Wednesday, May 12, 2004

Gay Marriage, Child Marriage, Drugs and Guns 

Governor Mitt Romney's spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom yesterday crossed a few lines in an e-mail response to a reporter's inquiry on Romney's strategy for dealing with Provincetown officials if they issue marriage licenses to out of state gay couples.

“What next, is Provincetown going to start marrying 10-year-olds in violation of the law?” Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said in an e-mail response to a reporter’s questions about Romney’s legal strategy yesterday. “Are they going to refuse to enforce the drug laws? Will they ignore the gun laws, too?”

I'm surprised he didn't drag out the seemingly abandoned arguments about people marrying their dogs. His comments seem aimed at creating an atmosphere of fear and potential violence, much like Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger's early response to the San Francisco weddings:

"In San Francisco it is license for marriage of same sex. Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons and someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs, I mean you can't do that," Schwarzenegger said on NBC.

Another article about Schwarzenegger's inflammatory initial response reported this statement (also here:

"When I was in San Francisco for the Republican convention, all of a sudden we see riots and we see protests and we see people clashing," Schwarzenegger said. "The next thing we know is there are injured or there are dead people, and we don't want to have that."

But back to here in Massachusetts. Spokesman Fehrnstrom also repeated Gov. Romney's attempt to frame this as action taken out of concern for the children, and their full protection (from the article):

“The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has an interest in making sure the laws are enforced evenly, not selectively,” he added. “And everyone, especially spouses and their children, has an interest in making sure marriage in Massachusetts is worth more than the paper it’s printed on.”

Then why did the Governor shut down an effort to repeal the 1913 law causing all this kerfuffle by threatening to veto any bill aimed at that repeal? If you want to avoid confusion, if you want to protect the people entering into marriage, if you want to protect their children, then don't do everything you can think of to restrict those protections.

Posted by Beth Henderson at 10:00 AM