What Does Romney Mean?
At the GOP beauty pageant in Tennessee over the weekend, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney drew a standing ovation from the assembled Republican activists with a very odd statement. The Chicago Tribune:
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the first prospective candidate to take the stage Friday afternoon, drew a standing ovation with his sharp criticism of the same-sex marriage law in his home state.I do not mean that his policy stance against gay adpotions is unusual, rather I mean that his statement makes no sense."Every child in America," he said, "has a right to a mother and a father."
Usually when we speak of a person having a "right," we mean that the person holding such right is free of government interference with some aspect of liberty and/or that such person can call upon the machinery of the state for enforcement of a claim.
Bill Clinton's father died in a car wreck before he was born. Suppose some kid in Clinton's shoes calls up President Romney as asks for governmental help in enforcing his right to a mother and a father. Does Mitt Romney propose to use the power of the state to force Virginia Kelly to remarry? Does he plan to force some person selected by the state to be the groom? How would he do so? Perhaps he plans to make extensive use of EHarmony or even Hannidate.
Taken at face value, it is hard to believe that Romney meant what he said.
Even if we limit the statement to the arena of adoption, it is hard to know what he means. Are single heterosexual persons, as well as homosexual couples, to be prohibited from adopting a child? Such adoptions would not satisfy the "right" to both a mother and father.
More to the point, if Romney decides that a gay or lesbian couple is not permitted to adopt a specific child, how does that decision guarantee the child's the right to a mother and father? Is Romney planning on forcing some heterosexual couple to adopt that same child?
What if the child (or a guardian at litem appointed to protect the child's interests) decides that adoption by a gay couple is in the best interests of the child? I have the right to free speech and part of that right is to remain silent if I so choose. If the child has the right to a mother and father, why can not the child (or guardian) waive that right?
Other than intending to pander to the base of the Republican Party, what in the world can Romney's statement actually mean?
Comments
i think you got it in one...it means he's pandering to the base. they don't have to make sense, they just have to impart the feeling of hating and caging gay people. that's all. they could literally go "lalalalalalala' as long as they were kciking a blowup doll in rainbow hotpants while they said it.
Posted by: garth | March 13, 2006 04:12 PM
apart from pandering, it seems that Romny's speech is indicative of how lightly GOP politicos have come to regard evoking words like "rights" and "freedom" when they pontificate. "Rights", blah blah blah. "Freedom", blah blah blah... It's devolved into a schtick.
Posted by: Jonathan Versen | March 13, 2006 05:56 PM
It's dangerous to try and process that kind of speech for too long.
Posted by: akhenaten | March 13, 2006 10:25 PM
Romney's speech is also code against single and divorced mothers. When anyone says "children have a right to a mother and a father", it's the "right" to a father they're really talking about. People like Romney hold up those bogus "fatherlessness" statistics to "prove" that children raised by single and divorced mothers are doomed. So, he condemns gays and single/divorced mothers with one statement.
Posted by: The Countess | March 14, 2006 11:21 AM
Every Child has a right to be loved...
Posted by: rb walker | March 14, 2006 01:06 PM
As a Massachusetts resident, trust me when I say many of us aren't any more impressed with Mitt than you are.
Posted by: Kevin Wolf | March 15, 2006 11:55 AM