I can’t remember a time in my life when I was so interested in the presidential outcome so far in advance of the actual election as I am now. We’re still 10 months away from the first caucus and the buzz is, well buzzing enough for me to start contemplating the front running candidates to be.
Of the candidates I’m most interested in learning more about Obama and exactly where he stands and additionally I want to know more about Mitt Romney. Of the later, my mother-in-law sent the following to me in an e-mail:
On June 2, 2006, Romney sent a letter to each member of the U.S. Senate urging them to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment.[31] In the letter, Romney stated that the debate over same-sex unions is not a discussion about “tolerance”, but rather a “debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage”. Romney wrote, “Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.”
What impresses me most about this quote is Mitt’s ability to see through the political fog to the real issue at hand, in this case the point that gay and lesbian unions are not at the root about tolerance but about the purpose of marriage. Marriage serves the adult participants in many ways but at the root of it marriage between a man and woman provides the ideal situation for children, our future, to be raised and nurtured in a way that will provide society and humanity with the best possible future.
I’m looking forward to posting some of the things I learn and extrapolate from the next year and a half until the election in November of 2008.
2 Responses to “Could Mitt Romney Be the Man?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:48 pm
If Mitt could see a bit further “through the political fog to the real issue at hand” he would see that the purpose of marriage (real, imagined, traditional, or progressive) is irrelevant. What gays and lesbians want out of legal marriage is the psychological benefit of institutional equality. As long as their official/legal status is “other,” they are victims of discrimination and suffer accordingly. Moreover, Romney’s characterization of marriage as a primarily child-benefitting institution insults and marginalizes hetero couples who do not/can not have children. -MTN
May 5th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Thanks for chiming in MTN. I do agree that this snippet from his letter could be insulting and marginalize hetero couples who unfortunately cannot have children. I admit that I was narrow sighted in my conclusion regarding people who cannot have children. I still have a tough time concluding in favor of gay/lesbian marrital status despite having a friend who I respect and care for being lesbian. It’s a moral battle for me.