Quantcast

«

»

Oct 27 2012

Romney’s Marriage Equality Etch-a-Sketch

Like every other issue, Mitt Romney has been on every side of the marriage equality issue depending on what he thinks is most politically expedient at any given moment. After absurdly claiming in 1994 that he would be “better than Ted Kennedy” on gay rights, during the Republican primary this year he signed a pledge to support the Federal Marriage Amendment that would ban same-sex marriage nationwide and overrule all state laws on the matter.

But then one of his primary media surrogates, Bay Buchanan, told The Advocate that Mitt thinks this should all be left up to the states:

Asked how his positions, which include support for DOMA, would help families led by same-sex parents, Buchanan responded that Romney would not get in the way of what states decide to do on marriage and adoption.

“He very much supports traditional marriage, but he’s also a very strong advocate for the Tenth Amendment,” she said. “It’s a state issue.”

Well those two things don’t square at all. You can’t say it’s a state issue and support a federal constitutional amendment that would override all state laws on the subject. So now Buchanan is shaking the etch-a-sketch again and, magically, it went right back to his first (or is it second?) position:

A top Romney adviser disavowed remarks and a position reported this past week that appeared to be a reversal of the campaign’s support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would bar states from allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Although campaign officials did not respond to inquiries prior to publication, Bay Buchanan issued a clarification to BuzzFeed this afternoon following initial publication of this story, writing, “Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage.”

Hey, whatever is convenient at the moment.

10 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Akira MacKenzie

    I’m still wondering what big brother Pat thinks of his female clone… I mean, his sister, giving up the Cat-Lick church and joining the Magic Underwear Club?

  2. 2
    dmcclean

    Ignoring Romney’s position, don’t provisions 1 and 5 of the pledge similarly contradict each other? If there is going to be a federal marriage amendment, doesn’t that eliminate the rights of people in the pseudo-state of DC “to vote on marriage”?

    Or could it be that “the right to vote on marriage” they are talking about is only the right to vote against other peoples’ marriages…

  3. 3
    Chiroptera

    Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children.

    Oh, right. Except that those conservative judges mentioned in point two would probably rule that these were states’ uncontitutional attempts to circumvent the Anti-Decency Amendment.

  4. 4
    steve84

    Because visiting loved ones in the hospital is a “benefit” and not a right. Un-fucking-believable.

  5. 5
    Trebuchet

    Republicans: All for limiting the power of the Federal Government, except when they’re not.

  6. 6
    democommie

    It’s nice to know that the only real answer that one needs for any of the “what if?” questions around Mittmoroni’s revolving door politics is, “Fuck Romney, the fucking lying fucker.”.

  7. 7
    sylwyn

    I find with Mr. Romney that I agree with one or two of his positions on any particular subject…

  8. 8
    Brain Hertz

    Romney doesn’t have policy positions. He has policy wavefunctions which simultaneously encompass all possible policy positions, until an observer with a specific requirement causes the wavefunction to collapse into a state which precisely matches whatever it was they wanted to hear.

  9. 9
    John Phillips, FCD

    sylwyn, where do you want your Internet delivered.

  10. 10
    John Hinkle

    Isn’t it time Bob Dylan dedicated to Mitt Romney the song Blowin’ in the Wind?

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site