By Peter J. Smith
See Part 1 of this report here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07050711.html
UNITED STATES, May 9, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney campaigns for the Republican Presidential nomination, he is striving to convince the party’s conservative base that he will make an effective pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-family President.
However as Romney touts his pro-family credentials and conversion story, conservatives are paying increased heed to the man who would be President, examining his actions before, during, after the Goodridge decision when same-sex “marriage” was implemented in Massachusetts.
Until a few years ago, Mitt Romney had a long history of dedicated support for the homosexual agenda. As far back as his 1994 Senate race, Romney told the Log Cabin Republicans “as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent [Sen. Ted Kennedy].”
Running for Massachusetts governor in 2002, Romney embraced a pro-homosexual rights platform, opposing same-sex “marriage”, but advocating domestic partnership status for homosexual couples and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
Romney opposed a 2002 Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting same-sex “marriage”, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits, which his wife, son, and his daughter-in-law signed according to the Boston Globe.
“Mitt did not know they signed it, and Mitt does not support it,” Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom told the Globe then. “As far as Mitt is concerned, it goes farther than current law, and therefore it’s unnecessary.”
Now Romney has made a dramatic turnaround, and according to the pro-Romney group “Evangelicals for Mitt”, he “opposes adding sexual orientation to federal employment nondiscrimination laws, and has been one of the nation’s foremost advocates for traditional marriage” and supports the Federal Marriage Amendment.
At the 2004 Republican National Convention, Gov. Romney told Republicans gathered, “We step forward by expressing tolerance and respect for all God’s children, regardless of their differences and choices. At the same time, because every child deserves a mother and a father, we step forward by recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
Romney Administration and the Homosexual Agenda
Romney has faced criticism from conservatives for his executive order mandating marriage licenses be changed to reflect the Supreme Judicial Court’s Goodridge ruling – without the legislature changing any marriage statute – and subsequent ordering Justices of the Peace to carry out same-sex “marriages” despite their consciences.
Although Romney says he experienced a conversion on “gay” rights, throughout his tenure, the Romney administration did not reflect his evolved position and would continue in general to support aggressively the homosexual agenda with some exceptions.
Two days before town clerks began issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses, Romney issued a proclamation that May 15, 2004 would be “Gay/Straight Youth Pride Day” and activities sponsored by the “Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth” included a parade, prominent homosexual activists, and other activities such as a homosexual “prom.”
Romney’s Dept. of Education sponsored homosexual propaganda in public schools, publishing “10 Easy Steps to Starting a GSA [Gay/Straight Alliance]” and worked with homosexual groups like the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which sponsors the pro-homosexual “Day of Silence” every year.
Romney eventually twice vetoed money to shut down the Governor’s Commission of Gay and Lesbian Youth – and was overridden by the legislature. However when Romney announced he would dissolve the homosexual propaganda machine and incorporate it into an overall youth commission, he backed down mere hours later. Homosexual activists credited it as their victory telling the Boston Globe they bombarded Romney with “outrage.”
Catholic Charities of Boston and Same-sex Adoptions
Romney did however support Catholic Charities of Boston in its decision to prohibit homosexual adoptions, which became illegal under Massachusetts sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws. Just four days after Catholic Charities of Boston announced March 10 it would no longer provide adoptions because it would be forced to place children with homosexual couples, the Governor filled a bill to allow adoptive services to provide “authorize religious organizations to provide adoption services consistent with their beliefs by creating an exemption from the state’s nondiscrimination laws.”
‘‘I know that there will be some gay couples who will say that this could be discriminatory against us,” Romney was reported as saying at a press conference at the Westin Copley Place hotel. ‘‘Except that there are many, many other agencies that can meet the needs of those gay couples, and I recognize that they have a legitimate interest in being able to receive adoptive services.”
Romney denied he had authority to grant a unilateral exception as governor, although the Department of Early Education, which regulates adoption agencies, announced in April 2006 the agency wouldn’t take action against Catholic adoption organizations in Worcester, Fall River and Springfield which refused to consider homosexuals on religious grounds until the legislature decided on Romney’s exception bill.
Romney’s statement that homosexuals have a “legitimate interest” in adoptions, however, was greeted in the Boston press with cynicism and derision, because Romney had been campaigning among Republicans at the time stressing the right of children to have “a mother and a father.”
Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, All Counterfeit Marriage
“From day one I’ve opposed the move for same-sex marriage and its equivalent, civil unions.” Although Romney, has opposed same-sex “marriage”, his repeated statements about his support for civil unions is not entirely accurate.
Romney did in fact previously support the idea of civil unions under the name of domestic partnerships to protect “non-traditional couples”. Concerned Women for America’s Matt Barber told LifeSiteNews.com that domestic partnerships in fact are civil unions, just worded differently.
“They provide all the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage, just in order to appease people who would oppose homosexual marriage, they have removed the word ‘marriage’ and have redefined it as domestic partnerships, civil unions” Barber told LifeSiteNews.com. “They’re all counterfeit marriage.”
Romney initially worked with legislators to promote a marriage amendment with a civil unions provision, the Travaglini-Lees amendment. He convinced a group of Republicans to sign on board despite their objections to civil unions.
Romney later explained the apparent contradictions to the Boston Globe after he drew intense criticism on both sides of the marriage debate. “I am only supporting civil unions if gay marriage is the alternative,” he said back in 2005.
After the amendment failed, Romney later supported the VoteOnMarriage initiative, which reaffirms traditional marriage but says nothing about prohibiting civil unions/domestic partnerships. He successfully forced the legislature to allow the constitutional amendment to be placed on the ballot for 2008, after legislators attempted to stop it by a procedural move.
Romney and His Record on Pro-Family Pro-Life Appointments
Yet, for conservatives looking for a President to place pro-family, pro-life judges on the US Supreme Court and on the lower federal courts, Romney’s appointment trend may be perhaps the most disturbing part of his presidential résumé.
Back in June 22, 2004 Romney told the US Senate the “real threat to the States is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage.”
However, when it came to appointing judges, the Boston Globe discovered Romney “has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents—including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights.”
One such judge, Stephen Abany, appointed by Romney as a district judge, is a member of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Bar Association, which Abany described as “dedicated to ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision on marriage equality is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated.”
Before leaving the governorship, Romney also left open a large number of vacancies which could have been filled by pro-life/pro-family judges, who would uphold the law and the state constitution. Instead they were left for pro-abortion/pro-homosexual rights Gov. Deval Patrick to fill.
Conclusion
While former Gov. Mitt Romney may have made a personal ideological turnaround, many conservatives remain unconvinced, since his record in Massachusetts does not show that a pro-life/pro-family administration or a consistent articulation of pro-life/pro-family values in and out of Massachusetts. His campaign has tried hard to rectify the ideological disconnects between Romney’s record, his rhetoric, and his conversions. The state of Massachusetts is perhaps one of the most unfriendly states toward life and family in the United States.
Conservatives will hold Romney accountable for his actions and Romney will need to prove his sincerity to show he has the leadership to promote a family and marriage friendly administration. Republican conservatives will be looking for the truth from their candidates and no doubt will have the words of 19th century Scottish novelist Robert Lewis Stevenson on their minds: “to tell truth, rightly understood, is not to state the true facts, but to convey a true impression.”