The Homophobic Doublespeak of Mitt Romney

Reader Comments
Back to blog

"Why is it that when gay people find language offensive, everyone is expected to listen? But if bi people speak up, they're told to move on?" ~~from the AlterPride Project

Brenda "We Remember" Howard of NY 4:33PM January 27, 2012

Thomas: "Notice that he never says 'bisexual'."
Indeed. Through the whole opinion piece he speaks only of "gay and lesbian" citizens, or "gays" when referring to the discrimination we ALL face as members of the LGBT community (even if, in his mind, only lesbians and gays face it). The ONLY time bi's are mention is in such an awkward derogatory context, not in the context of recognizing us (and transfolk) as being among those not yet according equal rights in this country.
If he HAD actually included bisexuals in his recognition of the lack of equal rights for LGBT citizens, his failed attempt at using "bi" as a slam would be a bit less offensive.
But you're right. Other than using "bi" as an insult, he never once mentions bisexuals. (and on that point, see again the report Ulrich references on bi invisibility).

Nancy Marcus of OH 4:25PM January 27, 2012

I'm not offended. Notice that he never says "bisexual". He's using "bi" as a sort of pun--Romney has "two orientations" with regard to the truth, rather than sexuality. It's kind of an awkward joke, but it's hardly realistic to think that the author actually believes "bisexual" means "both opposed to and supportive of" homosexuality. Pick your battles, guys. If you're "deeply" or "grossly" offended by every little thing, you're just undermining your own rhetorical gravitas.

Thomas Foxx of CA 3:39PM January 27, 2012

This is indeed deeply insulting to bisexuals. Also, if you think that bi people somehow have it "better" than gays and lesbians, you're short on the facts. Please read the "Bisexual Invisibility" report that the San Francisco Human Rights Commission released last year: http://tinyurl.com/bi-invisibility
[Full disclosure: I'm the principal author of the report.]

Lindasusan Ulrich of CA 3:06PM January 27, 2012

This article is so insulting to bisexual people, and not just because of the title. And people were surprised when Cynthia Nixon said that no one likes the bisexuals? No wonder she doesn't want to be associated with us.

A of AL 2:16PM January 27, 2012

While the intent behind this article is great, the headline is grossly insulting to bisexuals. To insinuate that being bi is equivalent to talking out of both sides of one's mouth, as the headline coupled with the article does, just perpetuates discrimination against a large segment of the LGBT population.

Nancy Marcus of OH 1:41PM January 27, 2012

dear "out and proud gay man";
please remember that bisexual people -- you know the "B" in LGBT -- are supposedly your comrades in arms in the struggle for for equality, and remove your biphobic title, also suggest you try learning just a teensy-weensy bit about who and what bisexual people really are instead of repeating unoriginal insulting stereotypes
thanks,
your distinctly unamused bisexual compatriots

bialogue of MD 1:05PM January 27, 2012

This Karl Frisch blog is moot at all facets and at all levels.
Let's consider his "talking points":
•Gay people like me can be fired from my job simply for being gay in 29 states.
•Gay people like me can be denied housing simply for being gay in 30 states.
•Gay people like me cannot jointly adopt a child in 34 states if they find that special someone and want to start a family.
•Gay kids in school are not protected from anti-gay bullying and harassment in 33 states.
•It is even worse in each of these categories for transgender men and women.
While Romney opposes marriage equality, it's worth pointing out these numbers as well:
•Gay people like me can enter into a loving, legally and equally recognized relationship in only 6 states and DC though none of them enjoy federal benefits or recognition. (Note: Marriage equality may soon be coming to Washington, Maryland, Maine, and New Jersey.)
1) Any person can be fired for "no reason what-so-ever" is most states in this country. Please check the employment laws of your state.
2) i personally dislike smokers! If a person comes to my apartment complex, and, while he/she files an application, I spot a pack of cigarettes in their shirt pocket, to me, this is an automatic denial. Are you going to throw a pair of cuffs on me and tote me to jail??? In this country, there are still some rights that a landlord possess regarding who does and who does not reside in my complex.
3) The Gay Community is renouned for wanting more rights than the average "Joe American". Adoption Laws absolutely need not be a federal issue, but a "state-level" issue for any and all moral considerations pertaining to adoptions. (...smaller government, remember?)
4) There are already "bullying and harassment" laws protecting our kids in America. The Gay Community want special considerations???
5) Again, there are already laws protecting Americans R/T injustices that occur in our country every day. The transgender men and women want additional rights and laws???
6) Again, the blatanly obvious questions remain: in this country, why should an Evangelical member have more rights than a Catholic member? Why should an Asian-American have more rights than a Caucasian-American? Why should a dog born here in America have more rights than a cat born here in America? Thus, why should a gay man or woman have more rights than a straight man or woman?
"Activist judges" all over the country have already over-turned laws pertaining to the "will of the people" in most states as anyone who reads these blogs is wholly aware.
Make this a "federal issue"??? ......no freaking way!

R. Farmer of MA 11:38AM January 27, 2012

Its less than you have received from President Obama. He's done nothing in 3 years to promote Gay & Lesbian rights.

NGR of CT 10:27AM January 27, 2012

This is not an either or proposition. Let me provide some understanding.
Being against discrimination of any kind does not include supporting same sex marriage. Marriage is an institution.
Yet the majority who oppose same sex marriage would support domestic partnership (aka civil union) laws like there have been for a long time in California (California Family Code, Section 297.5)** be implemented in every state and even at the federal level.
This is something that is not divisive and would pass swiftly across the country and at the federal level.
Hopefully, people can start working with each other on this approach as it is not as divisive as redefining marriage.
This is the perspective of a hetero man who has family and friends who are gay.
** California Family Code, Section 297.5, which reads "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."

E Romero of CA 10:23AM January 27, 2012