I recieved this e-mail

I received the following e-mail from an anonymous online person, on one of my blogs. It reads;

"He is wrong on the issue of gay marriage and civil unions. He can't have it both ways. You either support gay rights in every aspect from equal employment opportunities to equal marriage rights or he doesn't. How can people defend marriage like it's some Godly thing when you have people like Kevin Federline and Britney Spears, or the high divorce rate? Just because you are straight doesn't mean you will be a good parent. In any case, just because a country allows gay marriage or civil unions , does not mean that country will have a flood gate of gays marrying. Just look at the statistics of countries like Canada or Holland. I stand by the notion that if you are against gay rights and under that umbrella is gay marriage, then you are inherently prejudice. Doesn't mean you will use a homophobic slur, but inside you have hateful feelings. I have a strong feeling he would go ballistic if he found out any of his kids were gay."

The following is my response to the e-mail. I am posting it hear, as I believe this is the way many people feel, and because this individual did not give me an e-mail address…

"He is wrong on the issue of gay marriage and civil unions. He can't have it both ways. You either support gay rights in every aspect from equal employment opportunities to equal marriage rights or he doesn't."

This totally ignores Mitt Romney's argument, that yes you would come to that conclusion if you looked at Marriage as an institution that is created for the happiness of adults. Marriage was not created so that couples can show their love for each other for everyone to see, and feel good. Marriage is not a way for couples to love each other better, and as a public way for couples to tell each other how much they love each other.

Marriage was created as a legal contract to insure that children have a mother and father. Because marriage does not reform two complete idiots like Britney spears Kevin F into Ward and Judy Cleaver does not mean that it does no good. The institution of marriage provides many children with loving fathers and mothers. Because some fathers are stupid, does not mean that children do not need a father. Because some mothers are stupid, does not mean that children do not need a mother. If Kevin F or Britney Spears ever grow up to be complete individuals, it will probably be because the feel that their children need a good role model.

I think Marriage was created so that fathers and mothers could not easily abandon their children. How can you say that Mitt Romney is wrong and totally ignore any of his arguments? Please explain to me how Romney's arguments are not valid. I need to hear the reasons that Romney is wrong, not just your conclusion.

For those who know nothing (or choose to ignore) what Romney has said about Marriage click here:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Marriage

"How can people defend marriage like it's some Godly thing when you have people like Kevin Federline and Britney Spears, or the high divorce rate?"

Sure, most gay couples probably make better parents than Britney spears and Kevin Federline, but does the exception prove the rule? There is a book called the death of common sense. It says that Americans have tried to guarantee that the world is fair, but we don't do very good cost benefit analysis, and that our good effort of trying to make the world fair, often back fires and makes the world a better place. You really have to read the book. It is awesome. But it says that we should stop making the rule by the exception, but that we should use common sesnce and make policies that result in the most good for the most amount of people. Liberals are good hearted. They are motivated by trying to re-work the world and forcing it to be fair. But the world can not be forced, and we often to more good when we don't do a wise cost benefit analysis.

If you want to be simplistic you could look at just the adults and say that if straight couples should be allowed to marry, than gay couples should be allowed to marry. But the world is not simple. There are also the need of children.

In trying to give equality to homosexual parents, you take equality away from children. You create a situation were more children have difficulty relating to one of the sexes. You have more children that will either have deformed, or icomplete relationships with one of the sexes.

There is a problem with not enough male teachers for boys in the public school system. There are a lot of books written about it, that say that wemon teachers do not understand and relate well to the male students.

The ideal is to have both a mother and a father in the home. Because the ideal is never met, does not mean that we should not try.

"Just because you are straight doesn't mean you will be a good parent."

I never said that all straight people are good parents and all gay people are bad parents. I do believe that a child is more likely to grow up with understanding of both sexes if they grow up with both a mother and a father.

"In any case, just because a country allows gay marriage or civil unions, does not mean that country will have a flood gate of gays marrying. Just look at the statistics of countries like Canada or Holland. I stand by the notion that if you are against gay rights and under that umbrella is gay marriage, then you are inherently prejudice."

OK. If everyone who disagrees with you is prejudice, then I can play the same game. You are prejudice, because you disagree with me. Most children want both a mother and a father. If you are advocating that less children get to have both a mother and a father, you must be prejudice against children. Why else would you discriminate against them, and not give them what the majority of them want? You are a child-phobic prejudiced, red-neck, and I'm going to win this argument by repeating this to myself over and over again until I feel better about my decision.

"Doesn't mean you will use a homophobic slur, but inside you have hateful feelings. I have a strong feeling he would go ballistic if he found out any of his kids were gay."

This is not true. Mitt Romney has said the following:

• "This is a subject about which people have tender emotions in part because it touches individual lives. It also has been misused by some as a means to promote intolerance and prejudice. This is a time when we must fight hate and bigotry, when we must root out prejudice, when we must learn to accept people who are different from one another. Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians."
• Governor Mitt Romney, 06-22-2004 Press Release

• "Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing. One person may choose to live as a single, even to have and raise her own child. Others may choose to live in same sex partnerships or civil arrangements. There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding. "
• Governor Mitt Romney, 06-22-2004 Press Release

It's a long-forgotten moment, but it was a poignant and revealing one. In the wake of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's discovery of a right to gay marriage that had been long–hidden in the Commonwealth's John Adams penned constitution, Governor Mitt Romney had vigorously protested both the substantive result and the judicial arrogance that led to the result.

On the day the decision went into effect, dozens of gay couples descended on Massachusetts' city and town halls to get married. The TV cameras sought out Governor Romney for his response to the day's events. The media no doubt expected him to toss some red meat to the knuckle-dragging conservatives that Romney was courting in anticipation of a presidential bid. Instead, Romney pleaded that the public and gay marriage critics in particular bear in mind that this was a happy and joyous day for many individuals, and act respectfully and accordingly.

If you saw him deliver that sentiment on the news, you could see it was heartfelt. You could also see that Mitt Romney would not square with the stereotypical (and of course mistaken) view of a gay marriage opponent. He was not a hater and not a homophobe. Rather, he was a decent man who thought the policy of gay marriage was an unwise one and, regardless of the policy's wisdom, was disappointed in the judicial overreach that brought it into being.

I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THAT MOMENT in recent Romney history while assorted pundits have been trying to sort through the Romney record when it comes to gay rights issues. Of special interest this week is a 1994 interview Romney gave where he was extremely generous on matters of interest to the gay community. Because I was volunteering for him in 1994 and spent considerable time with him, I think I can help shed some light on this latest "scandal."

When he ran for Senate in '94 against Ted Kennedy, the opinions of Mitt Romney's church was a recurring subject of discussion, thanks largely to the efforts of the Boston Globe. One of the things that the theologians at the Globe noticed is that the tenets of Mormonism regarding homosexuality weren't particularly accepting or tolerant. The Globe kept implicitly pressuring Romney to make the choice – gays or his church. (Oddly, Ted Kennedy's Catholic faith didn't trigger any similar demands or curiosity on the Globe's part.)

 

Romney spent a solid chunk of the '94 campaign expressing his tolerance and acceptance for homosexuals. Naturally, nothing he could say in this regard would satisfy his critics. If he didn't explicitly condemn the teachings of his church, his critics would continue to bray. And bray they did, from practically the first day of his campaign until the last.

It was in this context that Romney made his now-famous comments in a 1994 interview with Bay Windows, a Boston newspaper that caters to the gay community. Among his observations were these:

 

    I feel that as a society and for me as an individual, it's incumbent on all of us to respect one another, regardless of our differences and beliefs, our differences in sexual orientation, in race and that America has always been a place, and should be a place, to welcome and tolerate people's differences.

 

    I personally feel and one of my core beliefs is that we should accept people of all backgrounds and recognize everyone as a brother and a sister because we are all part of the family of man.

Fueling the current controversy is the question, How could so vocal a supporter of gay rights in 1994 be such a prominent opponent of gay marriage in 2006?

FORGET THE PART that in the same interview, Romney also said, "Bill Weld does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position." Those looking for a scandal here certainly have.

The question itself regarding Romney's putatively shifting views suggests Romney has a penchant for flip-flopping with such audacity that John Kerry should be envious. There is, however, an answer to the question and it's not a particularly complex one. I spent a decent amount of time with Romney in '94, and got to know him reasonably well. He's not a hater. He's not a bigot. He's not a homophobe. No one who has worked with him or who actually has known him in any capacity says otherwise. And this is a man who has led a prominent and powerful business life.

Romney is also a traditionalist. He does not believe that institutions such as marriage should be mucked with. And he certainly doesn't believe that such institutions should be playthings for a gaggle of unelected officials who happen to wear black robes for a living.

In other words, his opposition to gay marriage is based on good faith differences with gay marriage proponents regarding where a particular legal line should be drawn. And by good faith, I mean that he arrives at his position not out of hate, bigotry or political calculation, but out of a true sense of moral conviction regarding what is best and noblest for our society.

On where the legal line should be drawn on gay marriage, he and I happen to differ. Unlike Romney, and unlike most of the readers of this site, I have no problem with legalizing gay marriage. But unlike Romney's critics, I know that the difference is a good faith one, and not the result of those I disagree with making venal calculations or indulging their prejudiced natures.

The preceding is the part that some narrow-minded gay marriage proponents just can't get. They think that if you're against gay marriage, you are necessarily a hater and by definition a homophobe. That's just not so.

Another thing regarding Romney and gay marriage warrants mentioning: This was not a fight he sought. Even given the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's prior reckless disregard for precedent and the democratic process, no one foresaw the SJC discovering a pre-existing right to gay marriage in the Commonwealth's 220 year old Constitution. Even by the SJC's own lofty standards for such things, it was a stunning piece of judicial arrogance. In short, it was not part of a Romney master-plan to be the anti-gay marriage candidate.

Critics of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists think the key to winning their support is to be the most-narrow minded and hate-filled candidate in the field. These critics chronically lament the bigotry of these specifically identifiable communities while crudely and cruelly caricaturizing them; it is a perverse credit to these critics that they never betray any sense of irony while doing so.

One of the reasons Mitt Romney will be increasingly successful as more people get to know him is because he is the real deal – Mitt is a good, honest and decent man. And those are far from his only virtues. But those are the virtues that Republicans of all religious and ethnic affiliations hunger for most in their '08 standard bearer.