Pen & DG- Today I happened upon the thread from Your "Herman Cain is wrong post" Hope nobody minds, but I would like to reply here, to insure that all three get to read it.
My original comment was "Dog- Good piece. But even Ms. Sebelius admitted in the link that Democratic and Republican Governors has sought some relief from this act."
Here is a quote from the New York Times article that was linked in the post..."For years, both Republican and Democratic governors have sought waivers from the 1996 work requirements in the welfare program, sometimes to tailor programs to their states’ needs, or to experiment with demonstration programs."
Here is a quote from Dog on her post..."I haven't found ANY requests from Democratic or Independent Governors seeking significantly different or more lenient work requirements for welfare than this. If any readers find such a request or inquiry, please bring it to my attention."
The two points of my comment were 1- I thought Dog did a good job with her post, & 2- I was pointing out a paragraph in an article that showed Dog's suspicions to be true. I didn't say there was a petition signed by any Democratic Governors. I never said Herman Cain was on to something.
So can any of you three please inform me why I need to back up my bulls##t? Or what exactly I said, that was false? Should I get a hold of the New York Times, maybe I can find out exactly who's in charge of the editorial process. Did I read Dogs sentence incorrectly? Was the post written badly, with little evidence to back it up. Do I need to start proving my opinions?
I will be more than happy to leave whenever Pen & Dog ask me to. It is there blog, and I will respect there wishes. But that thread was the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Come on, you people can not be serious.
Commie- "Herman Cain is a fucking liar. Mittmoroni is a fucking liar--there are many, many examples of each man lying. Prove I'm wrong or STFU." LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Whenever I come here and leave a comment, I need to back it up with published facts? But, the NYT isn't good enough, and Politifact isn't good enough either. Is it because, they're not reputable, or do I just need more published articles to prove my "Opinions". But in your own mind, your above statement is O.K.? THEY LIE! Prove that I'm wrong? And I'm provocative for questioning your sanity?
Alright. Well, President Obama is a liar. Prove me wrong.
JOB - you understood me correctly; while there were both Republican and Democratic governors seeking waivers, neither group appears to have tried for lesser requirements or to reduce working.
What I don't know is which Democratic governors looked for waivers, and when. The Republican governors in the letter were back in 2005, when Mitt Romney and the rest were governors. Their letter was to the Bush administration; Obama actually responded to it, belatedly.
Not having SEEN the Democratic requests, I can't 100% affirm that no Democratic governor wanted a lesser work requirement OTHER than the affirmation by Sebalius of 20% increase in people working being a requisite for granting the waiver. Maybe Bush didn't have a similar requirement after all. We don't actually know WHEN the Democratic governors applied for any waiver; might have been post-Bush for that matter.
As to what is going on between you and democommie, I don't believe that his comment applied to the Herman Cain post, but to a previus thread and comment.
You were provocative for your sanity statement; it was not a quasi-medical diagnosis. It was an insult. Let's not pretend otherwise.
DG- I don't know which Democratic Governors sought waivers either. I was only pointing out a piece of the article that somewhat confirmed your suspicion.
If Commie has a problem with one of my comments, all he has to do is ask for clarification on it, and let me know which thread.
I really wasn't trying to be provocative, I was trying to be polite. I really wanted to call him a retard.
The Obama lying comment was not an actual question. I just wanted to show how ridiculous DemoCommie can be. But if we all want to have some fun, let's. Obama released an add claiming that Romney wants to deny gay people the right to vote. That is a lie.
Now, what is a lie that Romney told? Or should we forget about this silliness, and discuss other issues?
Commie- I apologize for questioning your sanity. If you have a problem with comments on another thread, why don't you just ask for clarification? But don't talk about people leaving comments without backing up their opinions, you do the same thing. Glass houses dude.
Obama released an ad saying Mitt Romney wants to deny gays the right to vote? Or Mitt Romney wants to deny gays the right to marriage equality? Mittens has also claimed that whatever states decide on gay adoption is fine with him; currently only 16 states allow same sex couples to adopt, despite 80+ studies which show same sex couples make equally good parents as heterosexual couples in producing healthy, successful, well-adjusted kids. There is also NO correlation whatsoever to parental sexual orientation and the subsequent sexual orientation of their kids (one of the reasons supposedly have for opposing gay marriage, gay adoption or gay couples having surrogate biological children either is that they don't want them to 'catch' the gay.
I know the latter is correct, and not a lie (depending on when it was popular or unpopular for the etch-a-sketch candidate to say one or the other).
I'm not at all clear that Obama ever asserted Romney wants to deny gays the right to vote; the GOP, including Mittens, wants to deny a LOT of people the right to vote, if they seem likely not to vote for the GOP.
Because gays don't tend to vote for Mitt, it is true that they are among the groups of people being discriminagted against in voting suppression efforts, but other groups have been targeted far more intensively - blacks in Ohio for instance, or the purge of voting rolls in Florida and Texas.
In Texas the AG made a recent claim that 14,000 dead people voted in the last election, but that appears to be a completely false claim. No investigation of the voting rolls shows anything of the kind.
Please provide an example of the Obama false claim.
DG- Sorry, I have a problem with typing to fast & then hitting publish before I read my comment over. The lie I was speaking of was an add claiming Romney wanted to deny Homosexual couples the privilege of "Adoption"
Now I researched the subject, and there seems to be differing opinions. The biggest problem is Romney's tendency to go around direct questions. He never comes out and says, "I am all for gay adoption". But his actions seem to suggest he is not against it.
When he is strongly confronted he says he is for it.
However he was supportive when the Boy Scouts banned gay kids or staff. He was apparently donating heavily when the Mormon church was fighting for prop 8, and Romney appears to have donated $10k through an Alabama SuperPac to NOM to support the push for Prop 8 in California.
One of the things Prop 8 in CA did, besides ban same sex marriage was to ban same sex couple or individuals who had a same sex orientation from adopting children.
So, yes, Obama was correct. That's just one donation; I don't have it at my finger tips but if I am recalling correctly Romney made other substantial donations both directly and indirectly to the Prop 8 effort, including during the court battle.
So, while he is keeping his head down about it, I would argue to you the man is a hypocrite, and that his actions DO speak louder than his words, and those actions say he IS against it.
I believe any donations made to the Mormon church would be Mandatory, I believe 10%. If Romney chooses to donate more, that is his choice. What the Mormon Church does with that money is there (The Mormons) choice. Any money that Romney donated personally is not surprising. He is staunchly against Gay Marriage. If there was a separate State bill or Proposition supporting adoption for homosexual couples, then we would have to see where Romney would fall then. You could argue that he is a hypocrite, and I can argue that he is not. As to date I can't find any evidence that he is against Homosexuals adopting. That is technically speaking of course. But still, According to the research I've done, to date it seems that Obama was lying,
Now Dog, are you speculating that the GOP lies, While Obama tells the truth? I think all politicians lie, what do you think? Your personal opinion?
No, I'm stating Romney and Ryan lie more than usual.
Given that Romney has made it clear that he believes every kid should have a mom and a dad, and that the closest I've seen to him making a statement was he acknowledges some states allow it, and then he donates money to support Prop 8 which campaigned on preventing adoption to gay couples -- not tithing, giving additional money on top of his tithing, and not giving it to the church.
Funding a proposition that undoes gay marriage and undoes gay addoption in a state in which he doesn't live? I think that is pretty clear by example of what he intends to do with those 16 states that allow gay adoption - he's going to do whatever he can to undo that happening.
I think his position on same sex parents is pretty clear.
JOB, doesn't it raise a few red flags for you - because it should - that Romney is trying to give significant support to anti-marriage equality AND to anti-gay adoption this secretively?
Don't you consider THAT to be a clue to what he really supports and would do?
Can you find anything that shows him in the same time frame supporting gay equality of any kind?
Saying that the LGBT community members should be treated with respect, but not given equal rights, is on a par with someone stating a person has a nice personality instead of giving an honest answer about another person's appearance.
He is taking money from and pandering to those who would outlaw gay adoption and who use junk science to falsely claim there is something wrong with gay parents.
Red flags? No, not really. I know what Romney is about when it comes to same sex anything. It's what his religion dictates. But to this date, he himself has never said he would seek to ban same sex adoption. Again, the campaign add was a lie.
But since we're on the topic, do you think President Obama has really done an about face, when it comes to homosexual rights?
When he's secretly funding legislation in other states that would ban same sex adoption in $10k chunks, it is clear he would interefere with that right for gay people.
When someone spends that kind of change, they're serious about ending all gay right relating to love or families.
He may secretly be funding chunks of money to ban gay rights. But I ask you again, is there a clip of Romney telling anyone that Gays should not be allowed to adopt? Is there anything on his voting record that says "EXACTLY" homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt?
Obama hasn't done that much of an about face; he was for civil unions for gays before, and had always been for gays serving in the military openly. It's not that big a reach from gay civil unions to gay marriage. An important one for equality, on the no - separate -but-equal premise, but both formalize the relationship and give it civil and social status.
"It's not that big a reach from gay civil unions to gay marriage." Now that is Bullshit, pardon my language. But as a Gay rights activist, and a proud Uncle of a young Gay man, that statement is utter bullshit. It's not a far reach? Are you serious? You Blog Administrators preach equality for all. Well you certainly don't practice it.
This whole thread is based off of some retarded comment that was made. "Romney's a liar! Prove me wrong or shut the f##k up. Yet, you never ask that commenter for direct facts. But you ask me. Is that how it is at "Penigma"? You can be the biggest ass in the blogosphere, but as long as you agree, that's cool. Oh and by the way, everyone is equal, except you homo, you're second class.
What truly amazes me DG, is that you will defend this President no matter what. Even when you know he's wrong. Or are you just that ignorant to homosexuals?
BTW- Obama was pro gay marriage in '97. That's when he was running for state Rep. He changed his mind in '04. When he was running for Senate (Had to appeal to the Jesus freaks in Southern Il. I guess). Of course he changed his mind again this past May. When his polling was down. Oh but you're right, he's a stand up guy....
"but both formalize the relationship and give it civil and social status." Horseshit, one says you can have a ceremony, and that man is now your life partner. The other says that you can have a wedding, and that man is your Husband. Pretty fu##ing big difference if you ask me.
It's not a big change of attitude (not a big reach)for Obama to evolve from believing in civil unions for gays to marriage. I understand that Obama came from a very traditional religious tradition, despite the number of people who think he's muslim. And he not only worked through that to his current position, he persuaded a significant number of other people from that tradition to change with him.
So? Am I supposed to see that as a big difference or a total reversal of position? It isn't.
The right has not supported ending discrimination for sexual orientation. The left has, the center has changed to do so.
Obama ended military discrimination. I don't think Obama ever made a change to appeal to southern voters; those who liked him, liked him. Those who didn't weren't going to start because of that change.
You are right that there has been a steady and consistent change in the public's openess to same sex marriage. That change in many cases evolved through supporting domestic unions before supporting marriage equality. I don't know how he was quoted in 1997, if it was an accurate quote of his position or not. Was he asked do you support same sex union or marriage and he said 'yes'?
But let's take the scenario that he changed his mind back and forth. The jump that this was to persuade the Jesus freaks in the south as you call it doesn't seem to carry that benefit.
Those who don't wish to support him simply put their emphasis on the position he was pro-gay marriage at some point. I don't see the gain; the change seems to have as much of a down side as an up side.
I'm glad he changed. I think he was honest about his transition as his thinking developed. He seems at all points to have realized that same sex coupled deserved recognition for their relationships. The 'Jesus freaks' as you call them for the most part never have approved of anything like that, or any effort to deny other discrimination against gay people - for jobs, for housing, etc.
That was my point. In that interval that we're discussing, a number of religious organizations have also been changing their official position on homosexuality and their churches - re gay clergy, etc. This was always for Obama, from his statements made at different times, about reconciling religious terminology and acceptance, versus a civil right. In that he mirrors a national evolution of position. So? I don't see how NOT doing that would have gotten us to his present position - or anyone else - if you oppose people working through contradictions and being able to change their minds on some facet of their position, when the larger position is consistent.
J.O.B - my response to you is quite simply this - if it looks like a duck....
Romney belongs to a church which is deeply antithetical to gay rights. He's an active, strong supporter of that church and his church (and to an extent he) aspouse that his responsibilities to that church come before governmental ones or his churc doctirne directs his public policy stance.
Will he support banning Gay Marriage, disallowing Gay rights.. there may not be a public statement, but past performance is very often a good predictor of future results. It's not fear mongering to suggest he'd do so, it's the far more likely outcome. He's the candidate AT THE BEHEST of the most extreme element in American politics today (the Tea Party)... do you think he'd do anything to oppose banning Gay Marriage?
On the difference between Civil Union and Marraige. I didn't read either of your positions, I will only say (and ask) this... How is allowing Civil Union but not Marraige anything other than, "Separate but Equal?" - In 40 years those who opposed Gay Marraige are going to appear to be akin to those who opposed Civil Rights...and they should be viewed as such.
Pen- That is fine, and I'm not arguing Romney's opinion or views on Homosexuality. This entire thread revolves around one simple fact. The Obama campaign released an add stating that Romney wants to deny rights to homosexuals. One of those rights would be adopting. That is simply not true. There is no interview, or sound bite that supports this statement, therefore making it, a LIE.
"do you think he'd do anything to oppose banning Gay Marriage?" Of course he won't. One of the party platform is to pass Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and women. But that does not change the fact, that Romney has never said, or acted in a way that suggests he is against Gay Adoption.
"How is allowing Civil Union but not Marraige anything other than, "Separate but Equal?" The answer to this is quite simple. We are making Homosexuals "second class citizens" Think of it this way, you can be someone's partner, but you can not be that person's Husband. It's appalling.
I read that newspaper article before commenting previously.
The right, of which Romney actively funds propositions which BOTH oppose gay marraige AND gay adoption, and where Ryan has opposed gay marriage and adoption, is anti-gay marriage.
Obama has always been pro-gay equality. Gay civil unions are much closer to supporting gay marriage, rather than opposing it. There has always been a greater political risk for Obama in supporting gay rights than not doing so.
I don't see the political payoff you postulate as plausible for the justification of his changes. For that reason, I think he took a moral stance in supporting gay marriage now, which he did when pushed to state his opinion. In doing so, he exercised some leadership. While some black churches have condemned his action, some black churches made a change and followed his lead in giving support to marriage equality.
Whether right or wrong not to have supported it earlier, it can be argued that in waiting until he had a better chance of exerting that leadership he was practicing politics, but I also think he has taken a very long view of how his presidency will be viewed in history.
Does Obama play politics? Yes. Did Clinton and all the other presidents, regardless of political party? Yes. Is it always bad? No. Sometimes it is just how things get done. LBJ did the same thing with civil rights in the 60s. Sometimes a politician has to guage when the time is right and the support is there to do those things. They don't act in a vaccuum.
DG- "The right, of which Romney actively funds propositions which BOTH oppose gay marraige AND gay adoption, and where Ryan has opposed gay marriage and adoption, is anti-gay marriage." There are bills up for vote weekly in the HOR, that have one thing a party would agree with, but include something that the same party disagrees with. How is this any different?
"Obama has always been pro-gay equality." Not true. He was from '97-'04. Then from '12-whenever he changes his mind.
"Gay civil unions are much closer to supporting gay marriage, rather than opposing it." Absolutely not true. Those who oppose Civil Unions and Gay Marriage let you know outright. They don't agree with your lifestyle, and they'll let you know it. Those who support Civil Unions, but oppose Gay Marriage, are pretty much telling you that you may have the same rights as I do. But, you are still below me as a citizen.
"I don't see the political payoff you postulate as plausible for the justification of his changes. For that reason, I think he took a moral stance in supporting gay marriage now, which he did when pushed to state his opinion." In '08, he had Healthcare. Gay marriage is the new "Hot Button" topic during this candidate. It makes him look cool again.
There was a bigger risk than potential gain; he didn't need to do that to 'look cool again'; he could have pointed to his efforts to get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Here is what Romney has said, from a Christian Science Monitor article:
"In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer prior to his 2008 presidential run, Romney said his position on gay adoption was integrally connected to his opposition to same-sex marriage. “Marriage is primarily not about adults, but about kids. A child and their development and nurturing is enhanced by access and by the nurturing of two parents of two different genders,” he said. “So, as we think about the development of children, and the future of our nation and its ability to raise a generation, we need to have homes where there are moms and dads.”
When he then funds, as secretly as possible, organizations which are actively, politically, opposing both gay marriage and gay adoption, it is pretty fair to say Romney opposes gay adoption and that he is trying to prevent it from becoming legal, just at the state level rather than the federal level.
In contrast, here is what Obama did:
2. Gay adoption
Obama has stated his unequivocal support for the rights of same-sex couples to adopt. In a proclamation issued last November for National Adoption Month, the president said, “Adoptive families come in all forms. With so many waiting for loving homes, it is important to ensure that all qualified caregivers are given the opportunity to serve as adoptive parents, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or marital status.”
I see a big difference between that, and funding efforts secretly through hateful organizations like NOM that use offensive tactics and strategies to attempt at the state level to prevent gay marriage equality and gay adoptions.
Obama called it what it was; that was not a lie. When Romney funds a state level effort to ban gay marriage and gay adoption, and then asserts he believes it is for the states to regulate -- the difference here is 2 plus 2 equals 4, or 2 plus 1 plus 1 equals 4. It still comes out to 4.
Obama still has health care reform as a hot button; it hasn't gone away. The conservatives are still lying about it, and about medicare and medicaid and about social security.
As to civil unions, Pen and I had a conversation recently; we both went through transitions in coming to support marriage equality. When I first heard of civil unions, it was postulated for both same sex and heterosexual relationships, as an alternative where government used the term to recognize all relationships that had been called marriage, while religion used it for a sanctified ceremony. It distinguished between civil status versus a religious status. It was about the separation between church and state.
Except that there is too much of a legal tradition surrounding marriage.
So we both came to agree that full equality meant marriage.
I'm not going to fault someone else, in this case the President, for working through that process that both Pen and I went through.
But you haven't demonstrated convincingly that the process was for political advantage.
We don't disagree that civil unions are separate but not equal. It was in our own cases how we came to reject civil unions, but it appears to also be the reasoning for Obama to do so.
What you DON'T have is a definitive statement from Romney that is anything like the definitive statement from Obama. What you do have is a case of actions speakng louder than words, but plenty of words also supporting anti-gay positions.
Pen & DG- Today I happened upon the thread from Your "Herman Cain is wrong post" Hope nobody minds, but I would like to reply here, to insure that all three get to read it.
ReplyDeleteMy original comment was "Dog- Good piece. But even Ms. Sebelius admitted in the link that Democratic and Republican Governors has sought some relief from this act."
Here is a quote from the New York Times article that was linked in the post..."For years, both Republican and Democratic governors have sought waivers from the 1996 work requirements in the welfare program, sometimes to tailor programs to their states’ needs, or to experiment with demonstration programs."
Here is a quote from Dog on her post..."I haven't found ANY requests from Democratic or Independent Governors seeking significantly different or more lenient work requirements for welfare than this. If any readers find such a request or inquiry, please bring it to my attention."
The two points of my comment were
1- I thought Dog did a good job with her post, &
2- I was pointing out a paragraph in an article that showed Dog's suspicions to be true.
I didn't say there was a petition signed by any Democratic Governors. I never said Herman Cain was on to something.
So can any of you three please inform me why I need to back up my bulls##t? Or what exactly I said, that was false?
Should I get a hold of the New York Times, maybe I can find out exactly who's in charge of the editorial process. Did I read Dogs sentence incorrectly? Was the post written badly, with little evidence to back it up.
Do I need to start proving my opinions?
I will be more than happy to leave whenever Pen & Dog ask me to. It is there blog, and I will respect there wishes. But that thread was the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Come on, you people can not be serious.
Commie- "Herman Cain is a fucking liar. Mittmoroni is a fucking liar--there are many, many examples of each man lying. Prove I'm wrong or STFU." LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Whenever I come here and leave a comment, I need to back it up with published facts? But, the NYT isn't good enough, and Politifact isn't good enough either. Is it because, they're not reputable, or do I just need more published articles to prove my "Opinions".
But in your own mind, your above statement is O.K.? THEY LIE! Prove that I'm wrong?
And I'm provocative for questioning your sanity?
Alright. Well, President Obama is a liar. Prove me wrong.
JOB - you understood me correctly; while there were both Republican and Democratic governors seeking waivers, neither group appears to have tried for lesser requirements or to reduce working.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't know is which Democratic governors looked for waivers, and when. The Republican governors in the letter were back in 2005, when Mitt Romney and the rest were governors. Their letter was to the Bush administration; Obama actually responded to it, belatedly.
Not having SEEN the Democratic requests, I can't 100% affirm that no Democratic governor wanted a lesser work requirement OTHER than the affirmation by Sebalius of 20% increase in people working being a requisite for granting the waiver. Maybe Bush didn't have a similar requirement after all. We don't actually know WHEN the Democratic governors applied for any waiver; might have been post-Bush for that matter.
As to what is going on between you and democommie, I don't believe that his comment applied to the Herman Cain post, but to a previus thread and comment.
You were provocative for your sanity statement; it was not a quasi-medical diagnosis. It was an insult. Let's not pretend otherwise.
If Obama is a liar, what was the lie?
DG- I don't know which Democratic Governors sought waivers either. I was only pointing out a piece of the article that somewhat confirmed your suspicion.
DeleteIf Commie has a problem with one of my comments, all he has to do is ask for clarification on it, and let me know which thread.
I really wasn't trying to be provocative, I was trying to be polite. I really wanted to call him a retard.
The Obama lying comment was not an actual question. I just wanted to show how ridiculous DemoCommie can be. But if we all want to have some fun, let's. Obama released an add claiming that Romney wants to deny gay people the right to vote. That is a lie.
Now, what is a lie that Romney told? Or should we forget about this silliness, and discuss other issues?
Commie- I apologize for questioning your sanity. If you have a problem with comments on another thread, why don't you just ask for clarification? But don't talk about people leaving comments without backing up their opinions, you do the same thing. Glass houses dude.
DeleteObama released an ad saying Mitt Romney wants to deny gays the right to vote? Or Mitt Romney wants to deny gays the right to marriage equality? Mittens has also claimed that whatever states decide on gay adoption is fine with him; currently only 16 states allow same sex couples to adopt, despite 80+ studies which show same sex couples make equally good parents as heterosexual couples in producing healthy, successful, well-adjusted kids. There is also NO correlation whatsoever to parental sexual orientation and the subsequent sexual orientation of their kids (one of the reasons supposedly have for opposing gay marriage, gay adoption or gay couples having surrogate biological children either is that they don't want them to 'catch' the gay.
ReplyDeleteI know the latter is correct, and not a lie (depending on when it was popular or unpopular for the etch-a-sketch candidate to say one or the other).
I'm not at all clear that Obama ever asserted Romney wants to deny gays the right to vote; the GOP, including Mittens, wants to deny a LOT of people the right to vote, if they seem likely not to vote for the GOP.
Because gays don't tend to vote for Mitt, it is true that they are among the groups of people being discriminagted against in voting suppression efforts, but other groups have been targeted far more intensively - blacks in Ohio for instance, or the purge of voting rolls in Florida and Texas.
In Texas the AG made a recent claim that 14,000 dead people voted in the last election, but that appears to be a completely false claim. No investigation of the voting rolls shows anything of the kind.
Please provide an example of the Obama false claim.
DG- Sorry, I have a problem with typing to fast & then hitting publish before I read my comment over. The lie I was speaking of was an add claiming Romney wanted to deny Homosexual couples the privilege of "Adoption"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/14/barack-obama/obama-ad-says-romney-opposes-gay-adoption/
Now I researched the subject, and there seems to be differing opinions. The biggest problem is Romney's tendency to go around direct questions. He never comes out and says, "I am all for gay adoption". But his actions seem to suggest he is not against it.
When he is strongly confronted he says he is for it.
ReplyDeleteHowever he was supportive when the Boy Scouts banned gay kids or staff. He was apparently donating heavily when the Mormon church was fighting for prop 8, and Romney appears to have donated $10k through an Alabama SuperPac to NOM to support the push for Prop 8 in California.
One of the things Prop 8 in CA did, besides ban same sex marriage was to ban same sex couple or individuals who had a same sex orientation from adopting children.
So, yes, Obama was correct. That's just one donation; I don't have it at my finger tips but if I am recalling correctly Romney made other substantial donations both directly and indirectly to the Prop 8 effort, including during the court battle.
So, while he is keeping his head down about it, I would argue to you the man is a hypocrite, and that his actions DO speak louder than his words, and those actions say he IS against it.
He is just very willing to lie about it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/mitt-romney-gay-marriage_n_1391867.html?1333130366
There are other sources confirming that Romney believes chilren should have a mother and a father, not two of one or the other.
Hes made his preferences known, he is big on dog whistling.
I believe any donations made to the Mormon church would be Mandatory, I believe 10%. If Romney chooses to donate more, that is his choice. What the Mormon Church does with that money is there (The Mormons) choice. Any money that Romney donated personally is not surprising. He is staunchly against Gay Marriage. If there was a separate State bill or Proposition supporting adoption for homosexual couples, then we would have to see where Romney would fall then.
ReplyDeleteYou could argue that he is a hypocrite, and I can argue that he is not. As to date I can't find any evidence that he is against Homosexuals adopting. That is technically speaking of course. But still, According to the research I've done, to date it seems that Obama was lying,
Now Dog, are you speculating that the GOP lies, While Obama tells the truth? I think all politicians lie, what do you think? Your personal opinion?
No, I'm stating Romney and Ryan lie more than usual.
ReplyDeleteGiven that Romney has made it clear that he believes every kid should have a mom and a dad, and that the closest I've seen to him making a statement was he acknowledges some states allow it, and then he donates money to support Prop 8 which campaigned on preventing adoption to gay couples -- not tithing, giving additional money on top of his tithing, and not giving it to the church.
Funding a proposition that undoes gay marriage and undoes gay addoption in a state in which he doesn't live? I think that is pretty clear by example of what he intends to do with those 16 states that allow gay adoption - he's going to do whatever he can to undo that happening.
I think his position on same sex parents is pretty clear.
JOB, doesn't it raise a few red flags for you - because it should - that Romney is trying to give significant support to anti-marriage equality AND to anti-gay adoption this secretively?
ReplyDeleteDon't you consider THAT to be a clue to what he really supports and would do?
Can you find anything that shows him in the same time frame supporting gay equality of any kind?
Saying that the LGBT community members should be treated with respect, but not given equal rights, is on a par with someone stating a person has a nice personality instead of giving an honest answer about another person's appearance.
He is taking money from and pandering to those who would outlaw gay adoption and who use junk science to falsely claim there is something wrong with gay parents.
Red flags? No, not really. I know what Romney is about when it comes to same sex anything. It's what his religion dictates. But to this date, he himself has never said he would seek to ban same sex adoption. Again, the campaign add was a lie.
ReplyDeleteBut since we're on the topic, do you think President Obama has really done an about face, when it comes to homosexual rights?
When he's secretly funding legislation in other states that would ban same sex adoption in $10k chunks, it is clear he would interefere with that right for gay people.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone spends that kind of change, they're serious about ending all gay right relating to love or families.
He may secretly be funding chunks of money to ban gay rights. But I ask you again, is there a clip of Romney telling anyone that Gays should not be allowed to adopt? Is there anything on his voting record that says "EXACTLY" homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt?
DeleteObama hasn't done that much of an about face; he was for civil unions for gays before, and had always been for gays serving in the military openly. It's not that big a reach from gay civil unions to gay marriage. An important one for equality, on the no - separate -but-equal premise, but both formalize the relationship and give it civil and social status.
ReplyDelete"It's not that big a reach from gay civil unions to gay marriage."
DeleteNow that is Bullshit, pardon my language. But as a Gay rights activist, and a proud Uncle of a young Gay man, that statement is utter bullshit. It's not a far reach? Are you serious?
You Blog Administrators preach equality for all. Well you certainly don't practice it.
This whole thread is based off of some retarded comment that was made.
"Romney's a liar! Prove me wrong or shut the f##k up. Yet, you never ask that commenter for direct facts. But you ask me.
Is that how it is at "Penigma"? You can be the biggest ass in the blogosphere, but as long as you agree, that's cool.
Oh and by the way, everyone is equal, except you homo, you're second class.
What truly amazes me DG, is that you will defend this President no matter what. Even when you know he's wrong. Or are you just that ignorant to homosexuals?
BTW- Obama was pro gay marriage in '97. That's when he was running for state Rep. He changed his mind in '04. When he was running for Senate (Had to appeal to the Jesus freaks in Southern Il. I guess). Of course he changed his mind again this past May. When his polling was down. Oh but you're right, he's a stand up guy....
"but both formalize the relationship and give it civil and social status."
Horseshit, one says you can have a ceremony, and that man is now your life partner. The other says that you can have a wedding, and that man is your Husband. Pretty fu##ing big difference if you ask me.
It's not a big change of attitude (not a big reach)for Obama to evolve from believing in civil unions for gays to marriage. I understand that Obama came from a very traditional religious tradition, despite the number of people who think he's muslim. And he not only worked through that to his current position, he persuaded a significant number of other people from that tradition to change with him.
ReplyDeleteSo? Am I supposed to see that as a big difference or a total reversal of position? It isn't.
The right has not supported ending discrimination for sexual orientation. The left has, the center has changed to do so.
Obama ended military discrimination. I don't think Obama ever made a change to appeal to southern voters; those who liked him, liked him. Those who didn't weren't going to start because of that change.
You are right that there has been a steady and consistent change in the public's openess to same sex marriage. That change in many cases evolved through supporting domestic unions before supporting marriage equality. I don't know how he was quoted in 1997, if it was an accurate quote of his position or not. Was he asked do you support same sex union or marriage and he said 'yes'?
But let's take the scenario that he changed his mind back and forth. The jump that this was to persuade the Jesus freaks in the south as you call it doesn't seem to carry that benefit.
Those who don't wish to support him simply put their emphasis on the position he was pro-gay marriage at some point. I don't see the gain; the change seems to have as much of a down side as an up side.
I'm glad he changed. I think he was honest about his transition as his thinking developed. He seems at all points to have realized that same sex coupled deserved recognition for their relationships. The 'Jesus freaks' as you call them for the most part never have approved of anything like that, or any effort to deny other discrimination against gay people - for jobs, for housing, etc.
That was my point. In that interval that we're discussing, a number of religious organizations have also been changing their official position on homosexuality and their churches - re gay clergy, etc. This was always for Obama, from his statements made at different times, about reconciling religious terminology and acceptance, versus a civil right. In that he mirrors a national evolution of position. So? I don't see how NOT doing that would have gotten us to his present position - or anyone else - if you oppose people working through contradictions and being able to change their minds on some facet of their position, when the larger position is consistent.
I think this thread has run it's course. I do believe there's a difference between marriage and union. Here is a link.
Deletehttp://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/Windy-City-Times-exclusive-Obamas-Marriage-Views-Changed-WCT-Examines-His-Step-Back/20524.html
Windy City Times is a paper published in Chicago for the gay community.
Ok, I have not followed this thread much...
ReplyDeleteJ.O.B - my response to you is quite simply this - if it looks like a duck....
Romney belongs to a church which is deeply antithetical to gay rights. He's an active, strong supporter of that church and his church (and to an extent he) aspouse that his responsibilities to that church come before governmental ones or his churc doctirne directs his public policy stance.
Will he support banning Gay Marriage, disallowing Gay rights.. there may not be a public statement, but past performance is very often a good predictor of future results. It's not fear mongering to suggest he'd do so, it's the far more likely outcome. He's the candidate AT THE BEHEST of the most extreme element in American politics today (the Tea Party)... do you think he'd do anything to oppose banning Gay Marriage?
On the difference between Civil Union and Marraige. I didn't read either of your positions, I will only say (and ask) this... How is allowing Civil Union but not Marraige anything other than, "Separate but Equal?" - In 40 years those who opposed Gay Marraige are going to appear to be akin to those who opposed Civil Rights...and they should be viewed as such.
Pen- That is fine, and I'm not arguing Romney's opinion or views on Homosexuality. This entire thread revolves around one simple fact. The Obama campaign released an add stating that Romney wants to deny rights to homosexuals. One of those rights would be adopting. That is simply not true. There is no interview, or sound bite that supports this statement, therefore making it, a LIE.
Delete"do you think he'd do anything to oppose banning Gay Marriage?"
Of course he won't. One of the party platform is to pass Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and women. But that does not change the fact, that Romney has never said, or acted in a way that suggests he is against Gay Adoption.
"How is allowing Civil Union but not Marraige anything other than, "Separate but Equal?"
The answer to this is quite simple. We are making Homosexuals "second class citizens"
Think of it this way, you can be someone's partner, but you can not be that person's Husband. It's appalling.
I read that newspaper article before commenting previously.
ReplyDeleteThe right, of which Romney actively funds propositions which BOTH oppose gay marraige AND gay adoption, and where Ryan has opposed gay marriage and adoption, is anti-gay marriage.
Obama has always been pro-gay equality. Gay civil unions are much closer to supporting gay marriage, rather than opposing it. There has always been a greater political risk for Obama in supporting gay rights than not doing so.
I don't see the political payoff you postulate as plausible for the justification of his changes. For that reason, I think he took a moral stance in supporting gay marriage now, which he did when pushed to state his opinion. In doing so, he exercised some leadership. While some black churches have condemned his action, some black churches made a change and followed his lead in giving support to marriage equality.
Whether right or wrong not to have supported it earlier, it can be argued that in waiting until he had a better chance of exerting that leadership he was practicing politics, but I also think he has taken a very long view of how his presidency will be viewed in history.
Does Obama play politics? Yes. Did Clinton and all the other presidents, regardless of political party? Yes. Is it always bad? No. Sometimes it is just how things get done. LBJ did the same thing with civil rights in the 60s. Sometimes a politician has to guage when the time is right and the support is there to do those things. They don't act in a vaccuum.
DG- "The right, of which Romney actively funds propositions which BOTH oppose gay marraige AND gay adoption, and where Ryan has opposed gay marriage and adoption, is anti-gay marriage."
DeleteThere are bills up for vote weekly in the HOR, that have one thing a party would agree with, but include something that the same party disagrees with. How is this any different?
"Obama has always been pro-gay equality." Not true. He was from '97-'04. Then from '12-whenever he changes his mind.
"Gay civil unions are much closer to supporting gay marriage, rather than opposing it."
Absolutely not true. Those who oppose Civil Unions and Gay Marriage let you know outright. They don't agree with your lifestyle, and they'll let you know it.
Those who support Civil Unions, but oppose Gay Marriage, are pretty much telling you that you may have the same rights as I do. But, you are still below me as a citizen.
"I don't see the political payoff you postulate as plausible for the justification of his changes. For that reason, I think he took a moral stance in supporting gay marriage now, which he did when pushed to state his opinion."
In '08, he had Healthcare. Gay marriage is the new "Hot Button" topic during this candidate. It makes him look cool again.
There was a bigger risk than potential gain; he didn't need to do that to 'look cool again'; he could have pointed to his efforts to get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
ReplyDeleteHere is what Romney has said, from a Christian Science Monitor article:
"In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer prior to his 2008 presidential run, Romney said his position on gay adoption was integrally connected to his opposition to same-sex marriage. “Marriage is primarily not about adults, but about kids. A child and their development and nurturing is enhanced by access and by the nurturing of two parents of two different genders,” he said. “So, as we think about the development of children, and the future of our nation and its ability to raise a generation, we need to have homes where there are moms and dads.”
When he then funds, as secretly as possible, organizations which are actively, politically, opposing both gay marriage and gay adoption, it is pretty fair to say Romney opposes gay adoption and that he is trying to prevent it from becoming legal, just at the state level rather than the federal level.
In contrast, here is what Obama did:
2. Gay adoption
Obama has stated his unequivocal support for the rights of same-sex couples to adopt. In a proclamation issued last November for National Adoption Month, the president said, “Adoptive families come in all forms. With so many waiting for loving homes, it is important to ensure that all qualified caregivers are given the opportunity to serve as adoptive parents, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or marital status.”
I see a big difference between that, and funding efforts secretly through hateful organizations like NOM that use offensive tactics and strategies to attempt at the state level to prevent gay marriage equality and gay adoptions.
Obama called it what it was; that was not a lie. When Romney funds a state level effort to ban gay marriage and gay adoption, and then asserts he believes it is for the states to regulate -- the difference here is 2 plus 2 equals 4, or 2 plus 1 plus 1 equals 4. It still comes out to 4.
Obama still has health care reform as a hot button; it hasn't gone away. The conservatives are still lying about it, and about medicare and medicaid and about social security.
As to civil unions, Pen and I had a conversation recently; we both went through transitions in coming to support marriage equality. When I first heard of civil unions, it was postulated for both same sex and heterosexual relationships, as an alternative where government used the term to recognize all relationships that had been called marriage, while religion used it for a sanctified ceremony. It distinguished between civil status versus a religious status. It was about the separation between church and state.
Except that there is too much of a legal tradition surrounding marriage.
So we both came to agree that full equality meant marriage.
I'm not going to fault someone else, in this case the President, for working through that process that both Pen and I went through.
But you haven't demonstrated convincingly that the process was for political advantage.
We don't disagree that civil unions are separate but not equal. It was in our own cases how we came to reject civil unions, but it appears to also be the reasoning for Obama to do so.
What you DON'T have is a definitive statement from Romney that is anything like the definitive statement from Obama. What you do have is a case of actions speakng louder than words, but plenty of words also supporting anti-gay positions.