I told you that Mitt Romney couldn’t handle the type of spontaneous questions that Mike Hucabee subjected himself to. Proof came today when he tried to respond to a lesbian upset about his stated position opposing homosexual marriage.
“I am a gay woman and I have children. Your comment that you just made, it sort of invalidates my family,” said Cynthia Fish, a mother of a 6- and 8-year-old. “… I wish you could explain to me more, why if we are sending our troops over to fight for liberty and justice for all throughout this country, why not for me? Why not for my family?”
So, how did Ken Mitt respond?
Romney paused, asked Fish about her children and then praised her.
And…
“There are other ways to raise kids that’s fine: single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That’s the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice,” he said.
What a man of conviction he is. Not.
——————–
You Want Someone To Tell It Like It Is? - Donate Today!
Straight talk, no backing down from the tough issues - that’s Benzion! Contributions can be made via credit card or PayPal by clicking the LST badge below, or sending a check or money order via postal mail to:
LoneStarTimes.com
5315 B, FM 1960 W #169
Houston, TX 77069
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
32 Responses to “Romney’s Makeup Melts”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
so, what would you tally-ban types tell that woman?
Just what kind of Ken doll is he?
http://static.flickr.com/140/321704235_11021d9faf.jpg
He should have told her that while he wasn’t trying to make her relationships illegal, there is no reason to change the definition of marriage. He could add that while single parenting, for example, can work out ok, the ideal will always be one man and one woman.
He also could have asked why she needed the validation of government for her relationship. The main reason government gets involved in heterosexual unions is that by nature and by design they produce the next generation.
I’ve been trying to give Romney the benefit of the doubt because I think he is a true family man despite being involved in a false religion. But comments like that above disappoint me.
Run, Fred, run!
I would have said this: This is the United States of America and we are governed by a constitution which applies equally to all law-abiding citizens regardless of how they choose to live their intimate lives . Your liberty and access to our judicial system are in no way infringed by the institution of heterosexual marriage. The marital union of a man and a woman has always been the cornerstone of our culture for many reasons, religious, historical and cultural. The question should be: Why should the vast majority of our civilization surrender the sanctity of that institution when it has gone virtually unchallenged since the days of Moses ? While you do enjoy all the wonderful rights and privileges of an American citizen, it is not incumbent on the American people to officially condone all lifestyle choices. They ARE compelled to protect that most precious of your rights: the right to be left alone. Thank you for question and God bless you and your children.
The Mormon religion is not a false religion.
Great answer, Texpat - are you running for President?
Vlou, are you saying Mormonism is the one true religion? Because if Mormonism is a true religion then all the rest are false. Mormonism and Christianity can’t both be true, for example. They have radically different concepts of Jesus, God, Heaven, salvation, etc. They use a lot of the same words but the meanings are different. Joseph Smith even said that the “real” church had gone so God told him to start Mormonism.
My apologies if I offended anyone with my comment. I believe the statement is true, but it wasn’t necessary to add it. I was just trying to point out that some Christians have unnecessarily ignored Romney just because of his religious beliefs while some on the Left are stoking those flames because they don’t like his (sort of) pro-family / pro-life views.
#3 I agree with vlou - there is no such thing as a false religion. A religion can be anything someone wants to believe in. And there are a lot:
http://www.deifyme.com/yesthis.htm
#7 Then you would consider Mormonism to be a false doctrine of Christianity. It’s still a religion and they are free to believe as they choose.
#9 - I’m not sure what you mean by a false doctrine . . . do you mean false denomination? It is a distinct religion, despite the best marketing attempts of the Mormons.
#8 - Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Therefore, when you consider the essential claims of various religions, they can’t all be true (or even more than one). That doesn’t mean they don’t have some shared truths, such as be kind to your neighbors, it just means they can’t both be completely true.
Here are some examples. The Koran teaches that Jesus did not die on a cross (it claims it was a body double of sorts). Christianity teaches that He did die on the cross. So in a logical universe there is no way they can both be true. He either died on the cross or He didn’t. This doesn’t prove Christianity to be true (We all need to point to evidence for our truth claims, and Christianity has that in spades).
Hinduism says we are reincarnated. Christianity says we all die once and after that we face judgment. They can’t both be true.
And so on. Should we respect people of other religions? Of course. But it isn’t logical to say they are all true. More here.
And m§herm§ choice§ minvalidates§ meverythingm§ tha§ mthat§ mism§ MALE. (mI’jd mpen§ m mo mre§ mbrilliance§ mb[ut§ mthis§ mkeyboardm§ see ms mto be m§§hau[nted.)
Hmmm, all this spouting off about the sanctity of marriage by self-proclaimed religious people, (of which I am definitely NOT, since I think ALL religions are based on false premises and are therefore false in and of themselves) strikes me as rather sanctimonious and hypocritical, considering the high rate of divorce in this country - even among those who claim to be religious. On the other hand, I don’t see why gays even want the so-called “right” to marry, when they can get all the legal benefits afforded heterosexual married couples by drawing-up an few simple legal documents. Its all seems like much ado about nothing, especially when we have so many more important things to worry about in this country. So Romney waffled on his previous statements and proved himself a man of absolutely no real convictions. But the woman who asked the question needs to rethink why anyone’s objection to her getting married “invalidates” her family. As far as I’m concerned, a “valid” family is a group of people, usually but not alway related by blood, who live together, love one another, and take care of each other.
Everyone makes their own choice of religion, but don’t say Mormonism is false. If I don’t believe the way you do, I could say your religion is false, but I have enough respect for you not to criticize your beliefs. Let’s try to just be respectful of one another in spite of our differences. Mormons are Christians because they believe in Jesus Christ. Go to http://www.lds.org and see for yourself.
HomerJ
Thanks. No, I’m not running, but I might consider a job as a speechwriter or policy wonk if Fred gets elected.
Look folks, we live in the United States of America. I don’t get to tell you who you can sleep with or who, how and when you can worship your deity. We were founded by Christians who were damned sick and tired of being told the above. There are, and always will be, people who live lives we abhor and don’t approve of, but if they don’t break the law we must treat them as our fellow Americans. They may not be equal in our eyes morally or religiously, but they must be treated as equal Americans. There is an important, integral component to our code, our constitution, which is civility and personal sovereignty. You may not approve of their religion, their way of life, their customs, their sleeping arrangements, but they’re yours, your fellow Americans. There are men and women dying out there for those rights.
Hi Vlou - If you think my religion is false then I’m not offended. In fact, if you think you have the one true path to eternal life and salvation then it seems to me the kind thing would be to share that. I’m just pointing out that there are irreconcilable differences between religions. What is so offensive about that?
Yes, I am quite familiar that Mormons talk about a person named “Jesus.” The problem is that the Jesus of the Bible and Christianity is the eternal God who created the universe. The “Jesus” of Mormonism is a created being that became God and who is the spirit brother of Lucifer. Those are rather significant differences.
I have Mormon friends and we are very respectful towards one another. I also have Hindu, Muslim, New Age, atheist and agnostic friends. I just don’t patronize them by saying that all our beliefs are equally true. When I have the opportunity I try to share the historical facts and evidence of Christianity with them. If they believe, that’s great. But I’m not on commission.
You can read more about Mormonism here.
#12 ShinerBlonde
You have swerved into a point I wanted to make about the gay marriage movement. There actually is no tangible legal reason why homosexuals want legally constituted marriage other than social approval. That is it, period. There are any number of legal arrangments available to them to accomplish their goals, if need be. It is all about having that cultural stamp of approval.
Concerning religion, all religions are based on articles of faith so they are always going to be easy targets for those who want to lob the “false premises” argument over the fence.
Valid ? Invalid ? What a stupid statement ! No more need be said about the caller’s intelligence.
I feel I should explain that while I personally think that religion ( the worship and belief in a higher being) is based on false premises, I certainly don’t object to anyone else having faith in such a view. Just so they don’t try to legislate their beliefs into law or discriminate against me for not sharing them.
As to this country being founded on Christian principles, I beg to differ. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent.
Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton’s flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of “foreign aid”; according to another, he simply said “we forgot.” But as Hamilton’s biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.
In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the “only Heaven knows” sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” and the famous line about men being “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: “In God We Trust” did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and “under God” was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954.
Herman:
I did not say your religion is false (re-read - it says I COULD say it, but I am not, so why are you implying that Mormonism is a false religion (please refer back to your first sentence third paragraph in your #3 post above).
#17 ShinerBlonde
I’ll go along with you when you give me a better reason for the big bang than “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
In other words, what caused the big bang, if not the thought of God? Or did everything spring from nothing? If that’s your idea, who is it who has the more fallacious basis for his beliefs?
#17 ShinerBlonde
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said this country was founded on Christian principles. I said, quite clearly, it was founded by Christians who were sick and tired of being told who, when, where and how they could worship. I am also well aware that the underlying principles of our founding documents can be discovered in Enlightenment philosophies and beyond. I have, and have read, Chernow’s Hamilton biography. I have also read most, but not all, of the Federalist Papers. I am a fan of Locke, a reader of Voltaire and am currently reading a biography of Spinoza. Your response to my comments is stereotypical of those who kneejerk to the very mention of politics and Christianity or religion. I find it amusing. Had I known who you were, I could have written your reply almost verbatim. I would like to continue this exchange all night, but I have to get some sleep. Another time perhaps, ShinerBlonde; I would enjoy it.
Wino - If you want to believe it wast God was who or what first set the spark of life in motion, that’s good with me. In fact, I think that is a as beautiful and poetic an explanation as any and I often use it when trying to explain my definition of God. My definition of God also includes the theory that He/She/It is in all human beings - the innate goodness in all if us.
What I don’t believe is that God is some supernatural being that sits on high, talks to certain “chosen” people, or favors any religious group over another. God is goodness, plain and simple. And He/She/It does not require glorification or worship. If we would all just cut through the divisive crap parading as religious belief and treat others as we would have them treat us, we’d be doing what I would call “God’s work” and I think most, if not all of the world’s problems would be solved.
So, how was the universe created by the goodness inside people who weren’t here yet… indeed, before there was a “here” for them to be at?
Your lack of belief is on a more tenuous footing that the beliefs of others. As far as God talking to people, I am of two minds myself, but your gnostic beliefs are not logically constructed.
#17 Your Comments
If you are going to cut and paste other people’s material, you really should give attribution and a link.
texpat - My comments on this country being founded on Christian principles was not intended as a direct reply to your statement that the US was founded BY Christians. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature’s God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.
Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson’s words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording was: “All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable.” Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: “All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.” But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence– it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.
In all sincerity, I appreciate your comments and find you to be a very enlightened and intelligent contributor to LST. I’m glad my remarks amused you although I do object to you defining them as “kneejerk” reactions. I’ve thought long and hard about the role of religion in life and in politics. I’ve read and studied and asked questions about the subject all of my life and I’m still looking for answers. So I never blurt out knee-jerk reactions to anyone else’s views. I merely state my opinion and throw out any petinent facts that I am aware of by way of DISCUSSING the issues. If I give offense, I apologize - even thhough no offense was meant.
No offense, for crying out loud ! I like anybody with a handle like ShinerBlonde. Good night all, and this time I really mean it.
I have yet to figure out how to display a link when I post a comment. I tried a few times and it didn’t show up in my post. If anyone would care to enlighten me as to how exactly to do so, please do. I’m using a Macintosh and my browser is Foxfire, if that makes a difference.
To set the record straight: Much of reply #17 came from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen I should of at least used quotes - sorry!
Now I have GOT to get to bed, too! Good Gravy Marie, it’s past 1 am!!!ll!
HEY, looky there…I made a link! Or maybe I’m just so tired I’m seeing blue text….yeah, that’s probably it………..zzzzzzzzzzzz…..
“I don’t see why gays even want the so-called “right” to marry, when they can get all the legal benefits afforded heterosexual married couples by drawing-up an few simple legal documents.”
#12 & #16 - I’m not sure that’s correct. For instance, a gay couple wouldn’t be covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act, where a spouse can take time off work without fear of losing his/her job in case the other one gets sick. There isn’t any legal document a person could prepare to become eligible for that other than a marriage license.
Granted, since this is a conservative blog, I imagine there would be a few people here who are opposed in pricinple to FMLA as an unfair mandate on business/intrusion of govt. into the free market/etc. Which is a fine position to take, but I’m not sure that would address your argument specifically.
#28 listsm
You are correct and you also guessed correctly that I am opposed to the FMLA. However, companies and institutiions are free to make whaever policy decisions they choose regarding family and medical leaves.
I am angry that bigjolly posted this thread and made me stay up half the night so that I wouldn’t be able to spell today.
I agree texpat yout #4 was great - maybe a cabnet position ?
#11 FourAlarm - I’ve heard of people talking in tounge but typeing ?
#31 RE: FourAlarm
It’s Blogger Tourette’s Syndrome. He caught it from Sarge who got it from EPJ.