The New York Times is finally looking into Romney's "gay rights" record in Massachusetts. See "Romney’s tone on gay rights is seen as shift" (New York Times, 9-8-07). Romney doesn't want this to come out:
[I]n the aftermath of the Massachusetts court decision, Mr. Romney, though aligning himself with the supporters of a constitutional amendment [banning homosexual "marriage" but establishing civil unions], did order town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some members of Log Cabin Republicans say that in doing so, he ultimately fulfilled his promise to them despite his own moral objections.
In the year prior to the Court's marriage ruling, Romney promised homosexual activists he'd "keep his head low" and do whatever the Court ordered. From the Times:
Calling Mr. Romney a flip-flopper on gay rights would be overly simplistic, Mr. Spampinato [a homosexual activist and former aide) said. But he conceded that his old boss had promised the Log Cabin members that he would not champion a fight against same-sex marriage. ...
Mitt Romney seemed comfortable as a group of gay Republicans quizzed him over breakfast one morning in 2002. Running for governor of Massachusetts, he was at a gay bar in Boston to court members of Log Cabin Republicans. Mr. Romney explained to the group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon. When the discussion turned to a court case on same-sex marriage that was then wending its way through the state’s judicial system, he said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman.
But, according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue. “I’ll keep my head low,” he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer, one participant recalled.
Romney has never been an advocate for real marriage, but in fact a facilitator for the establishment of homosexual "marriage", or its twin, "civil unions." But the Times reports,"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." No -- Romney has NOT always opposed civil unions. Our Romney Report documents that he immediately went to work with legislative leaders after the Mass. court ruling (Fall 2003) to craft a civil-unions style law (Washington Post report, 11-20-03). Then in 2004 he strong-armed conservative Republican legislators into supporting a constitutional amendment that included civil unions, while banning homosexual "marriage." From the Boston Globe(3/30/2004):
Through all the twists and shifts during the gay-marriage debate this year, there was one constant: 22 Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed every measure that would grant gay couples civil unions in the constitution. That all changed yesterday, however, when 15 of that 22-member bloc broke away at the urging of Governor Mitt Romney and voted in favor of a proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage but create Vermont-style civil unions. Those 15 members provided the margin of victory, observers from both camps said yesterday after the measure passed by just five votes. In the end, the 15 agreed that approving a measure that they viewed as highly undesirable was preferable to the possibility that nothing would be sent to the state ballot for voters to weigh in on.
Also, Romney refused to support the original proposed Massachusetts marriage amendment in 2002, absolutely defining marriage as one man and one woman, apparently now wanting to ban domestic partnerships and civil unions. Bay Windows reported at the time (3-28-02):
"Romney was unaware his family members had signed the amendment petition, said [spokesman] Fehrnstrom, and he does not support the "Protection of Marriage" amendment. "He is opposed to gay marriage, but in the case of the 'defense of marriage' amendment Mitt believes it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept."
