Sure, a person, over time can have a change-of-heart on a host of issues and still claim to be intellectually honest. Such an argument is harder to make, however, if that person happens to be courting the conservative wing of the Republican party, and seems to be embracing a new-found strictness on matters such as immigration, abortion, and homosexual marriage. Why? Because the same man, Romney, sounded a whole lot different when he was campaigning for the votes of a constituency that was a lot more liberal back in 2002.
Mitt Romney promised the group of gay Republicans that he'd "keep his head low" on the issue of gay marriage. He'd adhere to whatever the state court decided on the matter. Then, after Romney was elected and the Massachusetts supreme court later handed down its verdict legalizing same-sex marriage, Mitt promptly broke his word and began calling for a constitutional amendment that would ban the unions.
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.
I guess if you are really conservative, you can console yourself with the notion that Romney finally saw the light. But what evidence do you have the Mitt won't turn around and do to you what he did to those log cabin Republicans at the bar.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 3)
1. Where are these 180 degree turns? This spin and electioneering is real old. Even in 1996, Mitt's values match the values he hold today.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/03/mitt_romney_is.html
In 1994, same sex marriage was not even considered/identified as something being sought by gays and lesbians. Supporting equality for gays and lesbians in 1994 thus did not also mean support for same sex marriages. Years later when same sex marriage started to become an issued, Mitt Romney has always consisteny opposed it. No flip flop here, just people trying to distort the facts in an attempt to make up a flip flop.
jimrob at 10:45AM on Sep 8th 2007
2. Ditto to jimrob. Romney has consistently opposed gay marriage, and you will not be able to find information that proves otherwise. This example proves nothing except that the author has a vibrant imagination that can draw correlations where none exist.
janey at 11:29AM on Sep 8th 2007
3. Janey and Jimrob,
First off, thanks for posting. I appreciate your point of view, but I do think that telling log cabin republicans that he would follow whatever the court of Mass. decided, then do otherwise, is a reversal.
david knowles at 11:13AM on Sep 8th 2007
4. Romney has flip-flopped on every issue imaginable. The American people want someone who stands firm on what they believe in.
for political commentary & blogs, visit:
http://www.politidose.com/
Patrick at 11:44AM on Sep 8th 2007
5. --snip--
He'd adhere to whatever the state court decided on the matter.
--snip--
Right, are you going to play Dan Rather and whip out a Killian document to prove it because Romney did not say it? In fact, you happened to miss the qoute in the article: "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."
When people elect a conservative, do they not expect his record to match personal ads that he took out in 1996? Romney's record and his core believes are consistent. He fought harder for his values in a left leaning state than those in red states.
jimrob at 12:01PM on Sep 8th 2007
6. Jimrob,
I wonder, since you seem to have read the Times article, what you made of the following quote:
"If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can, and will," Mitt Romney 1994.
david knowles at 12:11PM on Sep 8th 2007
7. David,
I like the qoute. Looking over Mitt's ethical framework, it fits with a well educated and experienced Baker scholar and HLS graduate. What does that have to do with marriage? In fact, read through, the online edition of The New Republic, some supporting democrates do not support gay marriage. Are they flip-floppers? No.
Those motivated to support another candidate, or to sell an online click can take any candidate a construct a "flip-flop". You have seen the train wreak of message of Fred Thompson or you have noticed Ron Paul is no longer a Libertarian?
jimrob at 12:36PM on Sep 8th 2007
8. I take Romney's statement of supporting equality for gays and lesbians as distinct from the issue of gay marriage. Believing the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman means that gays will themselves elect not to enter into marriage. Union of two men or two women is an entirely different matter and equivocating on the definition of marriage doesn't oblige Romney or anyone else to support it as a "right".
I imagine that Romney currently still believes in the importance of equality for gays as he always has. This is easy for me to imagine, as it is my own view as a gay man who supports Romney.
-L- at 12:43PM on Sep 8th 2007
9. # 8 - L
Give me a break. Romney absolutely supported gay rights 100% as governor of Massachusetts.
If you truly believe Mr. Romney is going to support gay rights on the campaign trail as a Republican candidate, then I have a bridge over the Mississippi I'd like to sell you.
David S. at 1:18PM on Sep 8th 2007
10. Can you tell me how Romney wouldn't support gay rights (other than the equivocation of gay marriage people are so fond of)? I have no problem with people disagreeing with his position, but questioning his integrity (without even understanding his position) is really irritating.
-L- at 1:35PM on Sep 8th 2007
11. I take Romney's statement of supporting equality for gays and lesbians as distinct from the issue of gay marriage. Believing the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman means that gays will themselves elect not to enter into marriage. Union of two men or two women is an entirely different matter and equivocating on the definition of marriage doesn't oblige Romney or anyone else to support it as a "right".
I imagine that Romney currently still believes in the importance of equality for gays as he always has. This is easy for me to imagine, as it is my own view as a gay man who supports Romney.
-L- at 1:35PM on Sep 8th 2007
12. What I am saying - L - is it is embarassing watching this man (Romney) fall all over himself trying to court the conservative vote. Being governor of liberal Massachusetts is one thing, trying to win over conservative parts of the country is another. I am not talking about gay marriage, L - just fundamental gay rights.
You cannot seriously beleive any REPUBLICAN candidate for president is going to speak out on their support for gay rights.
David Knowles is correct - why would anyone trust this man? Did you witness his treatment of Sen. Larry Craig after his "incident?" I can understand wanting to distance yourself from that scandal, but Romney to me was hateful. He all but called the guy a freakin pervert on national TV. And of course he compared him to Bill Clinton - priceless.
David S. at 1:53PM on Sep 8th 2007
13. Nothing negative about Mitt Romney he is bright and intelligent about the rules of laws.We can all be nice to each other as Christians and as a civilize world but there is always a boudry line in every situation and relationship.I have known and be friends with gays and respect them as individuals just like myself but I disagree with them being married because of the definition and the intention of the word marriage as between a man and a woman.When a man and a woman felt in love with each other they will get marry to fullfill the rest of what is involved in their relationship as now a husband and wife.Thats include sexual relationship and the possibility of having children and then become a father and a mother.Because their sexual organs are appropriate for each other they have all the claim and right to marriage whereas a man and a man or a woman and a woman there sexual organs are the same in that they cannot produce children and cannot be call a husband and husband or wife and wife it's gotta be the other way around.Feelings for each other as they claim cannot remove their physical form of who they really are and the truth about themselves.They can use another word if they so desire but definitely not marriage.
KaM at 3:51PM on Sep 8th 2007
14. I think some people still can't get it that Mitt Romney only hate the sin but not the sinner.But the sinner also should have known better than acting like that in the open.Many people are not happy with the Senators act if it ever proven happen not just Mr Romney but since he was involved with the candidates campaign who wouldn't be disappointed especially you put your trust in such person.This is exactly why such candidate as Mr Romney deserve the trust of the American people to be their next moral President.Thank God for Mitt Romney.
KaM at 11:59PM on Sep 9th 2007
15. What nobody has mentioned, because it's not politically correct to say it, is that Mitt Romney is a Mormon. If he is elected president, not only will gay marriage be unconstitutional, but so will masturbation, premarital sex among heterosexuals, mini-skirts and cleavage. How could anyone trust a man whose judgment tells him that the Book of Mormon is divine revelation?
Christine at 4:14PM on Sep 8th 2007