Mitt Romney and Gender

During his recent address and questions at Kirkwood Community College at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, he reiterated his desire to have a constitutional amendment defining marriage to that union "between one man and one woman." I would follow that statement with another question, how do you define the the legal concepts of man and woman? Would he institute a nearly Catholic sense that men and women must be viable for reproduction? Will this eliminate late life marriages and marriages between persons with some form of sterility in one of the parties? How will post operative males and females be affected, does Mitt expect these people to go through life with no intimate relationships? Since, Mitt connects his desire for a constitutional amendment to the strengthening of the traditional nuclear family, so that children will see a model of such a family, does this mean a constitutional amendment preventing single persons and same sex couples from raising their own children or adopted children is next? What kind of Pandora's box would such an amendment open? The German Nazi's had fixed ideas about how people should be without any regard for how people are. It seems that at issue is the forcing of a pluralistic society to live in a mode dictated by Christian fundementalism.

In many ways, Mitt has impressed me; however, he, as do many right to life proponents, seems to support life for life's sake without any consideration for the quality of that life. There should be no person that believes in right to life that has not adopted an American born child who has been abandoned by circumstance. There should be no poor pregnant teen who is without prenatal care, unconditional love and support making a decision to either keep or adopt out their newborn. Would the thinking of the preservation of the nuclear family require marriage for such a girl to keep a child?

Mitt, where is this going? Have you thought much about the impact of your ideals regarding family, life, or marriage limitations? It seems odd that a church that still struggles with polygamy issues in the Southwest, would want to deny marriage to millions of Muslims and tribally oriented folks of Africa, Asia and elsewhere. 200 years ago, my ancestor in the Louisiana purchase had three wives. Perhaps such folks could be allowed a civil union, like GLBT folks desire, to keep their nuclear family intact. Following Mitt's line of thinking maybe we need an amendment that defines who constitutes a family, too.