NOM BLOG

Mother Knows Best

 

Brad Pitt's mother, Jane Pitt, writes to her local newspaper explains why she will vote for Mitt Romney:

I have given much thought to Richard Stoecker’s letter (“Vote for Mormon against beliefs,” June 15). I am also a Christian and differ with the Mormon religion.

But I think any Christian should spend much time in prayer before refusing to vote for a family man with high morals, business experience, who is against abortion, and shares Christian conviction concerning homosexuality just because he is a Mormon.

Any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney’s opponent, Barack Hussein Obama — a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.

I hope all Christians give their vote prayerful consideration because voting is a sacred privilege and a serious responsibility.

51 Comments

  1. OhMyWord
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Aren't theocracies wonderful!

  2. Good News
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    Well done Mom! In continuing to help your boy (and America) grow.
    A mother's job is never done.

  3. M. Jones
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    It is never too late to accept Jesus into your life.

  4. Ash
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    I agree with Jane Pitt.

    It's even better to vote for a person who self-identifies as atheist, but who shares your values and policy positions, than to vote for a self-identified Christian who does not.

    My initial concerns with Romney were not surrounding his religion, but the common misconception that he was a RINO/liberal. Now I know that he's a genuine conservative, and will make a great president when he wins in November.

    I understand that some of the Teavangelicals are concerned about Romney's religion. But I think President Obama has done a fine job warming those folks up to Mitt :)

  5. OhMyWord
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    Romney believes god's going to give him a planet when he dies. Isn't religion just awesome!

  6. Scrounger
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    This post illustrates the generation gap on SSM. Reinforces the inevitable nature of the resolution to this issue.

  7. Son of Adam
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Heck, Scrounger, I'm 39 - nine years younger than Brad Pitt. And I oppose SS"M". And I know several people much younger than me who oppose SS"M" as well. So the age difference between Brad Pitt and his mother really indicates nothing.

  8. OhMyWord
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    Romney also believes women WON'T get their own planet when they die. I have no idea why. That's just the way it is. Isn't religion neat!

  9. Publius
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    OhMyWord seems pretty confident of what Mitt Romney personally believes. Perhaps he can quote something Mitt actually said or wrote as a student, lay pastor, businessman, governor, or candidate. He has given hundreds, perhaps thousands of speeches. What did he actually say in any of those remarks or in anything he has written or done as a public officeholder to merit the charge of being a theocrat?

  10. John Colgan
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    @Publius,

    Of course he can't point to words from Romney about his faith, that's because Romney never speaks publicly about his Mormonism, and certainly not about the details of Mormon theology (like the possibility of becoming a God with your own planet). It's enough to make one wonder just what Mitt is hiding.

  11. Good News
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    @Ohmyword
    Obama thinks man-man and man-woman unions are the same thing. Now what kind of an absurd myth is that? Only a powerful out of touch radical religious belief could get one to have such blind faith in nonsense like that. When ones own eyes and rational thought can tell them different.
    Without faith we might not know what's after life – but as for life on earth, we need no more than eyes and common sense to know the truth.

    Obama has lost not only faith, but truth and reason as well. It would be better that a Mormon inherit the leadership of this planet earth than this fallen angel Obama who's presently sitting on the throne.

    Now go run along home Ohmyword, I hear your mommy calling. And she still has a lot to teach you.

  12. Reformed
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    Good News,

    Perhaps you can quote something Obama actually said or wrote as a student, candidate, or president that shows that he thinks that "man-man and man-woman unions are the same thing". He has given hundreds, perhaps thousands of speeches. What did he actually say in any of those remarks or in anything he has written or done as a public officeholder to merit the charge of thinking that "man-man and man-woman unions are the same thing".

  13. Posted July 6, 2012 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    Scrounger,

    I am 21. When I was 17, I did indeed support deviant marriage. Now, I am a staunch opponent. (I oppose civil unions as well.)

  14. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    Yes, indeed, Mother *does* know best.

    Fathers, too.

    They're both irreplaceable.

    Nobama is a "Christian" in name only.

  15. Jacqueline Beavers
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    I'm definitely NOT in support of same-sex marriage, and I'm upset and offended at President Obama's support of it. But, at the same time, I'm not sure I want Mitt Romney in office either. When President Obama took his stand on same-sex marriage, I had decided I wasn't going to vote at all - that may be a mistake too. I'm just so disappointed in this country's leaders - period!!

  16. Good News
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    @Reformed
    Two things so fundamentally different as one that can (might) in theory or in reality create life, human life, compared to one that can never in theory nor in reality create life, needs to have, in a reasonable society, two different words to name them.

    When Obama says he believes that the man-man and the woman-woman union are not different enough to merit different names, but rather should both fall under the one same word of marriage, he is taking away the only (simple and effective) possibility to signal out to our little growing children that there is a fundamental difference between these two unions which makes them in no way alike. And in doing this he is, in a very diplomatic way, telling our children (and their public school teachers) that the two unions are, for the most part, the same thing. Other than for small secondary differences such as hair color, weight, sex, age etc.

    When the president of the United States speaks out to the world on the subject to say that marriage is between any two adults, (no matter how diplomatic or smooth he might say it), he is not “saying it”, but rather he is screaming it out at the top of his lungs from on the rooftops - that there is no difference between these two unions. None anyway that could prompt anyone, other than a bigot, to want different words to name them.

  17. Good News
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    @Dovie E
    Great to hear it. Our youth are going to have to build from the ground up to get us out of this mess.

  18. Scrounger
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    @dovie and soa, you guys are the exception, not the rule.

  19. Good News
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

    @Jaqueline
    I'm right with you. What did voting get us after all these loyal years of service. Except to this very point of arguing over the question of whether there are any differences at all between men and women that are worthy of note. Pathetic. Do the presidents really have the power to changes things on this subject? One thing is for certain, it will take one who is courageous and strong in character! One who is ready to standout from the political crowd of today, and stand on his own, and give it his all, for something more than for politics.

  20. Katie
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    Oh look at that, NOM censored my perfectly non-threatening comment.

  21. Pride
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    I went to a very religious conservative Christian high school we took a poll and about 80% support gay marriage. There were about 4 teachers who supported it and the other 20 or more did not. The youth defiantly supports ssm.

  22. Son of Adam
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    LOL Scrounger. They made the same argument about abortion rights right after Roe vs. Wade. Around 60% of those in their teens and twenties were pro choice at the time. That meant that everyone would be pro choice by the year 2000 once all the old people died off, believing that it is impossible for anyone's minds and attitudes to change because of the broad range of experiences and lessons life can give you over time.

    Here it is 2012 and abortion is STILL a hot button topic. And Communism hasn't taken over the world either, though it was practically guarunteed to - also by the year 2000.

    If only I had a dollar for every "inevitable" left wing cause that failed to achieve universal approval.

  23. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    Count me among those who, through ignorance, supported-pseudo marriage. The unscrupulous tactics of the opposition, combined with personal experience with same-sex couples, forced me to change my position.

  24. leviticus
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    I know one thing pesident elect Romney does not support deviant marriage.

  25. Ryan
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    Praise God!

  26. Good News
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    Correction #15 :
    “... the man-man and the woman-man union...”

  27. Stev
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    Now that's a MOM that is the only MOM in household.WTG Mrs Pitt.
    What paper was it? Like to see if they wrote a story and what?.

  28. Publius
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps OhMyWord or John Colgan can quote something from Mormon.org or LDS.org or from the LDS scriptures or even go to fairlds.org if they really want a fair and rational discussion of what Mitt believes.

    When acting as a lay minister, I am sure Mitt spoke about his faith. He has addressed his faith as an issue in the campaign, as did JFK. You just weren't listening. Show me his actual words, not words you put in his mouth.

    As for President Obama, I voted for him in 2008, but I will not vote for him in 2012. I have also changed my party registration from D to R. The Republicans are not perfect, but they will get my vote in 2012.

  29. Lefty
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    "Any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney’s opponent, Barack Hussein Obama — a man who [...] supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage."

    Amazing that the Republicans still dangle the promise of ending abortion. Mrs. Pitt won't like to hear it, but it's been forty years and I don't think they have any intention of delivering on that, ever.

  30. Eugenia
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    @OhMyWord who said "Aren't theocracies wonderful!"

    We're not living in a theocracy, nor have we ever lived under one. However, we are starting to live under moral, social, cultural anarchy, chaos and all kinds of legalized perversities.

  31. John N.
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    Glad to see their are more people like me and Publius. I am not alone. I used to be liberal and voted for the Democrats. I voted for John Kerry and for Mitt's opponent in the 2002 governers election.

    This former liberal is now conservative.

  32. Posted July 7, 2012 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    While this website is informed about the religious side of marriage, it is very uninformed about how marriage should interact with government. Marriage at its core is a contract, and once that contract has benefits given by a government, then we have the issue of same sex marriage because it has to be equal for all. So in reference to this article, you dont vote for someone because you dont like the other person, you vote for someone because their values and morals line up with your beliefs and you believe they will lead our country in the right direction. Very sad to see people of faith and traditional values blindly following a party whose values aren't any better than the other one.

  33. Randy E King
    Posted July 7, 2012 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, or Independent/Libertarian makes no difference anymore because the current President just announced to the world that a vote for him will be tied to a vote for marriage corruption; a vote for Democrat will be vote in opposition to traditional marriage and the laws of nature – in opposition to the history and traditions of these United States.

    New Obama bumper-stickers on sale now:

    “Righting the wrongs of 1776”
    Obama/Biden 2012

  34. bman
    Posted July 7, 2012 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    JC->.... this website...is very uninformed about how marriage should interact with government.

    The majority of high courts to consider the issue since 2003 have rejected a right to same-sex marriage.

    Perhaps you should tell those courts how "uninformed" they are "about how marriage should interact with government."

    Marriage at its core is a contract, and once that contract has benefits given by a government, then we have the issue of same sex marriage because it has to be equal for all.

    The law does not require unequal things to be made equal.

    Equality requires that rational laws be equally applied to all, but not that law be made irrational to achieve equality.

  35. Zack
    Posted July 7, 2012 at 11:39 am | Permalink

    I heard this very thing on the radio. I didn't hear what they said but they mentioned Brad Pitts mother and I'm pleasently suprised to find this out. I'm not entirely sure what Brad's political affiliation, he seems to be apart of the Hollywood Elite but doesn't show it often.

  36. bman
    Posted July 7, 2012 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    JC->....it has to be equal for all.

    In 1972 a gold plaque with the image of a naked man and woman was attached to the outside of the very first spacecraft to leave the solar system.

    The idea was that extra terrestrials (space aliens) could see it and understand that that human race was two sexed.

    If "equality" also required the image of two naked men, equality would have made government (NASA) act in an irrational manner.

  37. Good News
    Posted July 7, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    @King
    I like the bumper-sticker. The problem is, they might like it too!

    @bman
    That little plaque just might save us. In reminding us who we are.
    Talk about having your own message, coming right back at ya. The strange and bizarre aliens that we hoped might one day come across that simple and clear message, of who we are, turns out to be our own selves! That is one weird double take. Tell me its only science-fiction.

  38. Sean
    Posted July 7, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    Brad still supports same-sex marriage, and a woman who grew up in the time of same-sex marriages were illegal is likely not going to hold much sway over her son.

  39. Son of Adam
    Posted July 7, 2012 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    Brad grew up in a time when SS"M" was illegal as well, Sean.

  40. leehawks
    Posted July 7, 2012 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

    Jacqueline Beavers & Good News:
    Please, Please reconsider not votiing in Nov. and give Romney another glance because:
    1. Solyndra and it's blatant crony capitalism
    2. Security leaks used to pump up a narcissistic pres.
    3.

  41. Chairm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    JC plainly stated the pro-SSM view that reduces marriage to consent:

    JC said: "Marriage at its core is a contract, and once that contract has benefits given by a government, then we have the issue of same sex marriage because it has to be equal for all."

    Consent alone is insufficient. Consent is not a trump card for those two-sexed scenarios ineligible to marry. Neither is it a trump card for the rest of nonmarriage.

    That to which consent is given is the crux of the matter. In other words, what is marriage?, is the starting place rather than consent (as per the notion that reduces marriage to form over substance -- a mere agreement or contract).

    But note that RC had to point at government benefits to make the claim that such government attention must be "equal for all".

    1. Society, via government, may legitimately discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage. The marriage law and marriage policies are for marriage, not other stuff.

    2. Consent thus entails societal consent and not merely the private consent of those who show-up for a license to marry. Marriage is a public status and not simply an agreement or contract -- or blank check from government on behalf of society.

    3. RC has tripped over the facts that the key issue is not contract but that to which consent (of the participants and of society) is given. Marriage has a reality independent of the law; the law merely acknowledges that marriage is of societal concern. So start with marriage and then talk of consent and contract. It does not work the other way around.

    4. There is no gay criterion for ineligibility. No individual is tested for gayness. So the perceived that RC hopes to emphasize is different treatment of different types of relationships, rather than of individuals who show up for a license to marry. And that returns to the question, what is marriage?, rather than some hyped-up complaint about inequality.

    5. Equal treatment commands that we do not treat different things differently, arbitrarily. But it also, and as forcefully, commands that we do not arbitrarily treat different things the same. RC's reduction of marriage to a mere contract skips over this in a rush to transform equal treatment of the individual into arbitrary undifferentiated treatment of different types of relationships.

    That is, RC's reduction is a race to the lowest common denominator of marriage and non-marriage. Consent is an empty thing without that to which consent is given.

    The core meaning of marriage is 1) integration of the sexes, 2) provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole.

    Coherent. Whole. Combined.

    This core meaning is what justifies the special status accorded the union of husband and wife; it is around this core that boundaries are drawn by societies; this is that to which consent is given by society via government benefits.

    But the SSM campaign demands that society become blinded to this core meaning; and, more, it demands that society treat all who treat as intolerable all who oppose such willful blindness. Thus equal treatment is pushed to the sidelines both in terms of what marriage is and in terms of demoting the marriage idea from its preferential status to a barely tolerative status in government policy and in the marriage culture.

    Society has yet to consent to that nonsense. SSMers who seek such consent must be much more frank about the consequences of their proposed hostility -- and their proposed abolition -- of the marriage idea.

    They cannot provide sufficient cause for such abolition; they cannot provide sufficient cause for merging nonmarriage with marriage.

    No, their favoritism of the gay identity group does not suffice. Nor does their empty use of "consent" and "equality". They need to add substance to their proposed alternative to the marriage idea: they seek to replace the marriage idea with something else. But they lack the substance to make sound arguments and to sustain the special status they demand for the gay subset of nonmarriage.

  42. Chairm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    Typo correction:

    5. Equal treatment commands that we do not arbitrarily treat people differently. But it also, and as forcefully, commands that we do not arbitrarily treat people the same. RC's reduction of marriage to a mere contract skips over this in a rush to transform equal treatment of the individual into arbitrarily undifferentiated treatment of different types of relationships of people.

  43. Ash
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    Excellent post, Chairm!

  44. Posted July 8, 2012 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

    Ash:

    Don't kid yourself. Romney is still a SCINO (social-conservative-in-name-only) Republican. Living in New York — pure, unadulterated Obama territory — I have no intention to vote for Romney. Mitt is probably better than Obama. But he is no hardcore conservative in any respect.

  45. Julia Gasper
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 6:32 am | Permalink

    @ "Good News". If you can really kid yourself that there is no difference between a male-female union and a SS union your powers of self-deception and self-delusion are considerable.
    You have started to believe your own lies.
    Weight, hair-colour...what rubbish. All irrelevant. the difference is between male and female. Mating and starting a family is only possible between a male and a female, that is the pattern of nature.
    You are so far from reality you need therapy.

  46. Little Man
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    OhMyWord: What do YOU get when you die. Maggots?

  47. Little Man
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    Me too. Voted for Obama (a liar), but he won't deceive me again. He is really a guy from the street who like to talk big. Let's how soon American votes for another man who can't find his real race. That made him into a chamaleon politician. And he's the offspring of only one US citizen. In only 3 years he's got white hair (lies have a way of catching up with the liar). Same goes with Eric Holder. When America sees it has been made a fool, they came back strong and knock the liars into oblivion (that, by the way, somewhere near Hell). Look what happened to Nixon. Think again, if you thought liars can get away with it in the President's administration. It takes a long while, but sooner or later they fall. Better than a soap opera. Who needs TV?

  48. Lefty
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Little Man said:

    "Obama... is really a guy from the street who like to talk big. Let's how soon American votes for another man who can't find his real race."

    What does that mean?

  49. ForTraditionalMarriage
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    Love Brad Pitt's mother. I am a former liberal. The gay agenda is poisonous and divisive. Thank God they do not own the NOM website. Other websites websites where you post your disagreement with the LBGT lifestyle will get you band. They are vicious in their attacks.

  50. bman
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    Seems like JC has fled the scene.

  51. Fred
    Posted July 14, 2012 at 12:37 am | Permalink

    @John N

    Add me to the "liberal turned conservative" list.

    My breaking point was White liberals telling me I should support Clinton because he was an adulterer and thus "the first Black President." My father NEVER cheated on my mother, but he wasn't "really Black" according to liberals.

    Talk about condescending and racist.