Skip to comments.Mitt Romney's opposition to gay marriage unites base
Posted on 05/10/2012 7:02:36 PM PDT by icwhatudo
Social conservatives who doubted Mitt Romney now have a reason to rally around him after President Obamas embrace of gay marriage.
Despite the fact that very conservative and religious voters didnt support Romney in the primary, their fierce opposition to the issue will give the presumptive GOP nominee a way to harness conservative enthusiasm in November.
President Obama just evolved himself into a one-term president, said Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage. This is a disaster for the Democratic Party: the reality is that the exact states he needs to win are the states that have overwhelmingly passed legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
At least Obama didn’t go around and beat up gay kids. He WAS the gay kid.
Well until Millard Willard Fillmore Romney issues an apology for being against gay marriage...
That same MA Supreme Court later admitted they had no authority to dictate that the legislative branch HAD to write this legislation or that the governor must sign it. Romney folded like a wet blanket and unilaterally brought gay & lesbian marriage to America. If Romney had any balls or principles, he should have just refused to do anything on this and should have stood strong against homo marriage. Thank you Mitt Romney!
And now Romney is claiming to be against homo/lesbian marriage, BUT he's ok with gay couples adopting kids and converting them over to homos & lesbians? Romney's got the spine & principles of a worm!
Odumb0 & the RAT bastard demoRATS & media will turn this issue (I'm afraid) into Romney's Waterloo. Incredible! And to think that Romney's not even the official GOP nominee yet! The demTurds & partisan media will cut Romney with the death of a thousand cuts DAILY! And Romney is too stupid & slow to counter-attack effectively. As much as I hate 0dumb0, this is where 0dumb0 is at his most effective, when he is counter-punching and turning defeat into victory. Romney OTOH just started his much touted campaign off with an awkward apology for being a high school bully. At least he could have counter punched and demanded to see 0dumb0's transcripts & school records. Or ask about 0dumb0's past drug use and "when was the last time you (0bama) used marijuana or cocain"? Instead Mitt is too chicken & cowardly to carry the fight to 0dumb0sh_t. I hope that Newt is still waiting in the wings. At least he could counter-attack & rebut the lies of the demoRATs & partisan media better than any other Repubs.
Romney is no better than Obama! They both disgust me on the treatment of this issue.
Truly a stupid move on the part of Obama & Biden.
My boss, who is a former local Rat office holder, told me the exact same thing yesterday. I'll never understand why the big Zero didn't wait until after the election to come out with this. Hell, it's not like the queers were going to go vote for anyone else.
He's the FATHER of gay "marriage."
Politico is just trying to create “social conservatives”
it is all a fake.
conservative is conservative. period. There is no balkanizing.
oh joy another nobody who will only help democrats.
President Obama, now that he can be sure he won't face effective opposition on the homosexual issue from the Republican Party (i.e., Gingrich or Santorum) has apparently decided to make his own base voters happy.
In other words, he's aggressively shoring up his left-wing militant base voters who will be the core of his re-election campaign.
Why do I have to admit the Democrats are doing things right and we aren't? This is a pattern of shoring up the base that the Republican Party should have been following, and painting the Democrats as out of touch with most Americans to the right of San Francisco (which is almost everyone). Now we have two candidates, one openly pro-homosexual and the other with a track record of compromising on homosexuality, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of American voters ***OPPOSE HOMOSEXUALITY!!!!!***
This should have been a winning issue for Republicans and we're losing for no good reason at all.
That's funny. Tell me another one.
No, you want to read up on it. the MA supreme court told the LEGISLATURE that the MUST go back to the drawing board and come up with a gay marriage proposal.
Even though the MA legislature is extremely liberal, they refused to act.
Then Bishop Romney did it, all on his own. He issued a proclamation that gay marriage was the new law of the state, and that any marriage clerk who refused to do gay marriages would be removed from his job.
In other words, as I said, Romney did it single handedly, by proclamation. No law was ever passed, as the court asked.
That was a first. The first state to have gay marriage. And Romney did it, all by his little self. Just like Obama, who also likes to do these things himself, without congressional consent or approval.
Sounds like the 1980 Democratic Party primary in which conservative Southern Democratic voters had to decide whether to vote for Jimmy Carter or Teddy Kennedy. One guy has a decent moral life but a bunch of bad positions on issues, and the other guy is a left-wing radical whose positions were much worse.
Unfortunately, there's no Ronald Reagan out there to whom we can jump ship out of frustration this fall with a realistic expectation of victory. We can either cast a protest vote for the Constitution Party hoping they'll become viable later, and thereby guarantee Obama's re-election, or vote for the lesser of two evils.
Not true. Cite sources.
He "fought" it enough to maintain plausible deniability for his GOP presidential run. See Mass. Resistance, Timeline Documents Romney's Role in Creating Same-Sex "Marriages".
Civil unions != gay marriage.
And as for a story by the Boston Globe, consider the source.
Jim, please step in here. I don't want to see anyone on this thread zotted or any posts pulled. (In fact, I want to see the posts stay up as evidence of what **NOT** to say.) However, I do think now that you've decided to tolerate Romney supporters, something needs to be said about how far they can go. The reality is that most Republicans are going to vote for Romney this fall and I don't object to tolerating Romney supporters, but surely toleration has limits.
I have no problem with WOSG doing fact-checking of accusations against Mitt Romney since nobody is helped by circulating false claims about him, but I do have a real problem with the direction this thread is going. Does tolerating people who are now Romney supporters mean we have to tolerate it when long-term Freepers who oppose Romney get asked whether they have been paid by Obama to oppose Romney?
WOSG, Xzins, you've both been here a long time. In fact, both of you have been here longer than me. Surely you both know each other well enough to know that neither of you are Obama supporters — especially someone from the Class of 1998 like Xzins.
I share the objections of Xzins and many other people here to Romney, and I believe Romney is virtually the worst possible Republican candidate. I frankly don't know what I'm going to do this fall, but I am not going to question whether people like Xzins, who have a long track record on Free Republic, have been bribed by Democrats.
Let's calm down and think rationally. Xzins is a retired Army chaplain. He's been a Freeper almost since the site started. He's been posting for years now opposing both Romney and Obama. He decided to support the Constitution Party several months ago and that is not a new development. Is it even remotely possible that Obama paid him to sign up on Free Republic in 1998 so he could bash Romney and help Obama get re-elected?
I know many of us are upset — I am, too — but we need to focus on our enemy and figure out how to deal with a very bad hand of cards we've been dealt. I do not see the Constitution Party as a viable option for now, but I am not going to throw stones or raise bribery questions about people who decide they can't vote for Romney in good conscience.
Thank you for your rational words, darrell.
To accuse me of being paid by Obama or of being an agent of Obama BECAUSE I oppose Romney is an illogical step given my track record of opposition to Romney for years and years, verifiable in the RomneyTruthFile.
But to accuse me, due to non-support of Romney, is also to accuse countless other long-time Freepers, not the least of whom is the founder of the site.
I tend to ignore personal attacks. They roll off my back anymore. However, in the religion forum they enforce the “no personal attacks” rule to keep noise to a minimum.
Since we are at truce, that same rule regarding support or non-support of Romney makes perfect sense. Thank you for an excellent suggestion.
Something seriously wrong with anyone who would accuse xzins (or any other pro-life, pro-family, pro-small government conservative) of being paid by Obama. Conservatives object to Romney for his actual liberal/progressive record while in government and it’s much the same as Obama’s. But especially wrong accusing a retired army Chaplain who’s been a loyal member of FR since nearly the beginning of time.
Account # 3014
Messages 1648 articles, 71170 replies