Buy at Amazon

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Boston Globe's Deception: Romney HAS NOT FLIPPED-FLOPPED on gay-rights issues.

Following up on Mike's response to the NYTimes piece on Romney's gay rights record, I thought I'd contribute my opinion in response to a similar piece published yesterday in the Boston Globe. They initially linked to the actual statments made by Romney in the said interview, but that link is gone . . . so here it is.

Bottom line . . . Romney has always been opposed to gay marriage and civil unions and he has always been against discrimination (and therefore "unequal or lesser rights") of gays and lesbians. Those are the facts, no matter how anyone else tries to paint them. These pieces take Romney's statements wildly out of context and try to get the reader to believe that there is no room for someone to be against sexual-orientateion discrimination and in favor of preserving the traditional family unit.

BOSTON --Gov. Mitt Romney's beliefs on gay issues are under scrutiny after the re-emergence of a letter he wrote during his 1994 run for U.S. Senate in which he promised a gay Republicans group he would be a stronger advocate for gays than Sen. Edward Kennedy.

One paragraph and one lie already . . . Romney never promised to be "a stronger advocate for gays" than Teddy . . . he promised to be a more effective leader and a more respectable voice against gay-discrimination. Romney IS an effective leader and he made some good points about Romney, as a Republican, could be a more effective voice among possible Senate colleagues than Teddy on these issues.

I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party and I would be a voice in the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts.

SEE, IT'S ALL ABOUT ROMNEY BEING ANTI-DISCRIMINATION . . . NOT about him wanting to grant special rights and priviledges to gays.

Romney even ended his interview:

I believe that while I would further the efforts Ted Kennedy has led, I would also lead the country in new and far more positive ways in taxing and spending, welfare reform, criminal justice and education. That's why I believe many gay and lesbian individuals will support my candidacy and do support my candidacy.

Romney wasn't trying to be more "pro-gay" than Kennedy, and he realized that it was these other issues would draw some gay voters to him.


A follow-up piece from today's Globe continued the deception:

The Times story follows a Globe story published yesterday that reported that Romney told a Boston-area gay newspaper in 1994 that legalizing gay marriage should be left up to individual states, contrasting with his more recent position that marriage should only occur between men and women and his support of a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

What Romney actually said:

On whether he supported the civil marriage rights of same-sex couples:

“I line up with Gov. Weld on that, and it’s a state issue as you know — the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction. My understanding is that he has looked at the issue and concluded that certain benefits and privileges should be offered to gay couples. But he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position.

On whether he’d want more studies done on the marriage issue:

That will occur at the state level. I’ll let the governor in Massachusetts, and the governors of others states, as well, study it, evaluate it, discuss the alternatives with psychologists and social workers and health care specialist and so forth to gather information and consider it in a very reasoned way. I have confidence the governor will take the right action.”

So, Romney made a statement of fact, that states DID AND DO decide marriage laws (the laws being proposed/ratified by the executive and/or legislative branches). Nowhere did he state his opinion on whether or not it SHOULD be a state's right's issue (as the Globe falsely stated). I believe that, down deep, Romney wishes this issue could have remained just a states issue . . . however, when activist judges started deciding to make up laws (instead of interpreting them) a new course of action was needed to protect the institution of marriage and the children it produces . . . Romney has picked up the gauntlet in this cause and been a stalwart in defending marriage and fighting against activist judges.


I got a kick out of this last paragraph in today's follow-up article:

In a recent posting titled "The Mitt Romney deception" that touches on Romney's gay rights positions, local conservative activist Brian Camenker wrote: "Despite recent statements across the country by Governor Mitt Romney claiming he's pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, a broad investigation of his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years indicates that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a liberal."

The "Mitt Romney Deception" is really entertaining--a production of MassResistance . . . a group that has long called Romney "The Father of Gay Marriage." I've blogged on that pitiful piece here. It bases most of it's content on statements/headlines from liberal media sources (Boston Globe, Bay Windows, Boston Phoenix). I just think it's SCARY when MassResistance (ultra right wingers) and the Boston Globe (out in left field) our QUOTING EACHOTHER as authoritative sources. I guess when it comes to being "anti-Romney" they've both got it down pretty good.


Anonymous said...


Hi Jeff...been a while.

You wrote Dec. 9th: "Romney, as of yet, has not 'flip-flopped' on any gay-rights issues."

That wasn't entirely true, given that he had publicly opposed the state marriage amendment proposed before the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized so-called homosexual "marriage" in 2003, then shortly thereafter repositioned himself as the "champion" of the same after they ruled.

His failure to flip-flop on the rest of his pro-homosexual agenda record was precisely the problem, of course.

As of your post Dec. 9th, he had not flip-flopped on his opposition to the Boy Scouts' ban on homosexual adults or teens or his endorsement of Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation, tax-financed same-sex benefits, "domestic partner" legislation, or "gays in the military."

But you only had to wait six days -- in his Dec. 15th National Review interview -- for Mitt to announce that he'd reversed his views on the Kennedy legislation and open homosexual behavior in the U.S. military.

Of course, if his views on those issues were sincere, he'd have announced the latest flip-flop months and months ago to stop the criticism of his record; instead, he waited until he was forced to do so by the knowledge that his previous record could no longer be successfully covered up or spun.

Mitt's in a box of his own making: he's gonna be criticized if he does flip-flop, and criticized if he doesn't. But since he's already being criticized for flipping on abortion, "gay rights" legislation, and "gays in the military," he may as well flop and come on over on the other elements of the homosexual agenda he's previously endorsed.

Won't make his core values or convictions any more credible, but at least a full reversal will leave him saying the right things for public consumption in the public policy arena.

On a totally unrelated note, thanks for your obviously successful lobbying for changes to the BCS eligibility rules. As a result of your fine work, my Boise State grad wife and I are looking forward to flying to Phoenix end of the month to watch the BSU Broncos play Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl.

I remember pulling for your alma mater way back when they won the national championship against Nebraska too. Played golf some time later with the backup QB (can't remember his name) who came in when Bosco got hurt.

Anonymous said...

Romney's '94 remarks on same-sex marriage could haunt him
By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | December 8, 2006
Comments Governor Mitt Romney made during his 1994 Senate bid, in which he said the gay and lesbian community "needs more support from the Republican Party," resurfaced yesterday, posing a potential hurdle as he appeals to conservatives for a probable presidential campaign.
Bay Windows, the Boston-based gay and lesbian newspaper, republished excerpts from an August 1994 interview the paper did with Romney during his campaign against Senator Edward M. Kennedy. In the interview, Romney said it should be up to states to decide whether to allow same-sex marriage and he criticized Republican "extremists" who imposed their positions on the party.
"People of integrity don't force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have," Romney is quoted as saying.
More recently, Romney's words and deeds have sent a very different message.
In 2005, Romney came under fire for saying dismissively to a South Carolina Republican audience that some gay and lesbian couples "are actually having children born to them."
Romney has been an outspoken proponent of a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Last spring, he wrote a letter to Senate majority leader Bill Frist urging its passage.
"In order to protect the institution of marriage, we must prevent it from being redefined by judges like those here in Massachusetts," Romney wrote of the amendment, which has not passed. Same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts after a 2003 decision by the Supreme Judicial Court.
One of several Republicans to oppose the federal amendment was Arizona Senator John McCain, who is likely to be one of Romney's chief rivals in 2008. Romney, in an interview last month with the DC Examiner, accused McCain of being "disingenuous" on same-sex marriage, because McCain says he's against it but believes states should decide the issue.
In Massachusetts, Romney has been one of the most aggressive backers of a proposed gay-marriage ban aimed for the 2008 ballot. He filed a suit with the SJC last month to force it onto the ballot.
Asked about Romney's remarks in 1994, his communications director, Eric Fehrnstrom, said in an e-mail statement: "Governor Romney believes Americans should be respectful of all people. What he opposes are the efforts by activist judges who seek to redefine the longstanding institution of marriage being between a man and a woman."
Romney did express opposition to gay marriage in the 1994 interview, but his overall tone then was notably different from his tone today.
In the interview, Romney was quoted saying that when Kennedy speaks on gay rights, he's viewed as a liberal "extremist." But Romney said when he speaks about gay rights he's seen as "a centrist and a moderate."
Romney's softer tone on gay and lesbian issues in the past could be a problem among hard-core social conservatives in the key primary state of New Hampshire, said Daniel Itse of Fremont, N.H., a state representative and activist against same-sex marriage.
"The question is, how trustworthy is [Romney] in the long term, especially if you have other candidates who have been stalwarts on the issue all along?" Itse said.
Romney stands to face national media scrutiny of his positions on gay and lesbian issues. The NBC show "Meet the Press" has sought information about what Romney has said about those issues, Bay Windows said.
Scott Helman can be reached at

Carol McKinley said...

Prolife Catholics who have worked to protect unborn children and the sanctity of their own children in public education are preparing reports which they are sending around the national prolife network.

You can find copies of the report throughout the internet now - here are two links.

I can tell you that the bigger issue for Catholic prolifers in Massachusetts is certainly not the fact that he has changed positions. (We call that conversion, and most of us have been through it on various things.)

The fact of the matter is, at the very time we would read his statements that he had changed positions,that he understood the value of life from the moment of conception, that he understood that Catholics were being forced to kill an unborn child if he did not exempt us under religious protections afforded to us by law regarding passing out abortifacients at hospitals and pharmacies - he went ahead and denied us our civil and constitutional rights of protection. Illicitly, he sided with Planned Parenthood and directed that we be forced.
During his tenure, he has repeatedly undermined parents who objected to what his own Department of Education was forcing upon children as righteous sexual practices - all the while, claiming “he” had a conversion. I can assure you that the sexual concepts he endorsed while preserving the solitude of the sanctity for himself, we found unhelpful and in fact, disingenuous.

Jeremy Pierce said...

A charitable interpretation of Romney on states and gay marriage is as follows. State legislatures should decide the issue. The right policy is not to have gay marriage, but the ideal way for it to be implemented is by state legislatures. It shouldn't ideally be written into the state constitution, because it's a matter of legislation and not fundamental rights. But if judges declare it already to be part of a constitution, the only way to undo that and return it to the legislature is for the legislature to amend the constitution. Since it's always a bad idea to interpret people in the least charitable way when there's a perfectly consistent position that's much more charitable, I think it's grossly immoral that anyone would call him a flip-flopper on this issue.