An angered Mitt Romney, as Governor of Massachusetts laying the groundwork for a 2008 presidential campaign, told the South Carolina Republican Party in 2005, “Some gays are actually having children born to them.” While running for Senator in 1994, Romney had promised the Log Cabin Republicans he would be to the left of Senator Ted Kennedy on gay rights in order to obtain their endorsement another broken promise.
“Today, same-sex couples are marrying, under the law, in Massachusetts,” a shocked and angered Mitt Romney says in the below video. “Some gays are actually having children born to them. We’ve been asked to remove the phrase ‘mother’ and ‘father’ and replace it with ‘parent A’ and ‘parent B.’ It’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact. Every child has the right to have a mother and father.”
Michelangelo Signorile, veteran journalist, writes at The Huffington Post today:
Romney distorted the Registry of Vital Statistics’ plan, which was to change the labeling of boxes on the forms from “father” and “mother” to “father or second parent” and “mother or second parent.” He claimed the plan was to change the form to have “Parent A” and Parent B” boxes…
“The real Romney is the guy who actually delivered to cultural conservatives and sought to harm the children of gay couples, and who is now running for president with the backing of those very same religious extremists,” Signorile adds.
The video, which Signorile also posted, comes from Murray Waas, the Boston Globe reporter who revealed last week that as Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney directed his legal staff to investigate the circumstances surrounding the birth of each and every child born to same-sex parents, before allowing the state to approve issuing them a birth certificate for their newborn children, which The New Civil Rights Movement reported last week.
Friends:
We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.
Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!
{ 4 comments }
WHY isn't it right on paper? Because your religion says so? Huh I thought there was such thing as separation of church and state. Oh, and as for children having the right to a mother and a father? What about children raised in an orphanage? I have to say having two loving, caring parents is better than none at all. Mr. Romney, you can suck a fat one.
You've just fallen victim to your own confirmation bias. There is no "hate" in Mitt's voice; no vitriol & no distortion. It's pathetic that, in order to garner interest in this crummy article, the author inserts the term "Gays" into the headline as if to somehow insinuate that there was a derisory tone in Mitt's speech when in fact he never used the term at all. I could go on to talk about Mr Badash's laughable effort to draw a distinction between "Father or Second Parent" & "Parent B", I could talk about the irrelevance of Church and State in this context as it's clearly a case of Mitt defining his beliefs (something political candidates at all levels do routinely because the electorate like to know such things),
I could talk about the distinction between planning to experiment on children (which is what same sex parenting is since none of us know's the long term effects) vs. last resort safety nets such as orphanages that are precisely a response to unplanned and often devastating situations, I could talk about the many more ridiculous things in this article & Kilimacory's response but I won't because you want read it & it won't change the opinion already baked in your tiny mind. Continue with your social experiments; plan to raise children without mother's or fathers & defend your right to do so while you're at it because, after all, it's about you not the children right?! YOUR rights mean so much more than a child's!
Children have a right to be brought up in homes where they feel loved, wanted, and secure. Number and gender(s) of parents is negotiable.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }