Mitt Romney Will "Propose And Promote" Constitutional Amendment Banning Marriage Equality

Written by Instinct Staff | Tuesday, 31 January 2012

Tags: 2012 elections, gop, republicans, mitt romney, propose, promises, constitutional, amendment, banning, same sex, gay, marriage equality, dbags, homophobia

It flew under the gaydar last week but word that Mitt Romney has promised to "propose and promote" a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality is now garnering the attention it deserves.

Speaking in front of Ralph Reed's "Faith and Freedom Coalition" late last week, Romney jumped one notch above his past support for a "three tier system" to declare an all-out war on an American minority group.

“There’s been an assault on marriage,” Romney said in the Faith and Freedom teleconference. “I think he [Obama] is very aggressively trying to pave the path to same-sex marriage. I would unlike this president defend the Defense of Marriage Act. I would also propose and promote once again an amendment to the constitution to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.”

Remind us again: Was the U.S. Constitution designed to take away the rights of Americans?

(Source: New Civil Rights Movement)

Comments (4) Add Comment

...
written by TomH, January 31, 2012

Ignorant asshole billionaire.

...
written by Different is different. Not better. Not worse., January 31, 2012

A union between two men or two women is different than a union between a man and a women. It is not better. It is not worse. It is different. Why such huge effort in the name of "equity" to force a square peg into a round hole? The label "marriage" is just that: a label.

If equal rights is truly what we're after, why not put the effort into the legality of civil unions? This way we can provide equal rights under the law, and not force the hand of religious institutions the way Illinois and Massachusetts have forced the Catholic church out of adoption services. I mean, we are working for equality, not revenge, right? Just my 2 cents.

...
written by heroplus98, January 31, 2012

How is the union itself different?

...
written by thicketbig, January 31, 2012

Let's see, Mitt Romney, a mormon. And a republican. another fat cat republican that is very far removed from what is reality (should we dare call it that). penny loafers and jeans? really? anyhow...

what was the result of proposition 8 in California last election cycle? which religious group was a major supporter vocally, financially, and politically in making sure that the proposition summarily end the right of same-sex couples to marry? along with the catholic church, it was also the mormons. Mr Newt also was an outspoken proponent of the passing of prop 8.

See a theme. Romney - president? Newt - vice?

Let's just say homosexuality is indeed controlled biologically (say a trait like brown hair, controlled by genetics) for the sake of argument. Would it be legal, ethical, moral, and just for there to be laws passed prohibiting people to not marry based on a biologically-controlled trait? I think this starts to tread the waters of crime against humanity, bigoted hatred, and really what nazi germany did (stripping rights from minorities by passing laws).

Write comment