"Mostly" equal protection?



No surprise, Romney would happily carry on a tradition of discrimination against fellow human beings. No shocker there.


I heard a snippet of his ABC interview, where he said this:

“Well, when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name…………My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not.”



I feel like there is an obvious question here, that didn’t get asked. So, he does acknowledge that same sex couples are discriminated against, and lists the example of hospital visitation rights + “domestic partnership” benefits they should have.

Then he says “other rights are not appropriate.

So, here would be my question, and maybe some of you can chime in, or ask people you know who oppose same sex marriage: What rights, specifically, should we give to opposite sex couples and deny to same sex couples?

 (also, a fun Romney timeline of his “position” on LGBT rights, enjoy as you listen to him call Obama a “flip flopper”, http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/Gay_Marriage/)



You can find me on twitter, @DrDavidBurger

I recruit in Kansas City, http://www.kcatheists.org/
& https://www.facebook.com/KCAtheists

Also, Lizard people.
Campquest in the Midwest
Video of debate with Bill Victor.
CHARITY: Humanist family’s 10 year old daughter has a brain tumor. Let’s help with expenses.
About doctorburger
  • Steve

    On the west coast (CA, OR, WA and NV) their marriage-like institution is called “Domestic Partnership”. It doesn’t have the solemnization requirement that Civil Unions usually do, but legally they’re almost the same. Strictly speaking, Romney should be against those

  • Randomfactor

    And if he’s OK with “separate but equal,” how’s he feel about Brown v. Board of Education? Compare and contrast, as they used to say in school.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Cartoon loads (& reloads) only as an unreadable low-res image (on my Firefox 12.0 under MacOS 10.6.8).

    • http://yetanotheratheist.com TerranRich

      I’m using the same exact browser, version, and operating system, and I see it just fine. Odd.

      • Uncle Glenny

        I;ve got same MacOS but my firefox (which may not be quite the latest – I usually use Safari) says it’s 3.6.23. Huh? Did something get reorganized?

        image looks fine in it though.

    • doctorburger

      Weird…I write in firefox 12.0, this is my browser string:

      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/12.0

      I re-host images at imgur, which is usually reliable…not sure why it might not load for you.

      I’ll try prayer.

      • Pierce R. Butler

        This morning the cartoon loads for me just fine, in hi-res.

        We may be onto something big here – pls describe your prayer, and the deity to whom it was addressed, in full detail!

  • Jaketoadie

    My guess for what Romney would say should be given to hetero partnerships but not same sex partnerships is anything to do with children at least, no adoption, in cases where one partner brings children into the relationship or they have children though artificial means the biological parent is the guardian, and the other is not, that sort of thing. Since being homosexual is a sin, and will totally corrupt children, and allowing children to be corrupted in such a manner is also a sin they will have to protect children as much as possible. There are probably more, but I would think this is the very least of his “almost the same” rights.

    As for my personal opinion about the matter, I do not think there should be any difference in the rights, about the only difference between the 2 types of relationships that I can say I would be ok with is the location they are done. If a church doesn’t want to marry a homosexual couple, fine, be douches and don’t, I’m not going to force you to. If a government official has a problem with it though, tough, as a government official you are representing the state now, and you have to do your job as a representative of the state, regardless of your personal feelings. If you have that deep of a religious objection to the idea that you may be forced to preside over a same sex ceremony (or notarize a license or whatever) then resign and find a profession where you will not be asked to represent everyone.

    • Jaketoadie

      I should note that not only do I think the rights should be the same, I don’t even think there should be a separate but equal title for them.

      It should either be all marriage OR give the term entirely to the religious organizations. Make it so people could get married at their churches or whatever, but it does not impart any state benefit without also going through the state sanctioned ceremony as well.

      • Aliasalpha

        So the people get an official recognition of permanent relationship which gives them all the legal rights and then if they so choose they can then go and make it all magic-y in a church?

        Sounds like an ideal arrangement

        • Randomfactor

          It’s an ideal arrangement only if both sides have equal access to it, and it’s called “marriage” either way. That’ll never happen until the bigots are FORCED to accept it by Supreme Court decision.

          • jaketoadie

            Yes, I would prefer that there be no difference at all.

            But if the religious would really like to keep their special institution to feel superior to everyone else then they can have “Super-Marriage” or something that is done in a church and is purely a religious thing. Something between a man, a woman, and their god. This offers no state benefits, companies can’t extend benefits to these unions that are not extended to the state institution, etc.

            Kinda like a Bar-Mitzvah, only instead of becoming a man you are now joined in a union in the eyes of god. I wouldn’t want to force a community to perform a bar-mitzvah for someone who wasn’t a member of their community, and I wouldn’t force a church to super-marry anyone who, according to their rules, wasn’t eligible.

          • http://florilegia.wordpress.com Ibis3, denizen of a spiteful ghetto

            They already do have this. That’s why there’s such a thing as a “religious divorce” that is only granted (just as “religious marriage”) by the religious authorities to dissolve these marriages (or annul them, or confer a dispensation to enable remarriage or whatever).