Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney and Cantor on Same-Sex Marriage: Bosom Buddies ^ | 05/03/2009 |

Posted on 05/03/2009 11:32:35 PM PDT by Maelstorm

KING: Since the last election, a number of states have moved ahead with same-sex marriage proposals. Some have done it legislatively. Some have done it in other ways. Some has happened through the courts, which I know both of you think is the wrong way to do anything, whether it's same-sex marriage or anything else. But, if, at the end of this conversation, you come to the conclusion that the consensus of the people you're talking to is to agree what Steve Schmidt, John McCain's campaign manager, said, you know, the Republicans are viewed as intolerant because we want constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. If, at the end of this conversation, you think the consensus is, leave it to the states, which was Dick Cheney's position. That was Tom DeLay's positions, be federalist and let state-by-state make these decisions. Are you both willing to support that?

ROMNEY: My view I've laid out before, which is you really can't have different marriage provisions in different states and then expect people to be able to move around the nation and have different rights in different states. Marriage is a matter of national consequence. It's a -- it's a status. It's not an activity. And as a result, there should be a national standard. And my own view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.

KING: And so if five or 10 states go that way, do you need to have a constitutional amendment, a national referendum? How do you deal with it?

CANTOR: I think Mitt has made the point that there are federal implications; there are national implications to what one state does, in terms of the status of a married person in another state. I share Mitt's views. I believe in conditional marriage between a man and a woman. It's been that way thousands of years. And I believe that most of the American people, by far, apply or adhere to that principle. So I would continue to support the ability for us to say that's what a marriage means in America.

TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: antibiblicalmarriage; cantor; fma; gay; homonaziagenda; homosexualagenda; romney; samesexmarriage; unbiblicalmarriage
Something came out good in this interview. I don't like the connotations these guys have been using concerning the appeal to moderates but they did stand up for marriage and not just from a federalist perspective. I have met Cantor personally and I was so proud to support him in the Energy debate last year but he needs to get with it and be the leader he can be rather than running around with Mitt who has a credibility problem. Mitt needs to run and govern as a conservative somewhere or come up with a plan that doesn't sound like he stole it from Hillary Clinton. We don't ask a lot we just ask them to lead on the issues we care about. The dear in the headlights look at talking about diversity isn't going to win one vote it is standing up on principle that will win hearts and minds respect.
1 posted on 05/03/2009 11:32:35 PM PDT by Maelstorm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Funny how most of the public supports marriage between a man and a woman that this still is such an issue. I thought that unless it was made law through the legislature, it would not have effect. Seems that now it is a Court matter...

2 posted on 05/03/2009 11:45:24 PM PDT by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
There is such equivocation in their statements.

If you don't listen to the substance of what they're saying and just pay attention to the way they're saying it-- they sound like OJ Simpson trying to explain the blood in his Bronco.

Helloooo Romney/Cantor/the rest of you, YOU'RE NOT THE RADICALS, they are!

When you're advocating abiding social norms and traditions-- and the other is doing the opposite, they're the ones that should be on the defensive, not you!

To think these are our leaders is...depressing.

3 posted on 05/04/2009 12:03:52 AM PDT by exist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

4 posted on 05/04/2009 12:14:31 AM PDT by Fred (Proud Member of the Obama Enemies List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

They should be talking about the massive spending that is going on in the beltway hell hole. That is what American care about. No one cares what that ancient fossil King wants to know.

5 posted on 05/04/2009 12:16:42 AM PDT by Fred (Proud Member of the Obama Enemies List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

> Something came out good in this interview.

I agree. There was a big firestorm on the blogs, but having actually listened to the interview (its available at I have to conclude that both Cantor and Romney did well. Romney’s quip about “beautiful people” in reference to the Limbaugh/Palin question definitely was a self-deprecating variety (as in, no one would want to look at our pictures).

I still think it was a lost opportunity (especially in DC) to not bring up a subject of vouchers. But they did speak about ideas and the necessity of being able to communicate those ideas well.

6 posted on 05/04/2009 12:59:28 AM PDT by bluejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
Mitt needs to run and govern as a conservative somewhere

Perhaps on another planet.

7 posted on 05/04/2009 4:18:33 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (Selah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

If the right to own and carry guns varies from state to state, why not marriage details too?

8 posted on 05/04/2009 5:41:13 AM PDT by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
Ignoring for a moment that this is another of the endless Pimp Mitt Romney threads,
it ought be noted that spoiler Mitt Romney personally, as in himself, as in alone,
personally overruled, and gutted, the Massachusetts Constitution (the oldest in the USA)
to impose his/the NEW YORK TIMEs'/the BOSTON GLOBE's/Judge Marshalls(wife of NY Times editor)
demand for gay marriage without a vote of the public.

"Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage"
"What he (Governor/Dictator Mitt Romney) did was exercise illegal legislative authority'

"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.

Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."

9 posted on 05/04/2009 5:56:00 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive; Maelstrom

I concur, except for a couple of vital problems.

One, because there is an agenda to push and it has never been about marriage, but puching society to accept deviant behavior as a way to degrade moral values, into a “Feels good—do it” mentality, at best, communist plot to decrease nationalism and bring us down attempt, at worst (There was a KGB turncoat video from the 80’s that describes this exactly, an it’s coming to fruition).

Two, because they’ve fairly well lost that. Almost all states have voted against the practice, it’s judges legislatig from the bench which is erroding our legislative process and they know it. Refer back to #1.

Three, bescause socail and religious conservatives need to stand up for something that not only has massive ramifications in society, but if one is God-fearing, one will recognize the Lord’s anger is kindled when societies accept this practice.

Lastly, this is a state of mental health disease and used to be diagnosed and have prescribed treatments until it became PC laden enough to remove it from the DSM, around the turnpike you may find voyeurism, pedophilia and polygyny or polyandry or other practices become contested, all of which have societal and individual ramifications.

10 posted on 05/04/2009 6:03:19 AM PDT by JDW11235 (I think I got it now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson