Oy vey, Mitt! Does your brain vet the things you say or do you hear them for the first at the same time as the rest of us?

Former Governor Mitt Romney tried to clarify his position on gay marriage once again. Once again, he just made his view seem more convoluted and random than the last few times when he made similar efforts. Now he says that same sex couples should enter into “partnership agreements.” WTF are they? (You can read a Salon piece on what they are here.)

Despite reading Romney’s statement:

““What I would support is letting people who are of the same gender form, if you will, partnership agreements,” he replied. “If they want to have a partnership with someone else and have, as a result of that, such things as hospital visitation rights and similar benefits of that nature.”

I stand by my first impression that they are bullshit.

Yesterday, I defended Pastor Jeffress’ right to vet his candidates with any formula he likes (I should have added that Governor Rick Perry missed a great opportunity to look rational by saying “Those comments were out of line and do not represent my views.” Of course, he didn’t do that.). I stand by that view and I feel the need to note that he said if Romney gets the nomination, he will get the Pastor’s vote. But as dumb as what he said, it was not unconstitutional.

And back on point, that does not mean discrimination against a group of people is ever appropriate. To anyone who thinks not allowing same sex couples to marry, I invite you to revisit the case of Pace v. Alabana. That’s the case that which held up an Alabama law banning interracial marriage. It was overturned by McLaughlin v. Florida in 1964 and again by Loving v. Virginia in 1967. So pervasive was the opinion that interracial marriage was wrong, it took two Supreme Court decisions to allow it.

This is a simple matter of justice.

People I know argue that their religious beliefs are that these marriages are unholy. There is a fundamental problem with this article — that to me, takes second place to the cruelty of that idea, no matter what God you believe in, they don’t hate homosexuals, you do.

But there’s another practical issue, religious institutions do not have jurisdiction over marriages. Sure lots of couples have religious ceremonies but that is really more style than substance. Before they have that, they get their marriage license from the state in which they live. And divorce proceedings take place in a court room. I know, I know, some religions have their own way of making and breaking these unions an dam full aware of history and origin of the Anglican church.

Here, in the US, your official legal status of married, single or divorced comes from your state. They determine your rights to benefits — in every sense of the word.

I find it really odd that the very same people who claim to love this country because of the freedoms we have, because of the way we love diversity can justify letting such a large part of our citizenry continue to be treated like they aren’t fully welcome here. It’s unconscionable.

Again, it’s a simple matter of justice and I am just glad that I know that same sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states and DC sometime in my lifetime.

And yes, to one reader, this is the civil rights issue of our time.

Leave a Reply