Footage Emerges of Mitt Romney Spouting His Bigoted Bile Against Gays (VIDEO)

Footage Emerges of Mitt Romney Spouting His Bigoted Bile Against Gays (VIDEO)

By Michelangelo Signorile | HuffPost | Posted: 10/29/2012 9:41 am
Excerpts:

“Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, refused to allow birth certificate forms to be reprinted to accommodate the children of gay and lesbian couples, stigmatizing those kids and creating possible hardships for the rest of their lives.

Documents unearthed showed how Romney required hospitals to instead cross out "mother" or "father" on the birth certificates of children born to same-sex couples and write in, with a pen, "second parent," and only with the permission of Romney's office.

One of two video clips that has now uploaded to YouTube shows Romney speaking to conservative voters in South Carolina in 2005, as he was testing the waters for a presidential bid, discussing his battle with the Registry of Vital Statistics and Records regarding the birth certificate forms.

Romney distorted the Registry of Vital Statistics' plan, which was to change the labeling of boxes on the forms from "father" and "mother" to "father or second parent" and "mother or second parent." He claimed the plan was to change the form to have "Parent A" and Parent B" boxes, when, as the documents Waas obtained show, those terms were not in fact used:

“Today, same-sex couples are marrying, under the law, in Massachusetts. Some gays are actually having children born to them. We've been asked to remove the phrase "mother" and "father" and replace it with "parent A" and "parent B." It's not right on paper. It's not right in fact. Every child has the right to have a mother and father.”

“The children of America have the right to have a mother and a father. Of course, even today circumstances can take a parent from the home, but the child still has a mother and a father. If the parents are unmarried or divorced, the child can still visit each of them.

If a mother or a father of a child is deceased, the child can learn about the qualities of their departed parent. His or her psychological features can be developed by the contrasting features of both genders. Are we ready to usher in a society indifferent about having mothers and fathers? Will our children be indifferent about having a mother and father?"

see video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/watch-shocking-video-of-r_b_2038327.html
.......

Every child has a Mother and Father, so what was Romney’s mindset when he demanded that registration contain ‘Parent A or Parent B’ or ‘father or second parent, and ‘mother or second parent’ instead of the parents names as in every birth certificate? How much more
‘indifference’ can anyone have than a governor of Massachusetts offhandedly force writing in Parent A or Parent B?

We get a clear image of Romney and what he would do as president, as his evident antipathy of gay marriage so easily surfaced in this video indicates.

Other evidence of ex-Bishop Romney's severe Mormon attitude toward marriage was exhibited when he approached a young unwed mother in the hospital saying that she had to give her child up for adoption, as she was unfit to bring up a child... or she would be excommunicated from the LDS Mormon Church. She left the Mormon Church religion with her baby.

 

Agent Huffpo Thread Fail.... again.

AHTFA

 

You could easily argue that he's not being homophobic he just doesn't see the point in changing the wording on the birth certificate, though you could easily say why not since it isn't that big a deal anyway and would make it easier for certain couples to be able to have their names on their child's birth certificate. Now I don't know where the law stands on this but wouldn't the latter be easier to encompass all people who have children.

If someone has any more information on how things are done now because I wouldn't think you would just be able to cross out parts and add things in to a birth certificate also to whether a lesbian partner would be under the father part and vice versa for a gay partner in some areas then that would be helpful.

 

I'm of the belief that everyone's birth certificate should list the mother and the father, regardless of the sexuality of anyone involved. It's not anti-gay or pro-anything. I can't imagine why anyone would want to erase where any human being came from and replace it with a lie. It simply makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Perhaps AgentHuff can articulate a case as to why this should be done, but I seriously doubt that will happen.

 

All of Liberalism (Leftist Clap) is a flat out LIE, or based on a flat out LIE. This is no different.

 

A baby once mature to adulthood should have the right to know who their biological mother and father are. You never know their could be a medical reason and the birth certificate should be a place for them to look.

 

LOL! You had me going. So basically Romney says children are better off with a mother and father, and that's bigoted hatred?

 

It goes without saying that Romney has to stand against same sex marriage, gay-rights, gay adoption, etc. It goes with the territory.

I don't think there's anyone here that doesn't already understand that.

Am I missing the significance to this OP?

 

A***t... LOVE it. I have a feeling this will be another one of those threads she has to abandon. She couldn't even get a fellow lefty to go along with her. She's definitely got some sort of interest in HuffPo. I'd like to think it's financial, as the other options are a bit creepy.

 

I guess I just stuck with the issue at hand: birth certificates. Why should they be sanitized in any way to make people feel warm and fuzzy? Why put anyone but the biological parents on a birth certificate? Makes no sense whatsoever.

 

I think this latest piece of huffpoo you have flung at Romney is sure to stick!

 

Were gays moving out of the Obama camp? Good catch Agent, you may have diverted a catastrophe...

 

I agree. But I think if someone has to seek solace, justification or whatever emotion they require, by manipulating or alternating definition on a paper document, they probably have bigger issues they should be addressing first.

Really, what difference does it make? I don't understand why they can't just make the form follow function and give them all what they want. Zero casualties.

It's much adoo over nothing.

 

how do we handle this on adoption birth certificates today, do we use the real mother and father or do we allowed others to take their place?

 

Haha so let's get this straight, kids of gay and lesbian couples are stigmatized because of what their birth certificate says?

right.

 

In the cases of hereditary disease it would be important to have both biological parents SOMEWHERE like a birth certificate. Any other reason is just political.

 

I don't understand all the fuss. On the birth certificate, put the biological mother and father. On adoption papers, put the people doing the adopting. Sex and sexuality are completely irrelevant and I see no reason they should be a factor.

 

There are far more children living in heterosexual homes who don't know who their father and sometimes father and mother are. The world hasn't ended. I don't necessarily support the OP's take on this footage but the idea that EVERY child will somehow know who their mother and father is just because you outlaw gay marriage is laughable. Heterosexuals screwed up the institution of marriage long before being gay was acceptable anywhere.

Anyway anyone who knows anything about science knows what is put on the blank as "father" on a birth certificate even with married heterosexual couples is dubious at best. Women lie. It's a fact.

 

I see. So because possibly, potentially, some people have lied in the past on birth certificates, we should throw out the idea of putting biological parents on birth certificates to satisfy a political agenda.

Yeah, you're really making sense now!!!

 

Hey stawman. How's it going? Did I say that?

What I said is the vast bulk of people that don't know who one or both of their biological parents are are being raised in heterosexual households. I'm just saying that you sound like an idiot if you think you are going to solve this problem by going after gays with children. That is such a tiny population even in Massachusetts. And even in that population if a medical need arose that required identification of the mother or father that can easily be found out. Plenty of gay couples get someone that is close to them to donate. It's not some big mystery. Now who your mom was being banged by when your dad was on a 1 year stint in Iraq... that's a mystery.

It's just a dumb justification. If he has some other justifications I am open to hearing them, but that one is dumb and smacks of desperation.

 

This is absolutely no different than what the new Socialist government of France is considering doing right now. It is outraging the religious over there....so I'm surprised the liberals here would be different on the issue. EXCEPT, it sounds like to accomdate gays who are creating children in so many different ways, the Socialists want to change the LEGAL documents for ALL. Meaning if you are a traditional married couple; a mother and a father.....your children's birth certificates will say Parent 1 and Parent 2. ALL to accomodate gays. IF I'm reading that right. Is this how the rest of you are reading what France is trying to do?

PARIS — If France’s new Socialist government has its way, mothers and fathers will cease to exist — in legal papers, that is.
Legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage and give homosexual couples the right to adopt children also would replace the terms “mother” and “father” with “parent 1” and “parent 2” in all legal documents, including birth certificates.


The proposal has outraged France’s religious establishment and triggered a wave of criticism from many who say such changes to French law should be put to a public vote.


Read more: ‘Parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’ could legally replace mom and dad in France - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...2-could-legally-replace-mom-an/#ixzz2AjFY3uOS

 

I see lots of gobbledygook there, but don't see any reason to not put biological parents on a person's birth certificate, just as has been done since birth certificates began.

Did you plan on making an actual case as to why we should quit doing that simply to satisfy the egos of people?

 

And as has been stated the vast majority of birth certificates that do not contain both biological parents are on the birth certificates of heterosexuals. Why not start there? Why focus on a tiny fraction of the problem if you truly care about the problem so much?

 

Problem? I see no problem. Put biological parents on birth certificates when those parents are known. If one or more is unknown, simply put unknown. Why make (*)(*)(*)(*) up on a birth certificate just to satisfy someone's fragile ego?

Obviously, you are trying one of the oldest tricks in the book, citing something that happens on extremely rare occasions and trying to huff and puff it into a "problem".

Nice try, but NO SALE.

Now do you plan on making a case as to why false information should be put on a birth certificate? Pretty simple question. Yes or no?