League of Mormon Voters

A few days ago, Anne Romney, Mitt’s wife, said that “we better unzip him and let the real Mitt Romney out…” so we can learn that he’s really not a boring stiff.  I worry – what is the real Mitt like?  What will we find beneath the Romney suit and tie?  Here are a couple of possibilities.

1. Mitt the Massachusetts Moderate.  Underneath the tea party vying, right leaning, modern version of Romney, we may very well find the moderate Mitt that was Governor of Massachusetts.  The moderate version was barely a Republican.  He signed gay marriage into law and passed a universal health care plan that Obamacare was patterned after.

2. Robo Romney.  Would it surprise anyone if, when unzipping the Mitt suit, we find a cyborg? Part man, part robot.  Maybe the stiff Mitt is the real Mitt.  Just take a look at his hair – never out of place, always perfect.  Could it be that Robo Romney is simply a Republican attempt to create a perfect candidate – one that will appeal to all in the GOP?  If you are a moderate Republican or a Teac Partier, they have a Romney for you.  One problem, the programmers of Robo Romney didn’t think through the Mormon factor.

3. Mormon Mitt.  Unzip the Mitt and you find a man steeped in Mormon tradition and religion.  He’s been holding back in speaking of his religion, but Mitt comes from deep Mormon stock.  He has served in various leadership responsibilities in the Church.  These responsibilities are similar to him being a pastor.  Can Mormon Mitt really separate church and state while being true to his spiritual upbringing?

No matter which unzipped Mitt we get, I’m sure it won’t be a kicked-back, favorite uncle variety.  No, an unzipped Mitt would most likely be more of the same Romney.

The debate that men have been having about women’s reproductive rights has been interesting and sometimes comical.  To Rick Santorum contraception gives license to do things which ought not be done. To Rush Limbaugh women are “sluts” for advocating easier access to contraception. This is a political discussion, which means that there can be a difference between what one might do personally, and what one might legislate for society at large.  Here are a few reasons people might legislate differently than their personal views in the case of women’s reproductive rights:

1. Poverty.  There is an undeniable link between poverty and contraception.  Unwanted pregnancy is more common among the poor, who have less access to education, contraception, and financial and social resources needed to raise a child. This issue is firmly linked to poverty as only those living hand to mouth (students generally included) are worried about those amounts of money.
2. Women’s rights.  There is no getting around the fact that pregnancy affects women more than it affects men; to date, no man has ever been forced to carry and bear a child against his will.  Access to birth control and abortion levels the playing field for women.  And most of the legislators involved in this discussion have been men.
3.  The cost of unwanted pregnancy .  Not only is there a financial burden on society for unwanted pregnancies and the care for children, a fact well known by insurance companies who will gladly provide contraception benefits, but there is the cost to society in terms of increased abortions (which are unsafe, but still performed, in countries where abortion is illegal).

Where do Mormons sit generally?  Somewhere to the left of Catholics, but to the right of far left progressives.  Mitt Romney has been viewed as “not conservative enough” by some for his failure to unilaterally oppose abortion rights in Massachusetts, although it is somewhat clear that his personal views are more conservative than his political stance.  He also was credited with a great sound bite on contraception:  “It’s working.  Leave it alone.”  There is generally some reluctance for Mormons to curtail others’ choices given our own history of persecution, and when it comes to contraception, Mormon views have shifted substantially over the last few decades.

There is no guidance in the LDS Church Handbook of Instruction prohibiting the use of birth control, although men getting a vasectomy are encouraged to discuss the decision with their bishop. The church’s stance is that elective abortion is immoral.  However, the church does allow for abortion (after prayerful consideration) in cases of rape, incest, if the health of the mother is in jeopardy, or if the baby will have severe birth defects.  These are not considered “elective” abortion.  In these cases, the church encourages the couple to make the decision prayerfully and to consult with the bishop.  So, what do you think? It seems that the Mormon church is more progressive than many of its Christian counterparts.

A federal appeals court declared California's same-sex marriage ban (Proposition 8) to be unconstitutional.  Supporters of Proposition 8 can now ask for a larger panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to take up the case. They could also choose to appeal the case directly to the Supreme Court.  No matter which direction supporters choose to go, there is no doubt that this controversy is over.

In 1994 Mitt Romney called for full equality for gay Americans.  But, with the new ruling against Proposition 8, Romney exclaimed his displeasure that an unelected body (the courts) would choose to set aside what the people had voted to protect traditional marriage.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), one of the largest supporters of Proposition 8, expressed their concerns, “California voters have twice determined in a general election that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We have always had that view. Courts should not alter that definition, especially when the people of California have spoken so clearly on the subject.”

Usually, I stand on the more progressive side of the political spectrum.  However, I am also Mormon. This battle regarding gay marriage is a difficult one for me to take sides.  I, too, believe that marriage is a religious question – one that has been traditionally defined as man and women. I agree with that.  I also believe that there should be equality and access for all to services offered by our country and by others in society.  For that reason, I have always supported the idea of civil unions.  This provides gay couples with the ability to be treated equally under the law while allowing religious institutions to retain marriage as a god-given definition. 

Until recently, our country has repeatedly reminded its citizens that marriage is one man and one woman.  That was the reason that polygamy was banned in the Mormon church.  Changing that definition now is a slippery slope that could eventually reopen the opportunity for polyandry, polygamy, and more.  I don’t usually side with those on the extreme right.  However, I do believe that the traditional definition of marriage should be retained, and can be, and that we should do everything in our power to afford LGBT couples equality under the law through civil unions or other such avenues.

Mitt Romney wins the Iowa Caucus! But with only 25% and eight votes more than Rick Santorum - the lowest number ever for an Iowa GOP winner.  Wait, déjà vu…that’s right - four years ago, Mitt Romney received 25 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses. That time he lost to Mike Huckabee.  Mitt just can’t seem to get over that 25% hump. 

Romney has been running nonstop for the past 4 years.  Together with a pro-Romney super PAC that spent at least $4 million in Iowa in 2012, he still was only able to garner 25 percent. It seems that spending $4 million to gain zero points since the last Iowa caucus is a bad return on investment.  Yet,

While Romney is consistently around 25%-30% in the polls and he doesn't excite anybody, he is the most presentable of the candidates - the guy you introduce to your parents, the management consultant who can repackage conventional Republicanism. Despite the fact that he is basically tied with a guy who supports banning contraception and another guy who attacks the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Romney is still considered the front runner and presumptive Republican candidate.  Yet, there is a large contingency of Republicans that seem willing to go far in order to keep him from winning the nomination.

Behind their false unity in opposition to the Obama administration, Republicans are fighting bitterly with one another over what kind of party it is going to be in the 21st century. So, does Mitt Romney winning the Iowa Caucus inspire the populous?  Probably not.  Instead, both parties should be figuring out a way to reach out to disgusted voters who are tired of the constant partisan politics.