Correction: Due to an editing error, this article had originally stated that Romney’s CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer was from last week. However, the CNN interview was from 2006, while the statements from Romney’s spokesman to were from last week. LifeSiteNews regrets the error.

October 18, 2011 ( – A spokesman for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney last week said that the presidential candidate believes homosexual adoption should be decided on a state-by-state basis. “Gov. Romney has consistently said that gay adoption should be assessed on a state-by-state basis—not at the federal level,” said campaign spokesman Ryan Willliams.

The campaign also directed CNSNews to past interviews that Romney has given about homosexual adoption.


In response to a question by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in a 2006 interview about whether he thought it was “good” that homosexuals are able to adopt children, Romney repeatedly dodged the question, responding only, “I’m not going to change that.” He went on to say that he believes homosexual adoption should be decided on a state-by-state basis.

As the interview progressed, Romney expressed his belief that “marriage” should be a term reserved for men and women, but added that if people “enter into contracts with one another that are between same-sex individuals, they’re free to do so.”

“Look, if two people of the same gender want to live together and enter into a contract with each other, so be it,” he continued. “But don’t pretend that it’s marriage. And society, as a whole, will benefit by having its children, on the average, raised by moms and dads.”

Join a Facebook page to defend marriage here

On February 18, 2007, in response to a question about homosexual adoption, Romney told ABC’s “This Week,” “My view is that the right model for the nation and the right standard for the nation is marriage is between a man and a woman and a child deserves a mom and a dad.” However, he said that the decision about whether to allow homosexual adoption is “made by state-by-state.”

In that interview he also drew a distinction between the “legal recognition” of same-sex unions, and the right of same-sex individuals to enter into contractual agreements with one another.

“They can enter into a contract and have contractual relationships with one another,” Romney said. “But that doesn’t require a sanction by the state and so that’s a decision each state would have to make. I wouldn’t seek to impose, at the national level, a prohibition on contractual relationships between two people.”

In a March 17, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article, Romney reportedly said that while homosexual adoption “is assessed on a state-by-state basis,” he believes “adoption agencies should be able to favor traditional couples.”

Last week, Romney in Hopkinton, New Hampshire said that marriage is a “relationship between one man and one woman.”

“We’re going to call marriage what it’s been called for 6,000 years or longer: A relationship between one man and one woman,” Romney said according to “That’s my own view and there are alternative views.”

When a follow-up question confronted Romney on homosexual civil unions, Romney suggested that he is in favor of some form of a “partnership agreement” for same-sex couples.

Romney has signed a National Organization for Marriage pledge to defend traditional marriage if elected president.

In 2005, then-Governor Romney promoted a marriage amendment, the Travaglini-Lees amendment, with a civil unions provision, saying that he supported civil homosexual unions “if gay marriage is the alternative.” After the amendment failed, Romney forced the Massachusetts state legislature to allow an ultimately unsuccessful VoteOnMarriage initiative, which reaffirmed traditional marriage but said nothing about prohibiting civil unions and domestic partnerships, to be placed on the ballot for 2008, after legislators attempted to stop it by a procedural move.


Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.