Skip to main content

View Diary: Mitt Romney supports constitutional amendment to both allow AND ban gay marriage. Jackass. (68 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is not "both sides." He's for banning gay... (0+ / 0-)

    marriage, but grandfathering in those who were already married. A ban with an asterisk is still a ban.

    And I'm sure he's all for banning shmooshsmortions, but totally fine letting those women who have had shmooshsmortions to not be thrown in jail.

    •  Grandfathering and Mitt's great grandfather (0+ / 0-)

      On another site yesterday, I argued that Mitt's three-sided position on gay marriage was unworkable because neither gay people, gay-tolerant people, nor gaybashers would accept it. But upon thinking about it further, I see a way in which the gaybashers might get on board. If Mitt were to get his amendment passed banning future gay marriages, then only a few thousand gay people who had fortunate timing and married in a few brief years when it was legal would be able to keep their marriages. When they eventually died off, the children and grandchildren of the gaybashers would once again live in a world with no gay marriages.

      I did just a cursory bit of research and found two sources that addressed what happened to second, third, fourth, etc wives when the Mormon leadership prohibited polygamy in 1890 (Congress had specifically banned it in Utah territory in 1862). The redundant wives generally stayed in their habitual residences with their habitual husbands. The government did not harass women who were already plural married; they had enough of a job trying to get non-compliers to stop performing new plural marriages in spite of prohibitions from both the government AND Mormon president Willford Woodruff. The last documented LDS Mormon wife living in a plural marriage died in 1952. Of course there are polygamous Fundamentalist Mormons living and remarrying today and that kind of messes up my gradual extinction analogy. But since gay marriages have to be done with the state's blessing to confer benefits (and can't be done under the radar like fundamentalist Mormon marriages), an amendment banning future gay marriages would eventually make government-recognized gay marriages go extinct.

      So Mitt can probably blow his dog whistle and get some gay marriage opponents to get on board his train--but not the ones who also happen to consider Mormonism a cult.

      •  Correction (0+ / 0-)

        I misspoke when I said "grandchildren of the gaybashers would once again live in a world with no gay marriages." They would live in a country with no gay marriages--there are other countries that allow gay marriage now and will continue to do so.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site