| Mitt Romney has made his position pretty clear today by forcing a vote on a gay marriage ban in Massachusetts state legislature. This after the state supreme court ruled that the state's constitution called for the equal treatment of all people should actually apply to all people. Why this now, just a few weeks before he leaves office? Mark Solomon, campaign director of Mass Equality thinks he knows the answer: "Gov. Romney is trying to divide Massachusetts and use this issue as a device to run for president." I think he may be right.
He's not the only one though In his 2000 bid for the GOP nomination, John McCain held meetings with the Log Cabin Republicans and seemed at least sympathetic to their cause. He seems to be changing tact a bit now. This weekend during an appearance on ABC's This Week, in Washington, John McCain reversed any sort of equality thoughts and said that he would not even support workplace protection for homosexuals. Why this shift? Again, courting the far right of the Republican party social conservatives.
This is from the centrists of the bunch. What about the others? Well, no quarter there for sure. Sam Brownback sponsored the Defence of Marriage bill. He makes is pretty clear that he thinks Homosexual marriage will lead to the downfall of American civilization:
There is a real question about the future of societies that do not uphold traditional marriage. Once a society loses sight of the central importance of marriage in raising children, the institution can go into a tailspin.
Bill Frist has claimed that outlawing gay marriage is one of the most important issues facing America, along side flag burning. I am sure that no one has any real question about Newt's views on the matter.
I favor a Constitutional amendment to protect the traditional family and I think we should have such an amendment. -Newt Gingrich
Well, that covers the centrist and the righties, but what about Giuliani? Surely a 'moderate' from New York City is 'inclusive'? Well, a bit more so it seems. He came out against Bush's call for a constitutional ban on gay marriage in 2004. This is good news for log cabin dwellers, right? They'll have a candidate to support, so it must be good? Well, if you want to guarantee that it will be the wedge issue that the other candidates use to stir up the base in their support. Then yeah. If you want to hear about how 95% of your own party thinks that you are a sinner for the next two years, this splendid.
Not only will we hear about this as a wedge device during the general election to differentiate 'liberals' and social conservatives, we are guaranteed to hear about it for the full two years.
I for one am embarrassed for them. Shut the doors, close the shutters and huddle up under the covers. The winds are going to howl though the cabin and its going to be a long winter. |
