By: Gary Montil

From Politico 12/12/2011:

“Mitt Romney, while touring the Chez Vachon restaurant in Manchester, sat down at a table with two older men, one of whom was wearing a ‘Vietnam Veteran’ hat.

“Bob Garon, 63, of Epsom, N.H., asked Romney if he, as president would seek to overturn New Hampshire’s law legalizing gay marriage. Romney gave his standard response affirming his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

“Garon, who is gay and was seated with his husband, Bob Lemire, then said to Romney: ‘It’s good to know how you feel, that you do not believe everyone is entitled to their constitutional rights.’

“Romney replied: ‘Actually, I think at the time the Constitution was written marriage was between a man and a woman and I don’t believe the Supreme Court has changed that.'”

It’s not surprising that Mitt Romney shares the views of most other Republicans in relation to gay marriage. But it was during one of his infamous meal-and-greets sloganeering methods to humanize him and reach out to the voting public that Romney came under fire. As the above quote from Politico suggests, Romney screwed up by assuming that someone wearing a veteran’s hat, or any other apparel for that matter, would instantly agree with his views about gay people not being allowed to get married. The other gaffe he made was going to a restaurant, or any other venue, in New Hampshire, one of only six states in America that currently allows same-sex couples to get married—which suggests that more than likely Romney would meet a few people that wouldn’t agree with him.

The unfortunate part is that none of this is all too surprising. Romney and fellow Republicans have begun to wage war on homosexuality by stigmatizing it countless times, with each potential candidate for the Republican nomination (other than Ron Paul) stating publicly that they would attempt to pass a Constitutional amendment barring gays from getting married.

What’s worse is the sickeningly patriotic, end-all-be-all ad hoc defense of “back in the Constitutional/Founding Father’s days.” Of course the Founding Fathers probably would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman, but that’s only because they were products of their time. We’ve increasingly progressed in a society that has allowed rights to groups of people that were previously ignored or suppressed. Case in point, African-Americans were Constitutionally defined as 3/5 of a person, which was then repealed with the Reconstruction Amendments, and then solidified during the Civil Rights Movement. Women were also marginalized within the institution of America and not allowed the right to vote, much less anything surpass raising a family, until the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920.

If one were to look at the entirety of the Constitution’s history and evolution, and not just its nascent, then you would more than likely see a pattern of progressivism that builds on one generation after another on recognizing the rights of individuals that were previously discriminated or suppressed, not the other way around as Romney and other Republican candidates would like you to believe. In that case, then, a gay rights amendment would be more constitutional than an anti-gay rights amendment.

But then the question becomes slightly more nuanced than just gay marriage: How can a Republican candidate reconcile their beliefs of marriage and general anti-homosexuality with their views on state’s rights trumping federal rights when there are six states that legalized gay marriage? At its core, there is no way to reconcile. Republican candidates, though, found a way out of it: through stating they would support a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. How is this a scapegoat method? Well, to ratify any amendment, the federal government would need two-thirds of the States to agree with it and vote it in. This essentially means that they would still be allowing the states to decide, i.e. states rights over federal rights. Unfortunately, though, only six states have legalized gay marriage, which means either the other forty-four haven’t gotten around to legalizing gay marriage or they don’t want to, which would strike a major blow into the growing surge of support gay marriage has been receiving, and the Republican candidates know this.

It’s not really a clever technique, since I saw through it (and I’m not that smart), but it does avoid the question, at least for now. The unfortunate part is that none of the Republican candidates even slightly support gay rights. (Even Ron Paul supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which clearly defined marriage as a traditional, man-women gig). Most of these Republican candidates are actually considering repealing all of Obama’s legislation and policies that he has enacted within the past three years, including the revolutionary repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT)—repealing a repeal, as some theoretical physicists have commented, would in fact rip a hole in the fabric of reality and create a blackhole that would destroy all of humanity. All of which begs the question: Have Republicans become synonymous with homophobic policies?

An important notation, even if you’re not particularly for or against gay marriage, is that if the government is allowed to determine how marriage should be composed on an individual basis, then that could lead down the slippery slope of the government determining who can marry who based on race, politics, religion, and other such markers. The likeliness, while slim presently, shouldn’t be overlooked, since it could easily happen in the future.

We’re in an age in which marriage is being opened to more and more people, people who love each other and that can raise perfectly good, nuclear families (if they want to) with the advent of adoption and in vitro fertilization; rather than rejecting this and becoming the first generation in American history to regress into a previous state of suppression, we should embrace the fact that homosexuality is a part of our culture, and this does not mean that America is going to hell (as Fred Phelps and his clan would like you to believe) but that we are evolving as a society to better ourselves and our future.