Devil-Man Speak With Forked Tongue

It would seem that yet another Republican hypocrite has been "outed." Oh, I don't mean "outed" as in discovering he's gay, I mean "outed" as in having said one thing to garner support from a specific voter base, and then done another.

In 1994, while opposing Senator Kennedy in Massachusetts for a seat in the Senate, now-outgoing Mass. governor Mitt Romney apparently showed quite another side where same-sex couples, and the GLBT community is concerned.

You may (or may not) remember that just after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered same-sex marriages to begin in Mass., Romney dusted off and invoked an old 1913 law that had not been used in almost 100 years to prevent same-sex couples from outside the state from getting married. He has consistently, at every turn, fought against any positive strides the GBLT community has made toward equality. Most recently, he has asked the state's highest court to order the legislature back into session to vote on an anti-gay-marriage measure that, if passed, would be put to the voters in 2008. It seems Mr. Romney was pissed off that they adjourned without addressing the issue, even though they're technically still in session until the first of January.

Now, it has come out that in a 1994 interview with a Boston gay publication, Bay Window, Mr. Romney said,

"People of integrity don't force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have," Romney told Bay Windows a dozen years ago when the paper interviewed him on LGBT civil rights."

In more remarks in that interview:

He told Bay Windows that he opposed "extremists" who were trying to impose their positions on the Republican Party and that he believed marriage was a state issue.

He tied his willingness to advocate for the rights of gay people, Bay Windows reports, to the Mormon concept of “free agency”.

When I speak of free agency, I don’t just mean that each person can do what they want to do, I mean that our society should allow people to make their own choices and live by their own beliefs,” he told the paper.

In the 1994 interview he said that supported then President Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy but said that “I believe that there will be change over time as the military establishment and the rank and file become more comfortable with the realities of sexual orientation in the military.”

Romney went on to say “I will support progress being made in that area as time progresses and the military and society becomes more accepting.”

Of course, now that he's making a Presidential run and trying to gain favor with the ultra conservative Republican base, he presents a different front with regards to same-sex marriage and GLBT rights.

Last year, as he was beginning to seek support for a presidential bid he delivered a speech to a GOP audience in South Carolina that not only opposed gay marriage but also civil unions "from day one.''

"Today, same-sex couples are marrying under the law in Massachusetts,'' Romney told the crowd. "Some are actually having children born to them,'' he continued.

"It's not right on paper. It's not right in fact. Every child has the right to have a mother and a father.''

Once this interview had been republished by Bay Window, the Log Cabin Republicans released a letter written to them by Mr. Romney in his campaign for Senate in 1994.

The 1994 letter was written to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, a gay Republican group, when Romney was courting gay voters during his unsuccessful campaign against Kennedy.

Citing Kennedy's record of advocacy for gays and lesbians, Romney wrote, ''For some voters, it might be enough to simply match my opponent's record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.''

I think these revelations beg the question of which Mitt Romney people would be voting for, f they were inclined to do so -- the one that says what they want to hear, or the one who makes a name for himself by what he does? While there is no way in Hell I would have thought (then OR now) that Al Gore would have made an effective President, it galls me that conservatives such as Romney used the terms "flip-flop, waffle," an other terms to describe what appeared to be Gore's inability to stand firm on an issue.

One conservative, from the Free Congress Foundation points out:

"Unless he comes out with an abject repudiation of this, I think it makes him out to be a hypocrite,” Weyrich said. "And if he totally repudiates this, you have to ask, on what grounds?”

Indeed. And I think that is a question that absolutely MUST be answered.

In an op-ed piece in the Salt Lake Tribune, Romney is exposed as a right wing panderer, willing to sell his soul to the devil in order to win the ultimate prize.

It's like turning a ballerina into a right-leaning elephant.

Romney, who is a staunch opponent of illegal immigration, claims he was unaware that several of the workers employed by Community Lawn Service with a Heart to take care of the grounds at his suburban home were illegal immigrants. While I can certainly understand being caught off guard under NORMAL circumstances in this type of situation, it would seem that someone so staunchly against illegal immigration would insure, beyond any doubts, that a company with predominantly Hispanic workers, would be on the up-and-up as far as immigration law. If you're going to go public against something, as a public figure, you mke sure that little details like this are checked out.

Let's hope that the Republican party can see through this guy (and if they can't, they're in some real trouble) and show him the door before too many tax dollars are spent in a fruitless campaign for this putz.

Holy Matrimony, Batman!

Massachusetts Judge Allows Out-Of-State Lesbians to Marry!

BOSTON, Massachusetts (Reuters) -- A Rhode Island lesbian couple won approval from a judge to marry in Massachusetts, paving the way for the first legal wedding of a same-sex couple from outside the only U.S. state were gay marriage is allowed.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice Thomas E. Connolly ruled that the wedding of Wendy Becker and Mary Norton, of Providence, Rhode Island, could go forward because their home state has no laws specifically banning same-sex marriages.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a 2008 Republican presidential hopeful, has sought to prevent out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts.

Conservative Christian groups have expressed concern that such marriages would turn the liberal New England state into America's gay-marriage capital, a Las Vegas for same-sex weddings.

But gay-rights advocates have campaigned to allow the practice since Massachusetts' highest court ruled in 2003 that it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. That ruling cleared the way for America's first same-sex marriages in May the following year.

Since then, more than 8,000 gay couples have wed.

Friday's case was focused on a law passed in 1913 that bars out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their own states fail to recognize the union.

"After a very long engagement, we are thrilled to be able to marry and provide our family with the legal protection and social recognition we deserve," said Becker, who has been with Norton for 19 years. They have two children.

Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly, whose office had opposed Becker and Norton's bid to marry, said the state would not appeal the judge's ruling, leaving it to Rhode Island to clarify its stance on gay marriage.

"This has always been about respecting the laws of other states," Reilly said in a statement. "Rhode Island is now free to address the Superior Court's decision as it sees fit."

A spokesman for Rhode Island Gov. Donald Carcieri had no immediate comment.

Romney has been an outspoken critic of gay marriage, which is a hot-button issue with conservative voters in the United States.

Massachusetts lawmakers are due to vote in November -- after the state and national elections -- on whether to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage.

Methinks this is gonna open a whole new can-o-worms as far as the religious right is concerned. Right about now, they've gotta be poopin' their drawers!