest signing of this pledge indicates his complete shift to the far right on this issue, and is nothing more than political pandering by a floundering candidate.

This flyer is from when Mitt Romney was running for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. It states, “All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference” and wishes folks a great pride weekend.

As governor, he backed that statement up. From Joe Sudbay at AMERICA blog:

While running for governor in 2002, Romney and his running mate, Kerry Healey, distributed pink fliers at a Gay Pride parade, declaring “Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend.” He backed domestic partner benefits for public employees, winning the endorsement of the national Log Cabin Republicans. In his inaugural speech, he promised to defend civil rights “regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or race.”

As governor, he appointed openly gay and lesbian people to high-profile administration positions. He doubled the budget line item for the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, until he tried to disband it last May — more political theater for the Republican right.

And now? Well, he’s changed his mind. The gays are no longer A-OK for Romney:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has joined Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Sen. Pennsylvania Rick Santorum in signing a pledge to oppose same-sex marriage on a number of specific fronts.

The three candidates signed the pledge advanced by the National Organization for Marriage, which has led national and state campaigns to limit marriage to a man and a woman. The signature of the front-runner, Romney, is a bit of a coup for the group, as he’s been careful about committing to other pledges, including a broad promise to a socially conservative Iowa group that caused trouble for other candidates.

Romney, Bachmann and Santorum signed on to support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, to appoint federal judges who don’t see a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and to back the Defense of Marriage Act.

They’ve also pledged to support a referendum on marriage in Washington and to establish a “presidential commission on religious liberty” aimed at protecting the rights of marriage foes to speak out.

Here’s the pledge, with Romney’s signature. 

Civil rights for all Americans just aren’t politically expedient for today’s GOP. However, Romney has never been a huge supporter of marriage equality - only civil unions, and reluctantly so. From a (rather internally contradictory) 2004 press release:

Same sex marriage doesn’t hurt my marriage, or yours. But it may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole. Until we understand the implications for human development of a different definition of marriage, I believe we should preserve that which has endured over thousands of years.

Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing… There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding.

But there is a difference between individual rights and marriage. An individual has rights, but a man and a woman together have a marriage. We should not deconstruct marriage simply to make a statement about the rights of individual adults. Forcing marriage to mean all things, will ultimately define marriage to mean nothing at all.

Some have asked why so much importance is attached to the word “marriage.” It is because changing the definition of marriage to include same sex unions will lead to further far-reaching changes that also would influence the development of our children. For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same sex practice. It is inconceivable that promoting absolute indifference between heterosexual and homosexual unions would not significantly effect child development, family dynamics, and societal structures.

Among the structures that would be affected would be religious and certain charitable institutions. Those with scriptural or other immutable founding principles will be castigated. Ultimately, some may founder… Society can ill afford further erosion of charitable and virtuous institutions. For these reasons, I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment.

Romney saw civil unions as the compromise of protecting marriage and individual rights; however, his latest signing of this pledge indicates his complete shift to the far right on this issue, and is nothing more than political pandering by a floundering candidate.

Filed under Mitt Romney marriage National Organization for Marriage NOM politics GLBTQ GLBTQ Rights LGBT gay rights same-sex marriage flip flop civil unions 2012 republican republicans

46 notes

Citing new research, psychology group supports gay marriage

"Now as the country has really begun to have experience with gay marriage, our position is much clearer and more straightforward — that marriage equity is the policy that the country should be moving toward," says Clinton Anderson, director of APA’s Office on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns.

The resolution points to numerous recent studies, including findings that “many gay men and lesbians, like their heterosexual counterparts, desire to form stable, long-lasting and committed intimate relationships and are successful in doing so.”

It adds that “emerging evidence suggests that statewide campaigns to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage are a significant source of stress to the lesbian, gay and bisexual residents of those states and may have negative effects on their psychological well-being.”

Go APA! By the way, the comments on this article are alternately hilarious and horrifying.

Filed under GLBTQ GLBTQ Rights politics psychology APA American Psychological Association marriage marriage equality