Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Comment: A Mitt Romney presidential win would be a disaster for LGBT Americans

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. We are lucky in the UK.

    We have a different political establishment where religion does not play a huge part in politics- and more importantly-we are not a catholic country thanks to an historical twist of fate.

    It could all have been so much different-look at France!

    1. France will have marriage equality within 6 months.

      Imagine the day when GLBT Britons will have legal equality?

      “Not on my watch” declares the Tory Party.

    2. That There Other David 5 Nov 2012, 5:34pm

      What does the “look at France” comment mean? France decriminalised gay sex in 1791, a full 176 years before we did in the UK. The new Hollande government is about to bring in a number of LGBT-friendly measures that stalled under the previous centre-right administration of Sarkozy, which will put them ahead of us again.

      Take a look at Spain and Portugal too. You couldn’t ask for better examples of countries that have exported Catholicism across the globe, yet both have marriage equality.

    3. Yes true, but unfortunately there seems to be a number of politicians who instead of standing for election on a religious platform, have piggy backed their way into parliament on the back of mainstream parties.

  2. Peter & Michael 5 Nov 2012, 1:38pm

    If the republicans win the presidential election they probably will follow the laws being imposed in Russia, and this will set back freedoms already won in the USA and LGBT tourism will decline rapidly too. We must all hope that Obama comes through with a majority, and win this election.

  3. Absolutely! A Romney win would push back the equal right cause (on all fronts) for decades.

    The thought of this religious nut nominating a SC justice frightens me even more than him winning.

    1. That’s the same scaremongering that was used prior to the elections that Bush 2 stole. LGBT rights did not advance during hs illegal presidency, but they did not reverse either.

      A Romney win will place a pause on our rights.

      Seeing as corporate America controls US politics, it is naive in the extreme to think that either Obama or Romney will place much priority on GLBT rights,.

      1. dAVID

        I can’t believe my eyes. You have written something to defend George W Bush!

        Laura Bush is supportive of LGBT rights, including equal marriage, and I think she made sure that George didn’t give in to the crazies on LGBT issues. I haven’t heard anything to suggest Mrs Romney has similar progressive attitudes.

      2. Jock S. Trap 6 Nov 2012, 11:54am

        Yet dAVID weren’t you one of the one’s before the last General Election here in the UK who said that if the Tory’s got in all our rights would be revoked within six months? Wasn’t that scaremongering?

        The words ‘pot’ and ‘kettle’ spring to mind.

      3. George W is a sensible choice of candidate compared to Romney.

  4. Samuel B. 5 Nov 2012, 2:05pm

    With the current system in place, much like here in the UK, a win for either candidate is a disaster for America overall because at the end of the day corporate lobbyists dictate government policy.

    The same sh@t just oozes out of a different hole regardless, though unquestionably Hussein Obama would favour gay rights over Sh@t Romney, who would be a blight on all of humanity…

    1. That There Other David 5 Nov 2012, 5:36pm

      “Hussein”? How old are you, 12?

      1. No. I think about 8 and not from this planet.

    2. Samuel B

      Why did you feel the need to call him “Hussein” Obama? That is what the ultra-right-wing homophobic racist scumbags on Daily Telegraph online comments call him, as a means of implying he is a Moslem and therefore in their mind with the intention of denigrating him.

      Although I disagree with your posts sometimes, I never had you down as one of those kinds of people, and I still hope I am right.

      1. That’s an abbreviation of his full name, isn’t it?

        Why is it denigrating to mention him by his correct name when it isn’t denigrating to refer to Sh@t Romney in the same sentence?!

        The entire US political process is a sham, confidence trick and circus designed to convince the US populace that they have a genuine choice.

        1. Suddenly Last Bummer 6 Nov 2012, 11:13am

          Agreed.

  5. The political system in the US is rotten to the core.

    Corporations control politics, and therefore regardless of who wins, their primary loyalty certainly won’t be towards the US population.

    1. That There Other David 5 Nov 2012, 5:37pm

      Sad to say it dAVID, but that’s exactly how it works over here too.

      1. Hallelujah!

        A mass awakening is occurring on these very boards and it is a joy to see!

        Four years ago I was relentlessly lambasted for making similar observations.

        Seems a lot of us are aware of what is really going on on the world stage and aren’t letting ourselves be constantly distracted by X Factor, Grindr and, um, the admittedly rather scrummy gay men’s water polo team..

  6. Please pay no attention to this. Scaremongering about a Republican takeover of the Supreme Court has been a tried and tested ruse by Democrats to mobilise potential voters since Roe vs Wade.

    In fact, we have the Senate Democrats to thank for the appointment to the Supreme Court of extreme conservatives John Roberts in 2005 (majority of 78-22 including 22 Democrats in favour, making filibuster impossible), Clarence Thomas in 1991 (majority of 52-48 including 11 Democrats leaving the Democrats with an opportunity to filibuster that they refused to take), Antonin Scalia in 1986 (unanimous 98-0 including 47 Democrats, all present) and Samuel Alito (majority of 58-42 after cloture was invoked by the Senate 74-25, including 19 Democrats).

    Yes the United States judiciary is overwhelmingly rightwing and partisan and this is objectively bad for gay Americans. But I’m sorry to inform you both parties are responsible. You’re better off not voting or voting against both.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Nov 2012, 4:16pm

      Unfortunately, there is no third viable party in the U.S. The Libertarian is very small and doesn’t carry any weight or taken seriously by the majority of voters. It’s all very well voting for them, but in the end, what you will have done is help get Romney elected, assuming he wins, not just Obama who is the better of the two. Obama opposed the Iraq ware before he became president and voted against it, almost all republicans supported it.

      1. I may not have expressed my point very well at the end there since it might have given the impression I’m suggesting “anybody but Romney or Obama”. Absolutely not. This would be falling for the “lesser evil” fallacy I’m criticising here. Would a Romney government be qualitatively worse than Obama in the White House? Perhaps, but the idea that the Democrats are the only barrier to a coup by the obscurantists, I think, is an extraordinary claim that demands evidence. That coup is already underway.

        As for minor protest parties, they have no intention of moving beyond their current wretched place in American democracy. For that reason I would say the ideal response to this election is not to vote, but if somebody would rather have voting Green on their conscience than voting Democrat, then I don’t see why liberals feel the need to hold it against them like they did those who voted Nader in 2004 (only to be proven horribly wrong four years later).

      2. Oh yes there is, Robert, the third choice is to register NO VOTE:- that is the only way to bring the current corrupt, rotten to the core system down and give power – and the Federal Reserve – back to the people!

        By registering a vote for either of these corporate puppet fraudsters you collude to maintain a rotten system and conspire in your country’s fate by keeping it under the control of truly insane people.

        Erm, much like we do here in the UK in fact! :)

      3. Samuel B. 6 Nov 2012, 7:31pm

        That’s right, Robert, Obama was so opposed to the Iraq war that he kept Us troops there instead of sticking to his 2008 pre-election promise to withdraw them within weeks of assuming the presidency if elected.

        “Change we can believe in!”

        Yeah, right.

        Yawn…

  7. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Nov 2012, 4:19pm

    It’s not just gay rights that will be affected with a Romney win. It’s going to affect women, big time. Romney supports repeal of Roe v Wade, the law that made abortion legal. Ironic that almost 50% of women voters support him. It seems that voting against one’s interests is the norm in American politics lately including gay republicans who really don’t much care about social issues. In fact have and never will consider them a priority even in healthy economic times.

    1. That There Other David 5 Nov 2012, 5:40pm

      He may support it, but he wouldn’t dare seriously try to overturn Roe vs. Wade. I’m certain that would be the final straw in the Blue vs. Red split the US is currently undergoing. Such a pro-theocracy move would bring about fighting in the streets, I’m certain of it.

      1. Samuel B. 6 Nov 2012, 7:36pm

        And fighting in the streets is exactly what they want in order to exact full martial law and for FEMA to start filling up the many concentration camps around America that it has been constructing with US tax payers’ money this past decade.

        That’s right:- Americans working and paying for their own enslavement but too self-absorbed and ignorant to realise it.

        “Change the channel honey, we’re missing Jersey Shore…”

  8. Aryu Gaetu 5 Nov 2012, 5:48pm

    If Romney wins, there will be a mass exodus of Gays heading to Canada, UK, and Europe. My ears already bleed when Romney speaks, I don’t want my head to explode if he becomes President.
    Scraping pigeon poop in Trafalgar Square would be far better than any job in the US with the standard expensive medical coverage (if any), no dental (typical visit $100-1000, £62-620), 3 paid sick days, 7 paid vacation days (often not allowed to take them all at once). Some companies use labor loopholes to make their people work 8 10-hour days straight (no overtime). Walgreens, a large corporate druggist is one of them, where the employees get better prescription rates at their competition. Here in the US, a common HIV drug such as Combivir can be over $1200 (£750) for just 120 tablets (http://tinyurl.com/a8dt9zm). All because big business owns the USA, and the Republicans are their biggest supporters.
    Seriously, if your business can sponsor me, I’d be there as fast as I can get a passport.

  9. Ultimately it is a win-win for LGBT people, and the people of America.

    Best case scenario: Obama wins, and the progressive and fiscally competent Democratic government continues.

    Worst case scenario: Romney wins, proves what an incompetent and reactionary president he is, causes national financial crisis when it becomes clear his financial policies are hollow, becomes one of the most hated presidents in history, causes the Republican Party and its religious bigot supporters to be associated with his incompetent and odious policies, and in four years’ time ensures that a religious reactionary Republican presidential candidate is never elected again.

    The benefits to Americans, including LGBT Americans, are more immediate in the first case, and an Obama win tomorrow will in any case probably start the modernisation of the Republican Party, which is already perceived as borderline unelectable by many.

  10. Mumbo Jumbo 5 Nov 2012, 6:23pm

    “A Mitt Romney presidential win would be a disaster for LGBT Americans”

    A Mitt Romney presidential win would be a disaster full stop.

    1. Not for the Theocrats, it wont.
      They will love the chance to finally run riot without fear of legal repercussions, and blaming all of Romney’s failures, and any natural disaster on a different unapproved minority every few weeks.

  11. Jim Nashville Tn 5 Nov 2012, 6:33pm

    I have voted early and I voted for Obama .. no way could I look at myself in the mirror everyday .. and think that I am 65 year old gay man voted for someone who opposes the rights that have been fought so hard for and the battle is still ongoing . for gblt opposed to Obama I ask why … the “mitt” will paint you with the same brush as the rest of us . and it will not a good thing

  12. mickie_newton 5 Nov 2012, 8:46pm

    I, like many of us, have LGBT American friends and I know how worried they are about this election. but let’s not forget it’s not just the LGBT community that’ll will suffer under this guy if he gets in. Women will because of his dated policies against women in work and health issues.

    His policies again the disabled and senior citizens. This man is frightening!

  13. Excuse me but you’re talking about him being the first U.S president to come out for equal marriage right? Because he damn sure isn’t the “first sitting president in the world” who has come out to support marriage equality.

  14. Christopher in Canada 6 Nov 2012, 1:17am

    Romney is the personification of Stephen King’s RANDALL FLAGG, from his novel, The Stand.

    “The devil hath the power to assume a pleasing shape”

  15. GingerlyColors 6 Nov 2012, 7:41am

    Mitt Romney has made no secret about his opposition to gay marriage during the run-up to today’s election but while it is heartwarming to hear that not all Republicans oppose gay marriage, it will be interesting to know how many Democrats are against it. I will not be surprised if one Democrat Congressman, Senator or mayor begs to differ with Barrack Obama on the subject. Don’t forget it was not long ago that a Green Party councillor in Brighton stated her opposition to marriage equality despite her party’s support for the issue so there are always those who buck the trend. I hope Barrack Obama wins a second term in the Whitehouse. This will allow another four years for support for marriage equality to continue to grow and perhaps a chance for the mainstream Republican Party a chance to shed the Tea Party tail that seems to be wagging it.

  16. Suddenly Last Bummer 6 Nov 2012, 11:11am

    Four more years of ineffectuality so?

  17. Jock S. Trap 6 Nov 2012, 11:56am

    Mitt Ronmey would be a disaster for all Rights except of course his own.

    Here’s hoping Obama gets another 4 years!! Enough to advance Gay and Human Rights to a point where we can no longer be the subject of discriminating religious debate.

  18. A Mitt Romney win would be a disaster for the entire world.

  19. Ben Foster 6 Nov 2012, 1:13pm

    Mormons are people we point and laugh at, not the sort you give the nuclear launch codes to.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all