Mr. Romney bristles when he is accused of shifting on the issue, as he has on abortion, pointing out that he has been consistent in personally opposing both marriage and civil unions between people of the same sex.Given what Romney says now, it is interesting that he forgets his support for the Massachusetts Constitutional Amendment in March 2004 which defined marriage as "a union of one man and one woman" AND creates civil unions which would be the same as marriage but under a different name:
Many House Republicans followed Romney's urging to support the measure in order to get something on the ballot, and they provided the crucial margin on the final tally. Senator Jarrett T. Barrios, a Cambridge Democrat, said that means Romney personally can be held responsible for the amendment, even though he has come out against civil unions.
So once again, Romney, instead of taking a stance for "one man/one woman marriage" and against civil unions supported the creation of civil unions because it was better than nothing. There was an interesting section in the NY Times article that struck me:
Mr. Romney’s eldest son, Tagg, 37, says that back in the early 1990s, he told his father privately that he was thinking about becoming a Democrat.
His father sat him down to dissuade him, taking him through the differences between Republicans and Democrats. Tagg Romney says he does not remember his father’s talking about abortion, another issue that has troubled his candidacy, but he does remember being warned that Democrats would lead the country toward same-sex marriage.
Take heed social conservatives! Romney was more concerned about same sex marriage, which hadn't even occurred yet than he was about abortions which were happening for over 2 decades. Was anyone even thinking about same-sex marriage in the early 90"s (other than Romney?)
There also that inconsistent notion of Romney that same-sex marriage is worst than abortion otherwise why would he be for a federal constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages but not to ban abortions?
HT to Pam for alerting us on this update
1 comment:
You can quote me on this one.
When we were all fighting for NO compromise (meaning civil unions) I had the word of Patrick Guerriero, who was the president of Log Cabins and Robert Beal (closeted gay and financial advisor to Mitt) that they were all working on Mitt and Mitt would have signed onto civil unions if we (the LGBT) would back off.
That whole Mitt/compromise of our rights was being pushed by the Log Cabins. And no, no one else was for the civil union trick in the LGBT community then. The LCR wanted the glory and was trying to claim the victory in a major sell out to the LGBT.
Post a Comment