Uncle Roger's Notebooks of Daily Life

Magic Underwear on Marriage

Last week, Mittens "Magic Underwear" Romney weighed in on the historic 9th circuit court ruling that Prop 8 is indeed unconstitutional. As a Mormon, Mittens is well aware of so-called "non-traditional" marriages. In fact, it is my hypothesis that the reason the Mormon church is so rabidly anti-equality is that if same-sex marriage is legalized, people might start asking why polyamory isn't legal which, of course, would get people started looking at the Mormon church.

For those unfamiliar with the LDS church (as they like to be called these days), their prophet Joseph Smith was big on the idea of each guy having multiple wives, something that caught on pretty quickly with his followers. The only problem with that is that the good ol' USA wasn't having any of this "non-traditional" marriage stuff. Facing federal seizure of all church assets and prison terms for church officials, church President Willford Woodruff had a little chat with God who conveniently decreed that polygamy was no longer allowed. This paved the way for Utah to become a state in 1896.

Fast forward a century and a quarter and we have Mittens Romney running for president of that same United States, once again trying to curtail civil rights. His take on the ruling in Perry v. Brown:

“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”

In case that was a little too much politicospeak, I'll translate (and comment):

unelected judges

You say that like it's a bad thing. There's a reason that judges are not elected -- it's so that they are NOT subject to the whims and will of the people. Instead they stand apart, impartial, like, um, well, judges.

the will of the people of California

Well, a smidge over half of those that bothered to make it to the polls. Nonetheless, should the majority be able to vote away the rights of others? Perhaps Mittens would like to take a vote on his right to wear magic underwear?

voted to protect traditional marriage

Setting aside the problems with the notion of "traditional" marriage, the one-man-one-woman model has never been in danger. Never has anyone -- gay, straight, or otherwise -- ever suggested that giving same-sex couples the right to marry would mean that opposite-sex couples would no longer be able to do so.

underscores the vital importance of this election

"Vote for me -- I'll not only uphold your right to hate and discriminate, I'll disband the SCOTUS so there won't be any judicial oversight of your duly purchased officials."

and the movement to preserve our values.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and so do you."

as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written

"Because it clearly says in the constitution that marriage is whatever modern day christians say it is and nothing else."

and not according to their own politics and prejudices.

"Since Judge Walker is gay, there's no way he could have rendered an impartial decision the way a straight, christian judge could have."

Unlike Romney, I actually value the constitution and the system our forefathers set up so I won't be voting for Mittens this November. But you already knew that, didn't you?

The real question, as far as I'm concerned, is will you be voting for him and, if so, why?

Related Links The 1890 Manifesto

[ Posted: 04:00 | home | print ]