A notorious jerk off on choice, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney increased his asshole quotient yesterday when he said that he would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
I’m totally disgusted. Especially given gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for over a year.
Romney said, "My view is that marriage should be defined as a relationship between a man and a woman…I hope that this amendment will ultimately be the one which the citizens have an opportunity to vote on."
Romney also said that he didn’t believe in civil unions for gay couples, but would instead support "certain domestic partnership benefits like hospital visitation rights and rights of survivorship and so forth."
Gee, thanks a lot!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: MA governor proves to be biggest asshole ever.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/2084
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Yeah. I'm a Mass. ex-pat, and we've had this streak where we vote for Dems in the Sentate and the House, the state legislature is solidly Democrat, and the only time in recent memory we've voted for a Republican presidential candidate was for Reagan in 1984 (yes, that's right, we even supported McGovern in 1972, when the rest of the county thought he was the only person in politics more corrupt than Richard Nixon).
But in all this time, we've been electing Republican governors, at least going back as long as I was old enough to know what was going on (late 1980s). Romney won this time out on a platform of "I saved the USIOC from certain death at the hand of fiscal irresponsibility, and Massachusetts could really use some of ol' Mitt's game" -- even though all arrows pointed to the fact that he hadn't even lived in Massachusetts for quite a while.
He's not officially thrown his hat into the ring, but I'm willing to bet he'll run for president in 2008. And if he uses the same strategy...ugh. I don't even want to think about it.
If you've got such a problem with people having the opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman, have you considered questioning why the state is involved in licensing marriage at all?
Marriage is a contract between two people (or, at least it stands at two people for the moment). Why should a state define the contents of that contract? Why shouldn't it be entirely a private matter?
Hint: If you can't get what you want from state sanctioned marriage, you can get the state out of the business altogether.