Mitt Romney backpedals on previous gay rights position
June 7, 2006 by Conservative Culture
Filed under General, Marriage Expansion
Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney (profiled here in an earlier post) is trying to backpedal on his earlier public support for gay rights. A few days ago, he released a letter encouraging U.S. Senators to vote in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. This letter was released after enough Senators had committed to vote against the amendment to guarantee that it would not pass. (John McCain, profiled here, is joining three other Republican Senators voting against it.)
Why did he do it? As other commentators recognize, he is positioning himself for the 2008 Presidential Race. His goal is not to succeed in baning gay marriage but rather to pick up support in an election year.
If conservatives are willing to support for someone who supports gay rights when running in a blue state but shortly thereafter changes to a pro-traditional marriage position when eyeing national office, then we can settle for Mitt Romney. But if we seek someone who will actually succeed in promoting conservative policies, then we will have to look elsewhere.
Jeff Fuller on Wed, 7th Jun 2006 11:30 am
This unwaranted Romney-Bashing by you is becoming wearisome.
Maggie Gallager, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and prominent national figure on this vital issue said nearly two years ago the following:
???Mitt Romney is a brave man. While the GOP glitterocracy attended the first gay wedding of one of their own, Gov. Romney was in Washington, D.C., making the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gallagher200406250924.asp
Romney has ALWAYS been strong against Gay Marriage. In fact . . . if this issue is important enough to conservatives, they should throw their support behind Romney because he has the ability to lead on this issue more convincingly than any other GOP hopeful!
See this link for my take on the issue
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2006/06/romney-stands-firmly-in-support-of.html
Jeff Fuller on Wed, 7th Jun 2006 12:41 pm
Also, your recommendation from a previous entry about Romney stated: “This Massachusetts Mormon is a completely unacceptable option for conservatives.” Daniel Mount May 23, 2006
I think this is a very revealing statement and I hope that people who read your blog will realize that there is at least some element of “Religious Bigotry” in play here. If you feel a certain way, then fine. But say it that way and change your blog to be religious in nature and not political.
Daniel J. Mount on Wed, 7th Jun 2006 1:29 pm
In the previous comment, you accused me of religious bigotry. That is extreme. While I admit to being reluctant to vote for a Mormon. But I am far more reluctant to vote for a wishy-washy RINO.
In 1994, Romney promised the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans to “provide more effective leadership” than Ted Kennedy ???as we seek to establish full equality for America???s gay and lesbian citizens.”
To the best of my knowledge, Romney has supported and still supports domestic parnership benefits for sodomites. He has also made a point of supporting marriage amendments that permit gay civil unions to remain legal. His stance on this issue alone should be sufficient to disqualify him from all consideration as the social-issue voters’ favorite candidate.
The fact that he sent this letter after it was common knowledge that the amendment could not pass suggests to me that he will follow the same approach that Bush and the present GOP leadership have taken. They only raise the issue in an election year, and don’t put the effort into the bill necessary for it to pass.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that Romney is worse than Bush on this issue. I’m just saying that this type of RINO leadership is completely unacceptable to conservatives.
Daniel J. Mount on Wed, 7th Jun 2006 1:32 pm
Jeff,
In the interests of full disclosure, are you a Mormon?
For full disclosure myself: I am not a Mormon. I am a nondenominational Protestant who views the Mormons as a cult.
Daniel J. Mount
Jeff Fuller on Wed, 7th Jun 2006 5:07 pm
Daniel,
First off . . . Romney is against civil unions. Just because you keep repeating the same accusations, it doesn’t make your mis-information any more accurate.
And Romney IS NOT NOW JUST COMING OUT on this issue!!! He’s been leading the front and an outspoken critic of Gay Marriage from day one. (Are you reading my responses? . . . That Maggie Gallagher article above is from June 2004 . . . not an election year for Romney) To keep repeating this is inaccurate and dishonest.
I am a Mormon and I’m proud to be so. I’m sorry that you feel so negatively about my beliefs, but you’re entitled to them. However, don’t think that your opinions on Romney are not tainted with your underlying distrust that he’s a “cult” follower who will go wacko or something. That’s what I want your readers to realize. Romney’s beliefs have not impaired his ability to lead venture capital companies, the SLC Olympics, or the state of Mass. . . . why would they suddenly impair him as President?
Mitt’s supporters, however, are diverse and will become more so. He is garnering great support among evangelical christians and other Protestants/Catholics nationwide. Sure the Mormon community is high on Mitt now, because we already know him and have been impressed with his acheivements. This is not “homer”ism . . . I did not support Hatch one iota (I disagreed with many of his policies . . . especially the food and vit supplement bill he pushed through). I want the candidate who can push forward social and fiscal policy most important to me, here and abroad. Mitt Romney is the one who could best do this.
I predict your faith will be shaken when Romney and Huckabee are on the same GOP ticket for the general election . . . how do you vote then (I mean if Romney is “an unacceptable alternative” . . . then I guess Clinton is much better?
Daniel J. Mount on Thu, 8th Jun 2006 4:59 am
Jeff,
I begin to think that I understand your points a little better. However, it remains of significant concern to me that in 1994 Romney promised the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans to ???provide more effective leadership??? than Ted Kennedy ???as we seek to establish full equality for America???s gay and lesbian citizens.??? It also remains of concern that in his Gubernatorial race he stated that he expected to have gays on his cabinet.
If he has been an opponent of gay rights from day one, either (a) we have a differing view of “day one” or (b) he opposed gay rights, flipped for his races for Senate and Governor, then is in the process of flipping again when running for national office.
If I saw hard evidence that Romney is against civil unions, I would believe it. While it does not appear to line up with what he has done in the past (i.e., trying to find a compromise marriage bill that prohibited gay marriage but permitted gay civil unions), if I had good, solid evidence I would change my mind. However, I would maintain that this was a reversal of his previous position, unless I had good evidence to believe otherwise.
Also, just because one person wrote an article stating that he defended marriage does not necessarily make that person’s views right. There are probably some people out there who think Ted Kennedy defends marriage. Now if Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, Dr. Dobson, and other national names go on record stating that (a) Romney has always defended traditional marriage and (b) Romney has never supported gay civil unions, then I will look at the evidence they present and reconsider.
In summary, I’m not backing down on my contention that Romney has been a big supporter of abortion and of gay rights in the past. His changes on the position appear to me to be somewhat less than convincing. Let me clarify: I think he might actually believe that abortion is wrong, but I doubt that as President he would do anything major to end it. I think he might presently oppose gay marriage, but I doubt he’d make an amendment his #1 priority and spend his political capital until he won the fight. Somebody who would do those things is the type of person I’m looking for, and to the best I have seen so far, he is not that type of conservative.
Would I support a Romney-Huckabee ticket? Very reluctantly if at all. Would I support a Huckabee-Romney ticket? Somewhat less reluctantly, but it’s still not a guarantee.
In case you wondered how I suspected you were a Mormon: I only referred to Romney’s faith once. If that was enough to label me a “religious bigot,” I started wondering things. After all, if everyone who thinks Romney is a RINO and happens to mention his religious affiliation in passing is a religious bigot, then this will be a nasty campaign.
Jeff Fuller on Sat, 10th Jun 2006 9:55 pm
Daniel,
Not to get too techical . . . but I don’t think I ever called you a “religious bigot” outright. I raised the suspicion that “at least some element of ???Religious Bigotry??? (might be) in play.” I mention this because I try to avoid personal attacks in political or religious discussions. Re-reading it later, I’m sorry if it came off that way. I agree that there is no room for this kind of bickering on these issues . . . though the campaign will get ugly, no matter what and who is in it (hey, it’s politics!)
Romney has been against civil unions and ran on that platform in 2002 (see http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/09/10/healey_backs_civil_unions?mode=PF) He has not been opposed too “domestic benefits” (like being able to get into an ICU when your “partner” is dying . . .) but has not really been out championing this cause.
Romney (and most Americans by the way) does believe in EQUALITY for all American citizens irrespective of there color, creed, orientation sexual orientation. Unfortuantely, the quote from Romney 12 yrs ago is good old “political speak” that makes a group feel “listened to” while technically he is just gauranteeing to support their basic rights of citizenship that are sometimes infringed upon. Again, he has not been on the “warpath” championing “Gay rights” in the past nor will he be in the future.
Trust me . . . a solid Mormon (and I believe that Romney is one) will be strongly on the right side of abortion and homosexual issues when it comes down to “crunch time” (hey, even Harry Reid was a pretty conservative Democrat before becoming minority leader–he still has a pro-life voting record at 29% by NARAL). Is Romney’s primary platform issue going to be that Roe v. Wade should be overturned? No. But neither will any serious frontrunner on this “political landmind” issue. I think that his view of “states rights” on abortion will be the most effective in the short term and will save millions of needless murders until Roe v. Wade can be tackled more permanently.
I just think it’s funny to read the Boston press and gay/pro-abortion groups bashing Romney for his “closeminded stances/actions” and then read blogs like yours and others where Romney is painted as “all cozy” with these groups on these issues. The guy can’t get a break from either side!
Again, sorry if you thought I was calling you a “bigot” . . . that would have been very biggotted of me to do!
Daniel J. Mount on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 6:13 am
I fully accept your apologies. While I understand that you probably did not intend to say that, that is just the way it came off sounding to me.
“States-rights” on abortion would be fine with me if and only if the issue was returned to the states. Right now, states could not ban it if they wanted to, because of our Supreme Court.
I think we have come closer to understanding each other’s positions. We are both acknowledging that Romney made the same sets of comments; your position is that I am reading more into them than the comments merit, while you know my position.
Believe me, I am not out to bash Romney. My ultimate goal is to support a person for the Presidency who I can be confident will appoint the remaining judges needed to get a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. I don’t think Romney will make a solid promise to only appoint pro-lifers, but if he did do that, I can promise you that I would seriously reconsider my present opposition.
Jeff Fuller on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 10:03 pm
Honestly, I believe that Romney has been “out of his element” as a Massachusetts politician. I believe that he has been conflicted by having a mother who was pro-abortion and having a dear family friend who died of a back-ally illegal abortion while still being a religious man and leader (has served as a Bishop and Stake PResident in the LDS church in the past and is open about the fact that he has personally counselled women against having abortions). I believe he will appoint strong strict constructionist judges though I doubt he, or any frontrunner presidential candidate, will apply a “litmus test” on the abortion issue.
Daniel J. Mount on Wed, 14th Jun 2006 5:08 am
Thank you for this explanation. I appreciate your further explanation of his background, and I also appreciate the fact that he has personally counselled women against abortion.
“Litmus test” is an emotionally charged political term, and I am somewhat uncomfortable with using it in this way. But we do, and that’s all right.
That having been said, we are possibly one vote away from overturning Roe v. Wade and other judicial overreaches. Not that I expect the courts to go the other way, but if they at least send the issue back to the states it’s a huge step forward.
Do you think it conceivably possible that if Romney is elected President and is faced with an opening, he would nominate someone who was pro-choice? If that were possible, abortion would remain legal for decades more, no matter what his private views on the issue were.
You’re right about other frontrunners. I don’t trust McCain, Allen, or Giuliani any more in this regard than I trust Romney. That’s why I’m hoping for a dark horse like Huckabee or possibly Brownback to carry the day.
Jay Bryner on Fri, 22nd Sep 2006 2:15 pm
I’m totally in favor of a Romney presidency. Mostly because from what I can tell, Romney is the most competent, legitimate, articulate candidate out there. I can’t think of any other American politician since Reagan that could go head to head with Bill Clinton in terms of intellectual muscle, and personal charisma. That combined with Romney’s management skills, his integrity and track record in Massachusets (I’m talking about taking a huge deficit to surplus without raising taxes) makes him the obvious choice for the GOP.
mary on Tue, 24th Jul 2007 11:55 pm
Romney flip flop which way will he go now No thank you there are very articulater speakers out there. HE IS A JOKE AND A FLIP FLOPPER GET IT FLIP FLOPPER I”M not going to be dumb enough to belive his garbage.
Free America on Sat, 8th Sep 2007 1:43 am
To much hot air in Religion. Prove to me that Jesus even existed. Lets go on a religious crusade and make believe that Jesus wants us to kill for religious differences. Their is nothing wrong with gay marriage, if you think their is, then I hope your children turn out to be gay. Maybe people should start discriminating against people for being DSL, and participating in a cult. Now I know that thats not true, but please American’s lighten up. Nobody wants to live a life in the closet, feeling discriminated against their whole life. Gay marriage isn’t even one of the biggest issues facing America today. How about investigation the Federal Reserve Bank, the CFR, the IRS, or reading the 9/11 commission report for starters. Wake up America stop behaving like sheep.