Mitt Romney was just discussing his position on marriage with Chris Matthews on this evening's Hardball
: One man and one woman. Only. The Mormon church abolished polygamy in the late 1800s. (Though perhaps not entirely willingly, as it was a prerequisite for Utah gaining statehood. Regardless, most of them are used to it by now.) This comes up with Romney regularly, as he's an LDS follower.
No gay unions. The reason? Because the purpose of marriage is to produce and care for the next generation.
By that logic, there's a bunch of people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Particularly, any woman who can't bear children, or for that matter sterile men. So, if you've had the mumps, look out! You might not qualify. And, of course, a big class of women: those past childbearing age.
Chris Matthews just described Romney as dark horse Republican candidate for President
. So, perhaps, his positions are worth a passing thought.
From time to time, I hear this argument put forth about the purpose of marriage. And it always strikes me as defective, since children are hardly the only reason to wed. But never once have I heard an interviewer pose the follow-up question I suggest in this diary's title.
This time, I had a little time available when I heard it put forth, and decided to make a diary of it.
Meanwhile, I also recall that Bill Maher sometimes points out that in the US these days, the majority of households are comprised of single people, not married. So that too much talk of family values is deliberately excluding quite a lot of people. That's why I try to refer to households rather than families in a variety of situations.
Which brings us to our poll du jour. For those of you with live-in servants, or long term houseguests (think Kato Kaelin at O.J. Simpson's place): they count. And, no matter how much you love your seventeen pooties, your cockatiels, your Golden Labs, and your quarterhorses, they do not - for the purposes of this poll only - count.