The Time Has Come

I love to watch politics, as is well known.  But the last several months have provided a numbing experience as the GOP has battled their way through their own ranks, fighting for the top position as the candidate for president. I'm not interested in the GOP enough to watch them fight amongst themselves.

But we are at a place where the clear GOP candidate is Mitt Romney. I met Mr Romney when he was here in Salt Lake for the Olympics. I was an interpreter for the Chilean team at the Paralympics and he and I watched one of the events together for a few minutes. He was genuinely a nice guy.  I know that he came in and cleaned up the disaster the Olympics were quickly becoming, and I had a lot of fun as a result of the time. But that doesn't weigh too much with my politics.

Today I ran across this clip of Mitt Romney responding to questions about gay rights to marriage (granted, it's a very brief clip of the full interview): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/mitt-romney-gay-marriage_n_1516200.html






Romney: As a society, I think we’re better off if we encourage the establishment of homes with a mother and a father.
Interviewer: I asked Romney how much weight religion has in his opposition.
Romney: I indicated that’s based entirely upon a civil understanding of the needs of a society like our own.
Interviewer: So it doesn’t have any weight?
Romney: It’s not a religious decision. It’s based upon what I believe is right for a, the nation, and the building of strong generations for the future.

Let's go line by line:
Romney: As a society, I think we’re better off if we encourage the establishment of homes with a mother and a father.
Why? How are we better off? Based on what evidence is this the case? A home with two parents (straight or gay), and even single parents are not without their trials and difficulties, but, AS A SOCIETY, in what way is it "better" if we encourage straight households....and evidently not just single parent straight, but mother and father straight.

 Romney: I indicated that’s based entirely upon a civil understanding of the needs of a society like our own.

I'd like to know what needs, specifically, he's referring to. They may be valid, but he didn't clarify anything specific. It's too vague. What "civil understanding" are we talking about here. A civil understanding based on religion or the religious right? Civil understanding, to me, means 'under the law.' And under the law, we should all be entitled to the same exact rights. If we’re speaking of a civil understanding only, then the parents should have EQUAL rights to a civil marriage.  I’m not referring to common law marriages, which do not provide the same rights under the law as civil marriage. So, I'd like to know what he means by "needs" and "society like our own."


Romney: It’s not a religious decision. It’s based upon what I believe is right for a, the nation, and the building of strong generations for the future.

"It's not a religious decision." I gotta call bull on this one.

Moving on to : “...the building of strong generations for the future.”
I really want WAY more info on this one comment.  Hmmmmmm...... strong generations for the future........ SO......... gay = not strong.  There is not a shred of evidence that suggests that gay parents produce weak minded children...not any more than straight parents. Gay communities produce strong economics all around the nation, but we are not talking that kind of strength, are we? We're talking morals........religion.

Something about they way he says "strong generations for the future" invokes thoughts from a religion I've released from my life. I hear echoes from the Book of Mormon......and I can't help but feel the contradiction to his previous 'civil understanding' based comments.

But let's take him at his word....that this is a civil based decision, that religion has no part in his stand against the right for gay American citizens to be married.  I want to know in what way gay individuals are not strong.
Aside from the obvious strength it takes to stay true to yourself  against society and, in many cases, your own family. What would make someone think that a civil marriage would not produce strong generations? Based on what?

I have many friends who happen to be gay. I don't see them through these eyes, though. In fact, in the same way that many times they forget I'm brown, I forget they're gay.  It's a non issue.

Putting that aside, these friends are hard working, tax paying, society contributing individuals. They lead their families with honor and love. They serve their country with all the patriotism as any American from our history. They teach their children and friends what true love and acceptance looks like. They are funny and witty and angry and just as crazy as any other person I know.

If my straight friends, who live these same standards are building "strong generations for the future" in what way are my gay friends NOT building "strong generations for the future"?

Comments in passing like this create ananimosity. Words of animosity are not of strength or building up a strong nation. These comments are the comments that create ugly wedges of hatred and loathing and destroy any strength we might have combined as a nation.

One cannot say the words: “...the building of strong generations for the future" and be thinking civilly. They come only from a place of religion.

I clearly believe that it is the right, under the law, for two consenting adults to marry regardless of their gender.  Just as we should not force religions to change their ways based on civil rights (because, God forbid), religion has no place in the civil matters that will decide the fate of civil rights such as the right to marry who you love.

I believe in a stronger nation who accepts people of all faiths, nationalities, and backgrounds. History is full of the results of hateful, fear mongering groups who indiscriminately destroy in the name of God and love.