Posted on 06/06/2007 10:04:12 PM PDT by DieselHoplite
CONCORD, N.H. --A New Hampshire woman, frustrated with Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's opposition to gay marriage, made a point Wednesday of telling him about her personal experience.
"I am a gay woman and I have children. Your comment that you just made, it sort of invalidates my family," said Cynthia Fish, a mother of a 6- and 8-year-old. "... I wish you could explain to me more, why if we are sending our troops over to fight for liberty and justice for all throughout this country, why not for me? Why not for my family?
Romney paused, asked Fish about her children and then praised her.
"Wonderful," Romney said. "I'm delighted that you have a family and you're happy with your family. That's the American way. ... People can live their lives as they choose and children can be a great source of joy, as you know. And I welcome that."
But then Romney repeated his view of marriage.
"Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child and that the ideal setting for society at large is where there is a male and a female are associated with the development and nurturing a child," Romney said.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I am proud of him too he did not demean another but let them know it is not the best way.
Some here insist the answer has to offend or chastised another who thinking is estrange from the norm.
How refreshing it would have been if he had told it like it is, on an obvious set-up / ambush question.
it take years some times to get the proper words I my self have wressle with it so I would not be misunderstood!
The Lord tells us to love one another and also not to condone those who are out of step!
When we tell those who are estrange from the walk in a mean way how are they ever going to feel the Love of the Lord.
But we must show unconditional love, yet make it very firm that their actions are not aceptable!
I think Mitt has foundly found the key to make it clear for all involved!
There are people who are muslim, but are moderate in their beliefs, not taking that faith literally, not adhering to strict articles of practice. Like many christian churches who largely ignore the bible. But with muslims, the rest of us consider that a good thing.
We have a conservative muslim candidate for office, his kids go to catholic school. I'm pretty sure that would violate the creed of a more strident muslim. Heck, any muslim who loves America pretty much has to be a "moderate".
Well, he never said he was “delighted” for her children.
And it’s really really hard to attack a person who already has kids for having them. I think I agree with what I think your position is, that the “right” answer is that it is selfish to bring children into the world purposely without a biological father and mother.
But even when I say that here on FR, I get a LOT of attacks from those who couldn’t have their own kids, who took other means to bring children into the world for themselves.
I thought he almost covered it though, explaining that it’s BEST for a child to have both a father and a mother. He said that TO the woman who chose NOT to give that to her children. He could have been more obvious, he COULD have said after that that while he was happy for HER, he still thought in the end children were better off if they have both a father and a mother.
But since he DID say that, just not directly, I applaud his response.
If Romney wants to appeal to the center right, he should have ignored or criticized this woman. Otherwise, he has not broken out of the "Rudy McRomney" RINO mold.
The Lord also tells us what this means:
"By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments." 1 John 5:2-3.
Perhaps he should have said, “I applaud your decision to rear your family according to your own views, but as president I have a responsibility to the whole of society. It is my considered judgment that society is better served when marriage is limited to a union a man and woman. I regret that you do not share those views, but I have arrived at them after prayerful thought and consideration.
It is unfortunate that you are unwilling to give me the same consideration that I willingly grant to you. Now, you are free to live as you wish, but you have no right to insist that I and the rest of society change our views to suit your predilections.”
This man is solid and he has my vote.
12 And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you:
13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.
Boy oh boy, and I thought Fred’s supporters were touchy!
Somebody not seeing my post must think I called him a weasel or something.
My position on parenting choices is not the issue. Frankly I couldn’t care less about this woman and her kids.
Who will be our candidate for President of the USA is the issue. If Romney honestly thinks this woman’s choices are ‘wonderful’ then it’s wonderful that he said so. I kind of doubt that is the case, though. I think he gave a superbly political and also politically correct response but not a heartfelt one. If you guys want to give him an expediency pass on that - fine. I’m not saying I won’t either. I’m not naive. I am just expressing some ambivalence about it.
I’ll repeat what I said before. He is a superb politician as this incident dramatically makes clear. Really that is all I wanted to say. It’s up to you if you consider that an insult or not.
You are getting off on a tangent about single vs two parent families and I’m not going to touch that one with a 10’ pole - not tonight (it’s nighttime here) anyway. ;-)
In the book of Proverbs it says, “He that wins souls is wise.” It’s not talking about winning souls for salvation, but being winsome, as in “How To Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie. Looks like Mitt is just taking advice from the Bible.
Required reading:
The Bible
Ronald Reagan biographies
However, Reagan was not running for President of the Soviet Union, while Romney is running to be the President of all Americans. You can be kind and civil without compromising one's own principles. Reagan was the master of that.
A great leader will focus on what unites us, not what divdes us. Reminds me of one of my favorite Reagan quotes:
"Whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears; to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunities arm steadying your way."
~~Ronald Reagan Republican National Convention, Aug. 17, 1992
If you want to read up on what Reagan thought about this issue. I've linked it in a previous post here.
“”Romney still seems clueless on how to appeal to conservatives, especially social conservatives, which seems somewhat surprising given his Mormon background. No Republican, not even Giuliani, will win the pervert vote over any of the Democrat candidates.””
I’m not exactly sure what is is that you want.
Romney told her that he’s glad that she’s happy (no reason not to be). But that he thought that family and marriage was best preserved as being between a man and a woman. De facto, her form of child-bearing was inferior in his eyes.
I’m sorry, as someone with gay colleagues and even one or two I’d call a friend, I’d think much less of a candidate who was overly hostile to this woman. I think most Americans would, as well. And really, not just as someone with gay friends, but any friends. It’s not cultivated behavior to strike out at others like that.
Romney handled this question with class. Sure, he’s happy for her, but he doesn’t stand where she does on issue, and he made that clear. That’s all that need be said.
Romney isn’t running an institution responsible for rearing children or overseeing the public morality of a populace. He’s running for a public office. There’s on excuse to treat someone like dirt in that situation.
I support only traditional marriage and am opposed to civil unions, too, but I think this was a great rsponse to her question. So until I see what kind of response you wanted, I guess I’m going to have to concede that there are some who don’t see me as a social conservative, or I’m going to have to disagree with you on your premise.
How would people react to Romney if he stated, with regard to business ethics, that he believed that honesty is the best policy, but that it was all right to alter business records to decrease tax payments if a business had cash flow problems or was losing money. Or if he said, fidelity within marriage was the best path, but a little sexual adventure now and again is understandable. If Romney fudged on the issues of business ethics or faithfulness to one's spouse, he would be roundly condemned. Why should we apply a different standard to the matter of homosexuals or lesbians raising children, or of unmarried women having children out of wedlock?
Faux politeness, or political correctness, has effectively emasculated political, religious, and social leaders so that few dare denounce moral degeneracy for what it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.