Romney courts young evangelicals, promotes values

World May. 12, 2012 - 06:35AM JST ( 36 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

36 Comments

6

Graham DeShazoMay. 12, 2012 - 07:43AM JST

"Romney courts young evangelicals, promotes values" like intollerance and homophobia.
-6

realistMay. 12, 2012 - 08:01AM JST

Romney is only standing up for what he believes in, that gay "marriage" is wrong. The most intolerant people around right now a actually not so-called "homophobics" but the GLBT communities and their supporters, who seem intent on verbally attacking anyone who opposes their strong "in your face" tactics. They a actually the ones losing out in this battle. I think most people would accept that gay couples should have civil partnerships if they want to legally live and set up home together, the problem is when they want to use the word "marriage" to describe it. Marriage has always meant the union of one man and one woman. That is, like it or not, the natural way that the Earth's population is procreated. Gay couples cannot physically produce offspring. Quite apart from any religious or moral objections, there is simply the natural argument against the statins titration of marriage for bay couples.
-3

realistMay. 12, 2012 - 08:02AM JST

That last bit should have read "natural argument against the institution of marriage for gay couples."
4

Pukey2May. 12, 2012 - 08:45AM JST

realist:

The only thing unnatural I see is the killing of innocent people just because they're different to you, condoning of bullying, poking your nose into other people's private affairs and what they do in their own lives, and objecting to the fact that other people don't follow your own rules, religion and codes.

If you'd like to see what is a threat to the institution of marriage and 'family values', perhaps you should look closer to home. Divorce rates are high (guess who are getting divorced?), straight people are getting married on a whim and then break up, single mothers everywhere, straight couples cohabiting, etc. The Mormon way of procreating is a disaster waiting to happen as global population goes up. So what if people don't want children or want to adopt instead? How about straight couples who don't want children? I supposed they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Lastly, you should look at the Republicans - a hotbed of hypocrites. Makes me sick when Gingrich goes on about family values and we all know about his infidelities (back-stabbing both his 1st two wives). The number of in-the-closet gays in that party is astounding - it's laughable when they try to deny their sexuality even when caught with their pants down.

As for the meaning of the word 'marriage' - definitions of words change. Get used to it. And if you don't support gay marriage then don't marry a gay person.
6

tkoind2May. 12, 2012 - 09:15AM JST

Romney courting Evangelicals? I am nearly 100% sure that the average Evangelical thinks of Romney's Mormon faith as heretical to their beliefs. The only hope he has with them is to leverage their hatred for Obama to his advantage. And that is a marriage made in hell for everyone should Romeny be elected and their influence become felt more in government.

Religion is a big part of why American politics does not work and why so many poor Americans vote for a party that clearly does not have their best interests or the interests of any working people in mind.
1

smithinjapanMay. 12, 2012 - 09:22AM JST

I think there's just going to be a whole lot of people who don't vote this time out. You've got people who are very wary of Romney, but who don't want another four years of Obama and probably don't know what to do.
2

FarmboyMay. 12, 2012 - 09:24AM JST

Some evangelicals think that Romney is the Antichrist, or at least not Christian enough to vote for. (google "Romney AntiChrist" or start here):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/us/26iht-letter26.html?pagewanted=all

Meanwhile, some evangelicals think that Obama is doing the work of the Devil.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+work+of+the+devil

Decisions, decisions...
-1

David Quintero NavarroMay. 12, 2012 - 10:10AM JST

My cousin Jesus is a hard core evangelical Christian missionary, the other day I asked him what he thought Mormons, so my guess old Romney is barking up the wrong tree by courting the evangelical vote, but kind of fun to see the ditto heads waste their time!!!
-4

David Quintero NavarroMay. 12, 2012 - 10:15AM JST

I guess something about 666 being tatooed behind Romney left ear? Right ear? Or was it 999?? But I really trust my cousin Jesus, so no way would I vote for old Mitt, with his perfect smile. Those pearly white teeth must make Donnie and Marie Osmond green with envy!!
3

SushiSake3May. 12, 2012 - 10:20AM JST

Realist - "II think most people would accept that gay couples should have civil partnerships if they want to legally live and set up home together, the problem is when they want to use the word "marriage" to describe it. Marriage has always meant the union of one man and one woman."

I've seen this point made before, usually by Christians.

To me, the debate over labels - 'marriage,' 'civil union,' call it what you will, is a battle over semantics.

It's simply a word, and meanings change - just look at how meaning of 'gay' has changed.

No, the key issue imo is over rights. The right to get married.

I don't like bringing religion into gay marriage debates but unfortunately it almost always crops up.

The Bible condemns homosexual sex and labels it a sin. 2 questions:

1/ Does the Bible condemn homosexual relationships? I don't think it does. It seems that just the homosexual sex is considered 'sin.'

So, that should make a gay couple who live together but who don't have sex A-OK by the Christian community.

Umm...no, because gay sex is likely >assumed< to be happening - even if it isn't.

Boom - prejudice.

2/ At a guess, sex takes up likely 0.05% of the average person's life.

Q: is it right to prohibit couples in love (in this case, gays) from taking advantage of the benefits of marriage simply due to what they do in 0.05% of their time? Because the rest of their time, gay people work, eat, go out, and basically do much of the same stuff straight folks do.

I would say 'no way.'

Christians would say 'of course,' and then claim that their fellow Christians need to "in love, tell them (gays) that they are wrong." (<-- I actually saw this line on a Christian website last night. Amazing.)

Bam - bigotry, cloaked in feigned 'love.'

I think the simple solution is to class all marriages as civil unions. Go beyond the semantics of the labels and class all unions between 2 humans as the same. If a religious couple want to get married in a church or synagogue, no problem. If a marriage breaks down - gay or hetero - deal with it as appropriate, through the courts or whatever.

What irks me most in this debate is the hypocrisy: The divorce rate in the U.S. is somewhere between 40-50%.

Those are trainwreck stats. Clearly hetero couples can't hold their marriages together.

And yet the same group is front and center saying gay couples shouldn't be able to get married.

How about if heteros in general showed that they could actually ....successfully stay married??

But it's not happening.
-7

SerranoMay. 12, 2012 - 11:18AM JST

According to the latest Politico poll, 42% say they will vote for Obama, 42% say they will vote to replace Obama, and, get this, 11% say they will consider voting for someone other than Obama.
And among the precious independents, Romney leads Obama 48% to 38%.

How could this be? Maybe Obama should defer to Michelle, she seems more popular than her husband.
-2

Bgood41May. 12, 2012 - 11:27AM JST

Enjoy Obama! never have enough Obama, yet? Cheers.
4

smithinjapanMay. 12, 2012 - 12:45PM JST

Serrano: "According to the latest Politico poll, 42% say they will vote for Obama, 42% say they will vote to replace Obama, and, get this, 11% say they will consider voting for someone other than Obama. And among the precious independents, Romney leads Obama 48% to 38%."

If you need a poll to tell you what to do or think you're in bigger trouble than I thought.
-2

SerranoMay. 12, 2012 - 12:54PM JST

"If you need a poll to tell you what to do or think you're in bigger trouble than I thought"

I don't need a poll to tell me what to do or think, smith. But I think you don't like the results of this poll. And it looks like Obama's in bigger trouble than you thought.
2

FarmboyMay. 12, 2012 - 01:28PM JST

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/presidential-polls/national/national-12-general-election/

The latest politico poll I see shows Obama 50% to Romney 42%. I'm not sure what polls are being mentioned above.
1

MadvertsMay. 12, 2012 - 02:16PM JST

With all the talk about gay marriage maybe they could get top evangelical Ted Haggard to speak out against it, since apparently he's now cured?
-1

SushiSake3May. 12, 2012 - 02:36PM JST

Conservative 'values' are impressive.

Give more to people who already have too much.

Vote to cut benefits for your own parents and grandparents

Vote to cut food stamps for the poor

Encourage ignorance, class warfare and bigotry by voting against gay marriage

Way to Go Conservatives!
0

sailwindMay. 12, 2012 - 04:27PM JST

Encourage ignorance, class warfare and bigotry by voting against gay marriage

They should just put it to a vote and let the people decide..........Like North Carolina just did.

National polls show increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage. Proponents have prevailed in court and recent state legislative battles.

Still, a stubborn fact remains: When the issue has gone before voters — as it will on Tuesday in North Carolina and this fall in as many as four other states, including Maryland — gay rights activists have never won.

Since 1998, voters have gone to the polls 31 times to have their say on statewide ballot measures. Advocates for same-sex marriage have lost every time.

Polls show the epic losing streak is likely to continue with North Carolina’s vote.

North Carolina............Just voted this week and it was 61%-39% against same-sex marriage, it now 32 States that have had their say on the issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/advocates-of-same-sex-marriage-in-maryland-hope-to-break-losing-streak/2012/05/07/gIQA29qC9T_story.html
-1

MadvertsMay. 12, 2012 - 04:39PM JST

I didn't know that North Carolina was the metre of gay tolerance in the US, Sail.
0

sailwindMay. 12, 2012 - 04:56PM JST

I didn't know that North Carolina was the metre of gay tolerance in the US, Sail.

California would be the most likely state for the title of gay tolerance, same sex marriage was defeated there also and the vote was:

7,001,084 against 52.24% 6,401,482 for 47.76%

It's really not that popular with the public and when they have a chance to be heard at the ballot box it has shown.
1

yaneeMay. 12, 2012 - 05:37PM JST

Sushi: How exactly does one "Encourage ignorance, class warfare and bigotry by voting against gay marriage"? That's quite a leap there my friend!
1

LagunaMay. 12, 2012 - 06:40PM JST

Sailwind, there's an ironic confluence regarding California's Proposition 8: the Mormon Church came out heavily against it (along with a huge amount of other outside money); this out-of-state anti-money helped to tip the scales.

As California goes, so eventually does the Nation: that is probably why so many non-California groups were heavily involved. In the minds of Californians, however, the Mormon Church is now not simply marked as anti-gay but as willing to use its ample resources to influence public opinion.

Eventually, gay marriage will become legal in California, and the days when it was not will be forgotten. The stance of the Mormon Church, though, will take much longer to forget.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/17/nation/na-mormons17
-1

SushiSake3May. 12, 2012 - 07:04PM JST

Yanee- "Sushi: How exactly does one "Encourage ignorance, class warfare and bigotry by voting against gay marriage"? That's quite a leap there my friend!"

Voting against gay marriage - without giving time or making the effort to discuss the benefits - encourages ignorance - like slamming a door on the issue.

Class warfare - simple. Some people (heteros)?can marry. Others (most gays) can't

Haves and have nots. And the haves try to stop the have nots.

-class warfare.

Bigotry? Read pretty much any Christian commentary on the issue like I've been doing this week.

Most of it is simply repelling and point blank bigotry. If it's gay, Christians tend to slam it, using as their rationale a book written 2,000 years ago by people, some of whom were so poorly educated they couldn't even write, and that features talking snakes, goats and trees, zombies rising from the dead, earthquakes that shook the entire planet, the earth stopping, and a 'loving' god who engaged in genocide (Amelekites), infanticide and slaughter of women and the elderly.

Like many people, I was a Christian until I read the Bible.
0

sailwindMay. 12, 2012 - 07:05PM JST

Sailwind, there's an ironic confluence regarding California's Proposition 8: the Mormon Church came out heavily against it (along with a huge amount of other outside money); this out-of-state anti-money helped to tip the scales.

Red Herring, the Catholic church was also heavily against it but that doesn't work to tie to Romney.

Also exit polls taken show an entirely different reason why it was defeated in California, it didn't appeal to young first time voters the very ones you would think it would be behind it , and young voters are hardly influenced by any Church group in California especially Mormons no matter how much cash was donated by them.

In California exit polls reported thus far tonight, Proposition 8 appears to be going down to a narrow 52 percent to 48 percent defeat.The proposition would amend California's state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Earlier in the year, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling making such marriages legal under the state's constitution

If the trend holds, younger, first-time voters can be said to be responsible for Proposition 8's defeat. Voters between the ages of 18 and 29 opposed the proposition 66 percent to 34 percent; voters 30-64 were evenly split; voters 65 and above favored the amendment 57 percent to 43 percent.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/05/exit-polls-gay-marriage-in-california/
0

sailwindMay. 12, 2012 - 07:15PM JST

Laguna,

Correction and apologies, I misread the exit poll data, young first time voters in fact heavily for it, it was African American's in California that were heavily against it instead and given the history of the Mormon church with only allowing African Americans as full fledge members of their congregations less than thirty years or so ago, the point remains the Mormon Church would have almost zilch influence on that segment of the electorate, no matter what the L.A times might publish as the reason for the defeat..

African-Americans voted for Proposition 8 by a 69 percent to 31 percent margin.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/05/exit-polls-gay-marriage-in-california/
0

LagunaMay. 12, 2012 - 10:31PM JST

Thanks, sailwind.

Interestingly, according to a WaPo article < http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-gay-marriage-endorsement-mobilizes-christian-conservatives/2012/05/11/gIQAT8x5IU_story.html>

A poll last year by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 44 percent of young white evangelicals favor allowing gay and lesbian people to marry, compared with 12 percent of evangelical seniors and 19 percent of evangelicals overall.

When 44% of EVANGELICALS speak against the flow, some tend to listen. A Daily Beast article pointed out a memo by an influential Republican pollster urging Republicans to moderate and gradually reverse their opposition as he considers it mildly damaging in the short term and debilitating over a decade. < http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/top-gop-pollster-to-gop-reverse-on-gay-issues.html> He stated his reasoning as such:

As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.

Yet Mitt seems to be casting his fate with those social conservatives who dominated the status quo of yesterday. The above WaPo article quotes one such ... uh, troglodyte ... as saying:

“Romney says he is for traditional marriage and then immediately says he is fine with homosexuals adopting children,” said David Lane, who organizes conservative pastors and congregations nationwide and helped lead anti-gay-marriage efforts in Iowa, California and other states. “Our base does not react well to that. They are not going to turn out [for a candidate] who tries to triangulate” on topics such as marriage and other traditional values.

I agree with you that the California results do show a real fluidity in opinion, but the trend appears clear, and it is Obama who has placed himself at the crest of that trend, while Romney must now fight a rear-guard action. It is certainly a risky move for Obama, but it will certainly pay off for the Democrats in the long run, no matter who wins the next election.
0

globalwatcherMay. 13, 2012 - 12:55AM JST

A bad trace of character tells you a lot about their true soul, heart and face no matter what their execuses are. It is in their subconcious deeply hidden and inprinted that distinguish an individual.

When current Chief Justice of US Supreme Court: John G. Roberts Jr. was in high school, he threw hard objects against retarded school mate trying to hurt him. This is a true story, but he was affirmed to be the Justice that I firmly still oppose.

Both of Romney and Roberts cannot project the pains they caused to others. This is common character deficit you find among criminals. That's why they are criminals. They cannot project the harm, pain and despair they cause to others.

Enough said, and Romney is a sheep in wolf skin He said corporation is people? People are people. What did it tell you about this guy? You need to figure that out before the election time...
0

smithinjapanMay. 13, 2012 - 03:21AM JST

Serrano: "I don't need a poll to tell me what to do or think, smith. But I think you don't like the results of this poll. And it looks like Obama's in bigger trouble than you thought."

Not at all... in fact, I'm hoping you feel confident enough to predict the Republicans will win, because we all know when your heart is in a prediction the opposite comes true. Or do you deny it?
0

smithinjapanMay. 13, 2012 - 03:25AM JST

globalwatcher: "Both of Romney and Roberts cannot project the pains they caused to others. This is common character deficit you find among criminals. That's why they are criminals. They cannot project the harm, pain and despair they cause to others."

Exactly! But because they have a wee bit of power they feel they can at first deny it and condemn it, then later apologize and try to write it off as teenage hijynx when they would grill their opponent for the exact same thing. Romney beat up gays and now talks about values -- and MORMON values at that (meaning, extremely limited). People that love Romney would have no trouble condemning Shariah law as extremist and extremely limited without realizing that the subjectivity is the same.
0

globalwatcherMay. 13, 2012 - 04:30AM JST

@smithinjapan, thanks for the feedback. I have been in US judicial arena in many years.

These individuals with criminal minds are not afraid to hurt others. That's the common denominater applying to ALL criminals. Gowing up (1-5 yrs old) with value (right/wrong) teaching is the most important as it distinguishes the life long character.
-2

MolenirMay. 13, 2012 - 07:14AM JST

Yet Mitt seems to be casting his fate with those social conservatives who dominated the status quo of yesterday. The above WaPo article quotes one such ... uh, troglodyte ... as saying:

Setting aside your obvious disgust for anyone with morals, who dares to believe something different then you, its pretty easy to see whats going on here. Its called politics. You may have heard of it. Put simply, politicians attempt to appeal to as broad a spectrum as they can, while minimizing their negatives. Obama did it by coming out in support of gay marriage, by closing down drilling in the gulf, by promoting class warfare, and emphasizing racial differences. By pointing at the banks and blaming them for everything. This isn't new.

Romney is doing it as well. By rejecting gay marriage, he is appealing to social conservatives, and those people who actually have morals. At the same time, his experience and history appeals to those who are economic conservatives. This is a big tent philosophy, one that can reach most Americans. Only hardcore leftists and those who hate Mormons won't be attracted to it. Or course, when it comes down to it, he is a politician, so it remains to be seen whether or not he is committed to the philosophy and ideas he is espousing. But given the 4 years we've endured under Obama, its going to be hard to see that any alternative won't be a huge step in the right direction. Even if he turns out to be another big government RINO like Bush 2.

Romney beat up gays and now talks about values -- and MORMON values at that (meaning, extremely limited).

Wow, smith, I can feel the hate. So, what mormon values do you disagree with? Not stepping out on your spouse? Abstaining from things that are bad for you? Perhaps you disagree with their idea that the family is the most important thing in a persons life? Please, enlighten us as to the values you find so repugnant. Or is it their beliefs you so obviously despise?
0

yabitsMay. 13, 2012 - 11:36AM JST

Back on topic, since you bring it up, shall we discuss integrity? Explain to me if you would, how someone who believes that gay marriage is wrong, should go against their beliefs and support it? If they did so, would they maintain their integrity, or would they be throwing their integrity away?

A person might believe that a lot of things are wrong for themselves. Like drinking alcohol and smoking, for example. But if they are living in a society that fancies itself on being "free," the things that they think are wrong for themselves would not mean that they are wrong for everyone else. Only the worst kind of tyrant would think that everyone has to adhere to their own personal values on everything in a political, secular setting.

Things are much different in a church, but America is not a church congregation, thank God.

Romney comes out against it

Romney, who said he'd be better for gay rights than Ted Kennedy. If President Obama's views have evolved, Romney's have de-volved. Oh well, Mitt Happens. President Obama once held a position that is still very prevalent among African-Americans. He admitted he once held those views but now, upon further reflection, he believes his prior position was wrong and now he has changed it. He is going against the views of many in his base of support in the black community, and that is something I think has high integrity.

Romney, who said he'd be a better advocate for gay rights than Teddy, has changed his views to pander to the conservative base. The way a gay advisor to his campaign was thrown under the bus speaks volumes about Romney's lack of integrity.
-1

yabitsMay. 13, 2012 - 08:36PM JST

The rights being discussed at the time, were those to prevent discrimination in employment and housing based on sexual orientation.

Romney's foreign policy spokesman, Richard Grenell, was forced out of his job on Romney's team soon after being hired solely because he was gay. So much for preventing discrimination in work environments.
-1

yabitsMay. 13, 2012 - 08:42PM JST

What they can't do, is force everyone else to accept that people of the same gender can or should be married to one another.

People who genuinely support the rights of people to choose whatever partner they wish to, for whatever they want to call their partnership, know that there will always be bigots who don't accept the union -- whether it is of two different religions, races, or of like gender. The bigots are not being forced to accept it; they are being prohibited from taking any discriminatory or illegal action against what they can't accept.
0

realistMay. 13, 2012 - 10:08PM JST

This thread is all about Romney's attitude towards "gay marriage." at the end of the day, he is entitled to his views. We all enjoy freedom of conscience. The fact is that for the majority of people, no matter what their religious outlook, the concept of "gay marriage" is anathema. The term "marriage" has always been the union of a man and a woman who take sacred vows together and whose union is often blessed by the procreation of children. That's the normal, natural way for the continuation of the human race. Anything outside of that is not the norm. marriage is a sacred institution, set in place by God when the first human beings we created. It was God, the Creator, who created the institution of marriage. That is the position of Romney, and it is also the position of the majority of people . It's also God's position, as revealed to us in His Word. Americans, in their Constitution have the words "one nation, UNDER GOD". Therefore, they a obliged to obey God's Laws.
-1

yabitsMay. 14, 2012 - 03:48AM JST

prohibiting any gay couple from call their own relationship a marriage

Should read as follows: prohibiting any gay couple from calling their own relationship a marriage and having it recognized as such in a country that professes equal treatment under law.