The more you say it, the dumber you sound

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Thursday that his opposition to same-sex marriage should not be interpreted as intolerance of gays, who served in his administration when he was Massachusetts governor.

See? Some of his best friends are gays.

Romney’s record on gay rights has drawn scrutiny — and criticism that he changes with the political winds. In a 1994 bid against Sen. Edward Kennedy, Romney argued that he would be a better champion of gay rights than the Democrat. In 2003, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples could wed in the state, Romney pushed for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The Bush camp has a puerile, overly simplistic word for Massachusetts politicians who change their minds on key election issues. I wonder why they haven’t yet voiced their shock and indignance over Mitt’s character-destroying flip-floppery.

On Thursday, after talking to about 400 people at a downtown library, he said that doesn’t mean he is intolerant.

Because changing the Constitution to prevent certain classes of citizens from securing rights that include health coverage, financial security and household stability is not intolerant. The correct word is hateful.

“What you look for in a leader is someone who will welcome and treat with respect people who made different choices and have different beliefs in their lives and have differences. I have nothing but respect and feelings of tolerance for people with differences from myself and feel that way with regards to those who are gay,” he said.

He noted that one of his Cabinet members was gay and that he appointed gays to positions of responsibility in his administration.

“Positions of responsibility.” That means he put them at the big kids’ table. How very Cheney of him.

“I oppose discrimination against gay people,” Romney said. “I am not anti-gay. I know there are some Republicans, or some people in the country who are looking for someone who is anti-gay and that’s not me.”

Wait for it … wait for it …

He said he is opposed to gay marriage because it’s not in the best interest of children.

Because marriage is only about children. That’s why there’s a childbearing requirement attached to all marriage contracts. That’s why my boyfriend and I—who have no children, want no children and aren’t biologically designed to accidentally produce children—can’t get married. Because Mitt Romney thinks our marriage would not be in the best interest of children.

I don’t think Mitt Romney is in the best interest of children—especially the adult children who keep perpetuating the myth of his thoughtfulness, his ability to lead the diverse populations of this country or even his relevance. Why can’t we put their marriages up for a vote? Why can’t we ban them with a Constitutional amendment? Why can’t we barter their lives for votes?