Letters to the Editor
-
Why are you surprised?
These people will tolerate no dissent. I think that is part of the reason why they haven't really made any progress, they refuse to work with anyone who doesn't believe in exactly everything they do and to the same extreme degree. Of course when you only care about one or two issues, you can afford to devote all your energies to only like-minded people.
-
Romney has not mastered the sound bite.
If he wants to win the hearts of right-wing Christian fanantics, he will have to give up nuanced responses.
-
Grumble
"...putting the word 'fine' within a 10-foot rhetorical pole of 'gay couples raising kids' had already raised Christian ire."
Can we PLEASE remember already that this is not the representative Christian view, and that the Christians with their ire raised at gay marriage do not speak for all of Christianity? Pretty please?
My own acceptance of gays and lesbians for who they are and support for gay marriage came about as a result of my Christianity, not as an affront to it.
-
Romney Would Have Been "Fine"...
...if he had stayed with his original support for gay marriage!
We (Salonistas et cetera) would have loved him. He would have had all sorts of great press. And the rest of the Republican candidates are so goofy that Romney still probably would have been the nominee.
-
Romney has always been a lie
Well,contrary to popular belief, Romney didn't change his stripes to be president, he changed his stripes so he could hold office in MA (remember he first ran against Sen. Kennedy.) I, as a MA voter, never bought his supposed liberal social views, though too many of my fellow MA voters did.
More to the point on Romney, regardless of his religion or social views, his supposed skills as a CEO executive (Gov. or Pres.)left MA with a huge budget shortfall and without our major corporate headquarters which exited the state under Romney and all his vaulted business skills and contacts. Whatever you may think of him, DON'T fall for this line.
-
Romney hardly the most right wing republican
Romney sways in the wind - that is the criticsm laid upon him. Being a flip flopper as a result probably puts him more center than right. Personally I rather have President who is more flexible and willing to compromise than one who is rigid like the one we have now. Either way candidates from both parties are swinging to the edges to win the primaries. I hate the primary system. Us people in the middle want to throw up.
-
I wish he would just call our bluff
I wish one of the leading Republican candidates would just drop the hammer and say clearly "Exterminate. Them. All." just to see which way his polling numbers go.
-
way to piss off both sides
Too tolerant for the right wing, too intolerant for the left. On the one hand, he distanced himself from the conservatives who believe that them gays are against God, on the other, he alienated gay people who want to get married and their supporters. (I particularly loved the line about not calling single people married - that's because, um, there's only one person there, tootsie roll! Gay marriages involve TWO, count them, two people.)
-
It came about as a result of your Christianity...
... and not as a result of common sense?
-
"Christian Ire"?
Dear Ms. Lloyd,
Last week's New York Times carried the civil-union announcement for the Rev. Mark Lewis and the Rev. Dennis Winslow. As you might know, Mark is the "Lewis" of "Lewis vs. the State of New Jersey". As Episcopal priests, both he and Dennis are, rather obviously, Christians...and I seriously doubt that Mitt Romney's response has raised the ire of either.
Would you please begin using the terms "the Christian Right" or "Christian Fundamentalists" or even "Creeping Jesus Assholes" when you are referring to those specific groups?
Doing so wouldn't require any particularly strenuous or complex rhetorical maneuvers on your part.
I notice that you don't, as a general rule on Broadsheet, refer to "The Jews" every time some right-wing Israeli group decides to blow-up Lebanon, and you certainly don't broadly refer to "the Muslims" when you're writing about the activities and ambitions of right-wing/conservative Jihadists.
thank you in advance,
David Terry
www.davidterryart.com
-
gassed
I'm gay and I'm probably going to raise the ire of my own people. I think pushng the gay marraige issue was a bad idea that played right into the hands of the wacky Christian right. Strides were being made because civil unions were becoming legal without a great deal of fanfare. That wasn't good enough. Tthe important thing is that gay couple's relationships be validated and have the legal protections that straight married couples have. Civil unions have pretty much accomplished that. Its a big first step. Demanding "marriage" gave the christian right the ammunition to scare the general public into a hostel position to the entire issue. There has been far greater resistance to civil unions since the "marriage" debate popped up.
That being said, I think the air is quickly leaking out of the gay marriage balloon. A few years later, and rational people aren't all that concerned anymore. The scare tactics are becoming dulled. Romney's watery acceptance of gay "families" is just the latest step in the larger public's acceptance. The Christian right is becoming marginalized. We're heading towards the day when it just won't be an issue anymore (especially with other countries moving forward on it). The best move for the gay community would be to NOT ratchet up the issue. That would just fuel the Christian right. It's going to happen sooner rather than later (when was the last time anyone has mentioned a constitution ammendment banning gay marriage?).
I'm no fan of Mitt Romney for numerous reason, but this was a step in the right direction, not just for him, but for the debate overall.
-
Saintzak, you're not alone
I agree with you that the gay marriage issue was not the best place to start with a drive towards equality; strategically, it's been a disaster for us. I would have preferred we start with employment discrimination protection (with the elimination of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as part of that push) which I think would have economically benefitted a larger majority of GLBT Americans, particularly those with less income and those in the red states. Any gay person in Alabama or Virginia will tell you, there's really no point in having a right to get married if doing so means that you will not be able to find local employment.
Eliminating employment discrimination would also facilitate grassroots activism. If you can't be openly gay in your hometown for fear of losing your job, you certainly can't be a grassroots activist. That also means that fewer straight people in that town can personally know an openly gay person, and those who don't know any gay people are far more likely to
However, it's important to realize how the gay marriage issue rose to the forefront. It's not as if all the major gay rights organizations had a G-8 summit and said, "Hey! Let's lead off with gay marriage!" What happened was, six plaintiffs in the state of Massachusetts believed that the Massachusetts state constitution guaranteed them the right to get married, felt that the state was violating the constitution in denying them this right, and sought redress through the court system. Turns out they were correct in their reading of the Massachusetts state constitution. Were they thinking of the broader political impact on the gay community? No. But why should they have had to? They were six aggrieved individuals who had the right as American citizens and residents of Massachusetts to seek redress of their grievance through the court systems.
So, I do agree with you about what the ideal political strategy should be (in an ideal world in which all GLBT activists work collaboratively with one another and keep the "big picture" in mind at all times), but we also need to be realistic about how we came to this point, and accept the fact that there is no gay commander-in-chief who can dictate to the rest of the community exactly what rights we're going to pursue, and when, and how.