Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Teacher Runs Off With 13 Year-... | Today The Stranger Suggests »

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Latter Day Douchebag

posted by on November 3 at 10:57 AM

Mitt Romney says

“Even when there’s a divorce, you still have a mom and a dad. And even where one member of the partnership may pass away, the memory and the characteristics of that gender, of that partner influence the development of a child. I’m in favor of promoting, as a society, the marriage of men and women and the development of children in that kind of setting.”

So… kids are better off with one dead parent—or, hey, two dead parents—than two gay parents.

Via JoeMyGod.

RSS icon Comments

1

Once again, with that headline, you show your born aptitude for primo T-shirt phrases. You really ought to open up a little side biz.

Posted by Wowza | November 3, 2007 11:20 AM
2

Having a dead mormon father (before I hit puberty!) puts me in a unique position to say: what a fucking load of bullshit. That's the biggest load of pseudoscientific family values christian bullshit I've heard in a long time.

The fucking memory? Give me a break. Why, I remember how manly my father was! That's exactly why I'm straight. What a dipshit.

Posted by Me | November 3, 2007 11:20 AM
3

Hmmm...in my experience, when there's a divorce, there's a mom. When there's an unplanning pregnancy, there's usually not a marriage, and then there's usually just a mom. Mitt needs to get out of the mansion now and again.

Posted by Gitai | November 3, 2007 11:22 AM
4

Sure, unless one of the divorced parents gets a new family and wants nothing to do with the old one.

Posted by keshmeshi | November 3, 2007 12:17 PM
5

Will someone just please assassinate him? For me?

Posted by Dianna | November 3, 2007 12:21 PM
6

Mormons say the darndest things! This gay hate leads folks to make completely idiotic comments. I don't know how he comes up with these things, but I hope statements like these come back to haunt the SOB.

Posted by Michigan Matt | November 3, 2007 12:22 PM
7

Does anybody else find it ironic that we're being lectured about 'traditional family' structures by a fucking Mormon?

Posted by Greg | November 3, 2007 12:32 PM
8

lectured about 'traditional family' structures by a fucking Mormon?

Nothing more traditional than polygamy -- guys in the old testament did it all the time. Polygamy does need to be brought up to date -- how about this title for a kiddie book: Heather Has Two Mommies, and One Daddy?

The cover of the book advertised on Joemygod looks plenty pervy though: a little boy with wetcombed hair and parted lips seemingly saying the title: From Boys to Men. No, it's not about NAMBLA, it's about gay men growing up.

Posted by no lsd for dyslexic me | November 3, 2007 12:41 PM
9

the mormon.

HEY WITH 7 MOMS SHOULDN'T THERE BE ONE TO TAKE OVER?

Posted by Lake | November 3, 2007 1:24 PM
10

Can anyone out there from Massachusetts explain to me how this guy got to be governor of one of the bluest states in the country? I left Boston for Seattle while Bill Weld was still in the State House. Him I can understand--he was a moderate Republican (an almost extinct species), but this idiot? If he is the Republican candidate and could have somehow convinced Massachusetts voters to elect him to public office we should not expect 2008 to be a cakewalk for the Democrats.

Posted by RainMan | November 3, 2007 1:41 PM
11

Dan, both you and Joe failed to quote a key piece of Romney's argument:

"I believe that the development of children is enhanced by having a male and a female as part of their upbringing in their home."

Aside from the "in their home" part, this strikes me as pretty reasonable statement that I think a lot of middle of the road people could get behind.

Romney is pandering to wingnuts, that is clear. But he also doesn't want to come out and just say "Gay people are icky, don't let them raise kids" because it alienates a lot of independents (and hell, just about everyone else). So he's turning it into an argument about gender development that most people (including you and Joe) will gloss over... meanwhile he's successfully pandered to the wingnuts.

I characterized his comments more like this:

- Divorced mom and dad couple better than *divorced mom and mom* (because child had influence from both genders)

- Single mom with dead dad better than *single mom with dead mom* (because child had influence from both genders)

- Dead mom and dead dad better than *dead dad and dead dad* (because child had influence from both genders)

That said, it's a petty argument. And yes, it's probably just a cover for a wingnuttier argument, but making snarky comments trying to prove how wingnutty Romney is just shows your bias. There's nothing in his comments that says that the gay couple is alive and not dead like the straight couple.

We might have to appeal to those middle of the road people who think the gender issue is reasonable if we want to defeat an anti-gay Republican presidential run. And in my opinion, the argument is pretty easy to debunk if we paint a narrative of a gay couple who are able to provide their children with a loving, safe, family life along with a multitude of positive other-gender influences from family and friends.

Posted by w7ngman | November 3, 2007 2:11 PM
12

Well if that's the case, then shouldn't the 'memory and characteristics' of the sperm or ovum donor 'influence the development of the child'? By Romney's assertion, kids could be bred in test tubes (not conceived, BRED) and raised by two-way CCTV and they'd be the products of 'two parent' families.

::Pats self on back for working both 1984 and BNW into the post.

Posted by Natalie | November 3, 2007 4:49 PM
13

Hmm, I remember when my parents divorced and my father ran off to start a new family. I was gay before it happened and still was afterward. In fact, I recall deciding never to be like my father in any way because he's a jerk. At least I have the memories.

Posted by JP | November 3, 2007 8:35 PM
14

If having a male and female in your life, even for a time, makes all the difference, then can't the same-sex couples just show off their kids to everyone they know, like hetero couples do?

Or do gay people live on moon colonies where the males aren't allowed to have contact with the females?

Posted by iflurry | November 3, 2007 9:02 PM
15

I'm a liberal Mormon and I'm disgusted by the guy.

But the Mormon part of it is actually beside the point. Romney's whole premise relies upon the dogwhistle idea that NOT having a mom and dad around makes kids gay. And wingnuts don't want to be having gay kids now.

That underlying idea needs to be attacked again and again. It's based on sexual orientation being a choice. Now my own conclusion is that orientation is a range, and some might be able to choose if they start at the middle of that range, but most of us are on one end or another and playing for the other team doesn't fall within the range of our orientation. But that's not worth debating.

This is: I have a two year old daughter. Science tells me that if she grows up to be a lesbian, that's because she already is now and will discover it sometime around puberty. It won't be a choice for her; and no amount of influence from mom or me will alter her basic biochemistry. Even amending the Constitution won't change that.

Posted by chris | November 3, 2007 10:39 PM
16

@10

I just asked my Dad (still in Massachusetts) the same thing. I mean I had never MET a Republican until I left MA. He speculated that Massachusetts residents seem to want to be "fair" and "even things out" and so because they have overwhelmingly liberal politicians everywhere else, they tend to vote Republican for Governor. So it's the extreme liberalism that turns into the Politically Correct idea that we need balance...maybe.


I just want to see Hillary eat Romney for breakfast, is that so wrong?

Posted by jessiesk | November 3, 2007 10:58 PM
17

@10 You have to remember, he didn't act like a fucking wingnut when he was running for either Senator or Governor in Massachusetts. He told gays that he would be a better advocate for our rights than Ted Kennedy. He championed a bill for socialized medicine. He was to the left of any other GOP candidate, and has spent his campaign running from his previous statements.

Posted by Gitai | November 3, 2007 11:36 PM
18

So, is it that boys without a father figure grow up to be gay, or is it boys without a mother figure grow up to be gay? I forget which. I suppose I should be worried that I left my daughter's biological father, because now she might grow up and decide to be lesbian. It would have been much better to stay in an abusive relationship, where at least she would have had a male role model. (And it's not like my dad, or her uncles, or my boyfriend - her new dad - could provide male input?)

Posted by Linda | November 4, 2007 6:43 AM
19

Mitt should show the markings of a true leader and become one of these celebrated dead parents himself.

Soon.

Posted by Jake | November 4, 2007 7:03 AM
20

16 and 17: Thanks for responding. I left MA in 1997. I don't remember if I had ever even heard of Mitt Romney at that point. (Did he run against Kerry for Senate in '96? I don't remember since it was irrelevant to me who was running against Kerry, who I first voted for in 1984 and have supported ever since.) As I mentioned, Bill Weld was still in charge at that point and remains the only R I have ever voted for. He was pro choice, pro gay and had a good record on other social issues. I think he hooked up with the GOP because he was a fiscal conservative, which, quite frankly, Mass needed at the time he was first elected. Republicans like him have all but vanished.

What concerns me about Romney is precisely what 17 mentions about his ability to paint himself as a moderate. Right now he is pandering to the rednecks and psychovangelicals because he needs their votes in the primaries, but in the general election he will probably adjust and tone down his rhetoric for mainstream voters. The media may call him on this constant flip flopping, but I wouldn't count on it. I too would love to see Hillary eat him for breakfast, but given the anti-Hillary sentiment in the red states, already being whipped up by Rush Limbaugh, Faux News, Focus on the Family and the other batshit righties, and Romney's apparent chameleon-like ability to make himself attractive even to Mass voters, we shouldn't expect an easy win for the Dems. We will have a lot of work to do in the next year (one year from today, exactly) if we want someone in the White House who can start undoing the damage of the last eight years.

Posted by RainMan | November 4, 2007 3:10 PM
21

buy herbal viagra

Posted by buy cheapest online viagra | November 12, 2007 6:20 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).