OK - I'm Disingenuous

Mitt Romney, in the course of outlining his conservative cred, irritates me with this:

Romney was less charitable to McCain, who on Sunday told ABC News: “I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states.” McCain also said, “I believe that gay marriage should not be legal.”

Romney seized on the remarks.

“That’s his position, and in my opinion, it’s disingenuous,” he said. “Look, if somebody says they’re in favor of gay marriage, I respect that view. If someone says — like I do — that I oppose same–sex marriage, I respect that view. But those who try and pretend to have it both ways, I find it to be disingenuous.”

A spokesman for McCain could not be reached for comment Monday.

Unlike McCain and Giuliani, Romney supports amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. He also wants to amend the Massachusetts Constitution, although the state legislature this month balked at putting the question of gay marriage to voters.

McCain is being disingenuous?  OK, then I am disingenuous too - I think the question of gay marriage should be decided by state legislatures, not judicial cram-down.  Put another way, I would like to see courts follow the example set by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virgina and not attempt to take the lead on this issue.

For a similar "disingenuous" perspective, lets turn to David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, who are "lawyers who served in the Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush", per the NY Times op-ed blurb:

These marriage measures, of which only Arizona’s was defeated, generally prevent recognition of gay marriages by defining marriage as a “union between a man and a woman” in the state constitutions. More than half of the states now have such constitutional provisions (some of which would also forbid same-sex civil unions), and conservatives need to reconsider whether that’s really what we want. There are, in fact, some very good reasons conservatives should oppose this approach.

The definition of marriage is, of course, of critical importance to individuals on both sides of the issue and to society at large. But at least since independence, the question of who may marry and under what conditions has been the province of the state legislatures. And it should have remained that way.

...Indeed, cluttering state constitutions with the disposition of many difficult social issues — and this process will probably go on, and even accelerate, especially if all of the states choose to define marriage in their constitutions — is likely to empower the judiciary more. This paradoxical and unwelcome result would arise because some of the newly enshrined constitutional definitions and guarantees are sure to conflict with one another, leaving the courts the only venue for resolving the tension. Conservatives should find this outcome highly unpalatable.

...

If state legislatures were free to define and re-define marriage, we would have genuinely political solutions to an especially difficult and incendiary issue. Very few people do not hold deep convictions regarding same-sex marriage. To enshrine the definition of marriage in a state’s constitution removes the issue from the give-and-take of the normal political process. That process rarely produces an absolute victory for any side, but it also rarely results in absolute defeat. The outcome is never final; the defeated party can rally, regroup and try again.

By contrast, a constitutional amendment resolves a policy issue with a sufficient finality to prompt a more or less permanent sense of injustice and bitterness on the losing side. Conservatives, religious conservatives especially, should understand these dynamics. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court granted victory on constitutional grounds to the abortion-rights position in the abortion debate, and that decision has polarized American politics for nearly two generations. America does not need another such issue. The wave of marriage amendments — at least those that go beyond removing the issue from judicial resolution — should stop.

Disingenuous?  Bah.  If you want "disingenuous", try figuring out Mitt Romney's position on abortion:

Personally against abortion, but pro-choice as governor

Romney was asked to clarify his position on abortion. Romney's stance appeared to have changed between his 1994 campaign against Sen. Kennedy and when he moved to Utah. He recently told a Salt Lake City newspaper that he preferred not to be labeled "pro- choice."

"On a personal basis, I don't favor abortion," he said. "However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman's right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That's the same position I've had for many years."

Source: Erik Arvidson, Lowell Sun Mar 20, 2002

And:

For safe, legal abortion since relative's death from illegal

Romney disclosed that he became committed to legalized abortion after a relative died during an illegal abortion. The disclosure came after Romney, who said he is personally opposed to abortion, was asked to reconcile his beliefs with his political support for abortion rights. "It is since that time that my family will not force our beliefs on that matter," He said the abortion made him see "that regardless of one's beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal."

Source: Joe Battenfeld in Boston Herald Oct 26, 1994

Comments

[Enlightened]

The very simple fact that the womb is the ONLY organ so far that can not be artificially reproduced in a lab or petrie dish to produce human life makes it imperative that only the owner of the womb can decide what to do with it. No one can or should be able to force a woman to reproduce.

I am 100% against abortion, which I consider murder.

The only organ that can incubate an embryo to human life - the womb. Stop the incubation - stop human life. Stop it naturally because something is wrong - end of human life. Stop it artificially with premeditation - end of human life.

You cannot get from point A(fertilization) to point B(birth)if the process stops for any reason along the way. A woman that premeditatively chooses to stop the process is ending a human life. To premeditatively end a human life is murder.

The lame excuses - I forgot my pill, he didn't pull out, we didn't use a condom, the baby is mentally retarded or deformed - a cornucopia of reasons we have heard repeatedly for 30 years. If women have not intelligently evolved enough to stop forgetting their pills, condoms, safe sex, drunk sex, sex with someone other than husband etc., then woe is us, abortions will continue as birth control for morons.

That said, the government has no RIGHT to decide what to do with said womb.

[Sue]

I don't find this statement disingenuous. As governor he is bound by law to uphold the laws of the state and the country.

"On a personal basis, I don't favor abortion," he said. "However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman's right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That's the same position I've had for many years."

This one, you can call him on...

"It is since that time that my family will not force our beliefs on that matter," He said the abortion made him see "that regardless of one's beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal."

[rightnumberone]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I too find it disingenuous of McCain to say that, on the one hand, he thinks gay marriage ought to be outlawed, but on the other hand, it's an issue that should be decided by the states.

What McCain is attempting to do is placate the voters in those areas where gays congregate (New York, San Francisco) by allowing those states to legalize it.

No two ways about it.

If it should be illegal, it should be illegal everywhere, right John? But that's not John McCain's position. He thinks it should be put up to 50 votes in 50 states.

Allowing states to decide the gay marriage issue by ballot allows for the possibility that some will legalize it. McCain can't have it both ways. That would be disingenous.

Romney has never waivered in his views on abortion. He thinks it should be legal (it is); he has said he will uphold the law (he has); he has said he is personally against it (he is) and he has said he won't force his views on others (he hasn't).

[rightnumberone]

Incidently,

Trying to figure out the position of any Republican politician by searching for articles in the Boston Globe and the Lowell Sun is gonna be a pretty futile exercise, since these two organs frequently distort the views of Republicans in ways that are designed to aid Democrats. So I don't fault you for being confused.

[rightnumberone]

Not for nothing, but I have one final comment after suddenly seeing all the stories about teens getting married in motels by FBI-most-wanted-polygamists today:

By the time they are done with Mitt Romney, the Mormon Church is gonna make Scientology look like the second coming of Christ Almighty. Tom Cruise could be the next POPE after it's all said and done.

The media is gonna make Mormons out to be cultist racists who won't let "others" come into their churches.

They're gonna do a poll of the white versus black membership that demonstrates that there are no black Mormons. De facto racism will be the storyline.

Then they're gonna do a poll of the white versus Hispanic membership that demonstrates that there are no Hispanic Mormons, so that the latinos who are still Republicans will be encouraged to not vote for Mitt (also, that it proves they're racists).

They're gonna demonstrate, through anectdotal interviews with Christians how most other Christian religions believe that the Mormon faith is a cult; because Mormons don't believe everything other religions believe (such as transsubstantiation).

Oh yea, they wear secret underwear too, and they won't discuss their symbology with anyone else, so obviously they're hiding their symbology because if the symbology was known, we'd all know it's a Jim Jones-like cult. (In fact, we're gonna see a lot of "anniversary specials" about Jim Jones leading right up to the New Hampshire primaries, you mark my words.)

They're gonna rip the Mormon faith to shreds.

And not because they give a rat's ass about Mormons, or any religion for that matter. They're gonna do it to "get" Mitt Romney.

Romney is their worst nightmare.

He's a conservative.

[anonymous]

"""No one can or should be able to force a woman to reproduce. """

Rape is already illegal in this country.

[anonymous]

"""That said, the government has no RIGHT to decide what to do with said womb."""

Ehhh, you can't sell it? You can't have it removed without a medical reason. You can't keep it on the swing in the park.

The government makes all kinds of laws about what we are allowed to do with our wombs.

[Robert Brown]

McCain is not being disingenuous at all. He is saying that the process for determining the legality of gay marriage should be votes in state legislatures and that his preferred outcome of that process is that gay marriage be illegal, but that he would abide by the decision of legislatures.

[anonymous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-S9Ntek9QE

Great Romney clip.

Reporter claims that HE, the reporter is the representative of the people and not that elected Governor guy!

[maryrose]

Romney represents my position on abortion. It may be the reason I vote for him in 08 for President.

[Syl]

"Murder" is a legal term. Using it loosely in rhetoric does not pursuade.

[Syl]

Just on an emotional level I was against Romney because K-Lo adores him. But I respect his position on abortion, though I disagree with how he says the gay marriage matter should be handled.

I think gay marriage should be handled by legislatures, not constitutionally (whether state or federal). Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by society. If some states wish to grant the privilege to same sex couples they should be able to do so.

[Pug]

The media won't have to say a thing about the Mormons. The Southern Baptist base of the GOP will take care of that, and enjoy every second of it.

[Paul Zrimsek]

Is it official that religious conservatives no longer care at all about abortion? Or is there some other reason why everyone seems to think a candidate who's adopted the Catholic Democrat Straddle can still be their favorite?

[happyfeet]

Both gay marriage supporters and the let's-change-the-Constitution crowd really really hate it when they hear "Gay Marriage? Whatever." So mark me down as civil union supporter turned proactively apathetic.

[Xrlq]

If Romney really believes federalism is "disingenuous," he may soon find out that there are a lot more "disingenuous" people in his party than he thought. I really mean that. I'm not just saying it because I had such a great time at the Disingenuous Society convention last week.

[Soylent Red]

Being a dyed-in-the-wool states'-righter and pretty religiously conservative, Romney just ain't getting it done for me.

Mormonism aside, there was a time when religious conservatives had the capacity for pragmatic politics. To that end, you voted your religious conscience and worked for the incremental political change.

That incremental change, in most cases, was made manifest in liberal social engineering being referred back to the states, where (unless you live on a coast) the likelihood was that conservatism and traditional morality would prevail. That was, in part, why Reagan was so gung-ho for states-rights. Everybody could win.

This new breed of fundie (into which most LDS fall these days) wants everything right now, even at the expense of traditional conservative pillars. For example, while decrying "activist judges" they are fully prepared to wage judicial activism themselves, up to and including allowing Federal judges to extinguish the last dying embers of federalism in the name of banning gay marriage/abortion/stem cell research/death with dignity/etc.

For this reason, I don't consider "Fundies" as part of the traditional conservative base. Religious conservatives of yesteryear represented religion and conservatism in equal measures. These new ones are just too single-minded, too rabid and too politically clumsy.

I, for one, am sick of Ned Flanders running my party. Further, I'm pretty sure that the Flanders-wing is turning off the more old school cigars-and-scotch conservative.

[syn]

SO far under the paradigm of marriage not a single homosexual has been banned. On the contrary, homosexuals marry all the time sometimes divorce only to marry again therefore it is a fallacy to say that homosexuals are banned from marriage.

If same-sex union between a man and a woman is 'legalized' then equality will exist in the idea that I as a heterosexual female will be able to marry a homosexual female in order to garder her job benefits or after I am unhappy with her I can "come out of the closet" as a heterosexual, divorce her and take half of her money.

Also, since I don't have to do anything to prove I'm gay except make a statement to that effect this means I will be able to take legal/financial action against anyone for 'gay' discrimination anytime I feel offended. I as a heterosexual female would love to have 'special rights' in addition to my special right to murder my offspring should I so choose.

That said, I used to support abortion but this was before understood that the sisterhood lied and deceived me in order to obtain my support. At this point I believe that if aborters want to kill off their offspring let them proceed with the slaughter since none wants them around anyway. Why should I bother anymore fighting against the illiberal policy of Abortionists since they will kill themselves off all on their own.

[syn]

Syl

Actually the term murder is used in abortion's legal context as in, when a male does something to harm the baby in the womb he can be charged/sentenced with 'murder' when a female does something to harm the the baby in the womb it is 'choice'.

The worst aspect to the illiberal policy in Roe vs Wade, in addition to the fact that through judical fiat it denied the vote to every American citizen, is that it gives special rights to females while none to males.

As a liberated female I understand that males have rights too and intend on fighting for their rights that I once had taken away from them.

[Jane]

Gee, I don't find either McCain or Romney disingenuous. Perhaps another cup of coffee is called for.

“I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states.” McCain also said, “I believe that gay marriage should not be legal.”

Marriage has always been determined by the state. It certainly is not very conservative to want to federalize it. The second statement is a personal statement, it seems to me, which if left to the states translates into 1 vote for McCain.

Personally against abortion, but pro-choice as governor

Romney's statment seems to be walking down the same path as McCain's. As Governor, his job is to uphold the existing laws of the state which is decidely pro-choice. But he wouldn't have one, I guess.

[Jane]

This is the reason I like Romney:

http://news.journurl.com/users/jane_w/index.cfm?mode=article&entry=36830

[boris]

A constitutional solution is just as democratic as a legislative one. Ruling by judges is the least democratic.

It certainly seems true that judges will override legislation on this issue so the only way to a democratic decision is by constitution.

That's the situtaion. Anybody who tries to claim:

• Legislation Good;
• Judges Bad;
• Constitution Bad.

Is being disingunuous because the result will be indistinguishable from ...

• Legislation Good;
• Judges BETTER;
• Constitution Bad.

Frankly the redefinition of "marriage" is the biggest obstacle to getting a good civil union institution or Euro style partnership law in place for alternate families. IMO a constitutional restraint on judges from trying to redefine human nature would remove most of the opposition to an alternate institution.

[anonymous]

I am all for States rights as MCCian is on this issue, but States don't have a RIGHT to change the language as found throughout the law not only in the States but Federally as well.

Marriage has a simple definition that is used DAILY by the Federal government for all kinds of reasons and States should be free to call something that is not 'A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMEN' a marriage.

From Social Security, to taxes, to benefits, etc. you need to maintain the uniform definition.

Otherwise if some state recognizes Poligamy as a legitimate marriage, does Social Security have to pay benefits to each spouse??

What if a state wanted to change the definition of African America to include everyone of European descent? Would that fly? Why can't I be included as part of the definition so I can enjoy the same benefits?

[anonymous]

You think I wanted to be born white? I hate being white..and there's no reason I should be denied my right to be African American.

The courts and the legislature should not shut me out just because I was born this way.

If Micheal Richardson could declare himself African American; then he could use the N-word all he wanted and nobody would give a CRAP (Little Murtha lingo there)

[anonymous]

Then my state could declare everyone living here and their descendants prior to 1735 'Native Americans'.

Then I would be free to open my tax free casino!! Its just a definition change...who cares about a little definition change?

Its not like a definition chnage is going to hurt traditional marriage, so a defeinition change wouldn't hurt traditional African Americans, or traditional Native Americans...I am not denying them their rights by being free to exercise my right to be black, or an Indian.

I'm starting to like this re-definition stuff, if you don't like the law, just change the meaning of the words!!

[Jane]

Marriage has a simple definition that is used DAILY by the Federal government for all kinds of reasons and States should be free to call something that is not 'A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMEN' a marriage.

Actually marriage was rarely if ever defined that way, which is why all this legislation is being rushed through.

[anonymous]

Wrong Jane, marriage is definitely defined that way in every dictionary prior to political correctness.

Law.com's legal dictionary even states:

marriage
n. the joining of a male and female in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony (a minister, priest, judge, justice of the peace or some similar official), after having obtained a valid marriage license (which requires a blood test for venereal disease in about a third of the states and a waiting period from one to five days in several).

[anonymous]

Hows this from Mirriam Webster:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

Easy enough for you?

[anonymous]

Even that pesky little BLACKS LAW dictionary states:

Black's Law Dictionary 972 (6th ed. 1990). The definition of `marriage' in Black's: Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, is the legal status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, or until divorced, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. A contract, according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and a woman capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives (or until divorced) together in state of union which ought to exist between a husband and wife.]

JUST HOW DID ALL THESE SOURCES GET THE DEFINITION WRONG. PERHAPS JANE CAN ACTUALLY POINT US TO A LONG STANDING SOURCE WITH SOME OTHER DEFINITION?

[Barney Frank]

Actually marriage was rarely if ever defined that way

It didn't have to be. It wasn't until our present enlightened age discovered that holy matrimony actually means any collection of individuals or groups who wish to have their sexual behaviors normalized and endorsed by the government and recognized as a civil right that a legal definition was found necessary.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

1. Isn't it ridiculous to want gay marriage determined by each individual state? The USA is made up of 50 individual states. But they aren't *that* independent. If a marriage is allowed and legal in one state but not in the other 49, then what exactly is the point?

And doesn't this constitute a problem vis a vis recipriocity?

So isn't McCain's position utterly absurd then on gay marriage?

2. I use to be ambivalent about gay marriage until the gay activists started f**king around with activist courts. Now I absolutely oppose gay marriage in part because I do not want people rewarded for screwing up our legal system.

[anonymous]

Getting back to the issue at hand;

If it is appropriate to say that someone doesn't want Alex Keaton or Superman to get well because they oppose Federal funding for embryonic stem cell reseach;
Isn't just as appropriate to say that someone also opposes them getting well because they support abortion, and abortion kills hundreds of reseachers, scientists, geniuses, etc. that are much more likley to have cured these diseases then embryos.

[anonymous]

Its kind of ironic that Micheal J. Fox may very well pay to have the embryonic stem cells harvested and the fetus killed of what would have been the future scientist that would have cured his disease.

[Actual]

I'm with ed on this. The "full faith and credit" clause makes the individual states into one large bloc. Once the individual states start qualifying which of the other state's laws they're going to recognize, we're going to become the Balkans.

[52% of America]

I'm voting for Romney.

[maryrose]

Speaking of Michael J. Fox- I saw a picture of him jamming with a guitar and celebrities Sheryl Crow and others for a Parkinson's disease fundraiser. If individual states want to vote on it that's fine with me. I disagree with the idea of killing one life to cure another life especially if that person has already had quite a life! We just rejected casino gambling here in Ohio. Let the majority of the people have their say at the ballot box. We also outlawed smoking in bars and restaurants.

[TCO]

Perhaps you and McCain are not disengenuous, but many of the Democrats opposing Marriage Amendments are. Here in Virginia, there was all this talk that the amendment would screw up contract law, when the people who REALLY hate the marriage amendment are people who agree with gay marriage. They just didn't have the balls to say it.