Darkside Rainbow

In 2004, a judge in Massachusetts tipped the balance - paving the way to same-sex marriage for the first time in history. But the governor of Massachusetts stood up, defending conservative values in our most liberal state. Governor Mitt Romney; he stood up for traditional marriage, and fought the activist ruling every step.

“The courtroom should be a place where laws are interpreted, not made.”

Now Mitt Romney is standing up for traditional marriage in Iowa, opposing the Polk County decision to permit same-sex marriage.

“The court ruling in Iowa is just another example of an activist judge trying to find things in the constitution that aren’t there. As Republicans, we must oppose discrimination and defend traditional marriage. One man, one woman.”

That’s why Mitt Romney is supporting a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution.

“Not all Republican candidates for President agree, but defending marriage is the right thing to do.”

Mitt Romney.

“I’m Mitt Romney, and I approve this message.”

Paid for by Romney for President, mittromney.com.

Think this sounds like a Democratic spoof of Republicans? If you ask me, it sounds like a Saturday Night Live comedy bit.

It’s not. It’s my own transcription of a one-minute radio spot that aired yesterday in Iowa - part of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign to advertise his support of traditional marriage and opposition to gay marriage rights. (By the way, I had no idea how many words you can fit into 60 seconds - and not even I can type that fast; you don’t want to know how many times I had to listen to this thing.) If you’d like to hear the original sound byte yourself, you can download it from here (the original NY Times article is here, if the direct link to the MP3 doesn’t work.)

It never ceases to amaze me how presidential campaigning can bring out the most manipulative side of people. Maybe some people actually believe in what Romney’s saying, but to me it just seems…oily, saying whatever’s necessary to trigger people’s emotional gag reflex - whether the response is positive or negative.

I find it deeply ironic that Romney is talking about interpretation of the law while he’s practicing his own subjective interpretation of the meanings of certain words, lending whatever slant is needed to paint the picture that he wants to present. I’m not even going to get started on how “liberal” and “conservative” have become dirty words representing the ugliest and most unrealistic extremes of opposing political viewpoints, slung as insults without meaning. But “activist” is starting to take on those same connotations, and that really twerks my nerves.

Pssst. Mitt. Over here, I’d like you to take a look at a page on Dictionary.com:

ac·tiv·ist /ˈæktəvɪst/ [ak-tuh-vist] –noun

1. an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, esp. a political cause. –adjective
2. of or pertaining to activism or activists: an activist organization for environmental concern.
3. advocating or opposing a cause or issue vigorously, esp. a political cause.

So…basically, all an activist is is a person who believes in a cause, strongly enough to advocate it and work for it. Er…isn’t Romney describing himself, then? He’s a traditional marriage activist. The term “activist judges” has been twisted to stand for judges who advocate change of the status quo, and paints that advocacy in a negative light even if the change is beneficial and needed. While we’re playing wordsmiths, remember, “amendment” means “change” - and yet I’d bet that a judge who supported Romney’s proposed amendment to the Constitution wouldn’t be hit with the insult of “activist”, now would they?

It’s a nasty game of loaded statements and deliberate skewings and misinterpretations. “Oppose discrimination and defend traditional marriage”, huh? Right now, it really seems as if those two can’t go hand-in-hand. If he’s defending traditional marriage as “one man, one woman” only, then he’s supporting discrimination against the gay and lesbian community. I suppose he’s trying to twist the argument back on us and say that by seeking federal recognition of gay marriages, we’re discriminating against the traditional concept of marriage.

I can see where that could be a just a tiny bit valid. Look, I’m not blind. Although I believe that we fully deserve the right to enter into legally recognized unions with whom we please, I know that to some it feels like we’re attacking something that’s a fundamental part of who they are. We’re trying to change a belief system that’s been deeply ingrained for centuries, and that scares some people. I understand that, and understand where they might feel as if we’re telling them that what they believe isn’t good enough and they have to change it to accommodate us, when that accommodation is of no benefit to them.

That’s one reason that I rather wish marriage wasn’t really part of federal law; the concept of traditional marriage began as a primarily religious institution, and really has no place being governed in a nation that lives under the (illusory) ideal of “separation of church and state”. If you want to nitpick, drop the concept of marriage at the federal level entirely. For the sake of taxes, ownership, benefits, etc., couples - gay and straight - could register civil unions/partnerships, something that’s basically the exact same thing as marriage but without the religious trappings. Then, if straight couples want to go ahead and get married under the banner of their church (along with its rules), go right ahead; they’ll have their civil union to make it official in the eyes of the state, and their traditional marriage to make it official in the eyes of their god. That way everyone gets fair treatment, and the delicate toes of traditional marriage adherents haven’t been stepped on because their concept of marriage has been preserved - but its religious aspects have been separated from matters of the state.

Anyway - I didn’t mean to go off on a tangent like that. The point of this entire rant was that while to some, this ad spot may make Mitt Romney sound like a Messiah…to me, it just smacks of your typical dirty and manipulative politics, preying on people’s sensitivity and pushing all of their hot buttons to get a vote. Politics warp the perception of reality, until just about anything can be turned in your favor or twisted against you.

Mitt Romney says that defending marriage is the right thing to do.

I say that defending equality in marriage is the right thing to do.

The words aren’t so different…and yet they carry a wealth of different meanings, don’t they?

mitt romney iowa radio spot transcription, mitt romney radio spot text, republican presidential candidates, presidential campaigns, defense of traditional marriage, gay marriage