Romney Against Gay ‘Marriage’ But OK With ‘Domestic Partnerships,’ Gay Adoption, Gays in Military

January 9, 2012 - 5:43 PM

APTOPIX Romney 2012

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

(CNSNews.com) – Mitt Romney, who is considered by many Republican leaders as the conservative candidate strong enough to beat liberal Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential race, says he opposes “gay marriage” but supports same-sex “domestic partnerships,” adoption of children by gay couples, homosexuals serving openly in the military, and does not think states should prohibit sodomy.

Romney also says he favors an amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman but does not think there is enough support for it nationally.

In the Fox News primary debate among the Republican candidates on Dec. 15, Romney said, “I’m firmly in support of people not being discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation. At the same time, I oppose same-sex marriage. That’s been my position from the beginning.”

Moderator Chris Wallace then cited a letter from Oct. 6, 1994, in which Romney sought the endorsement of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, a homosexual GOP group, saying, “I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent [Edward Kennedy].”  Wallace asked: “So you are still more of a champion of gay rights than Ted Kennedy was?”

Romney answered, “Let me go back and say that I do not believe in discriminating against people based upon their sexual orientation. … I believe as a Republican, I had the potential to fight for antidiscrimination in a way that would be even better than Senator Kennedy, as a Democrat, was expected to do so. At the same time, Chris, in 1994, and throughout my career, I’ve said I oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.”

romney

Mitt Romney was interviewed for the Jan. 1, 2002 issue of Bay Windows, a leading homosexual newspaper in New England. (Courtesy: Bay Windows)

In Sunday’s debate in New Hampshire, Jan. 8, Romney was again asked about the issue and said “I don’t discriminate” but “at the same time, from the very beginning, in 1994, I said to the gay community, ‘I do not favor same-sex marriage.’ I oppose same-sex marriage. And that has been my view.”

In a Jan. 1, 2002, interview with Bay Windows, a pro-homosexual newspaper in New England, Romney--then running for governor of Massachusetts--was asked, “If you are elected, what would be the three top priorities for advancing gay and lesbian civil rights?”

Romney said: “My priorities as governor would be to improve the quality of life of all people in Massachusetts, and that means creating new jobs, improving educational opportunities and fixing the budget mess on Beacon Hill. As it relates to gay and lesbian issues in particular, I would look to protect already established rights and extend basic civil rights to domestic partnerships.”

The interview continued:

Bay Windows:  “To you, what is the difference between civil unions between same-sex couples and gay marriage?”

Romney:  “Very little, if any. For all intents and purposes, they are the same.”

Bay Windows: “Do you support civil unions?”

Romney: “ No, because I believe it’s virtually identical to marriage.”

Bay Windows:  “Do you support gay marriage?”

Romney: “No.”

Bay Windows: “If you do not support gay marriage or civil unions, what keeps you from doing so?”

Romney:  “I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.” …

Bay Windows:  “Do you support the Protection of Marriage Amendment?” [At that time, a proposed amendment to the State constitution in Massachusetts defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.]

Romney: “No, because it would outlaw domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples.” …

Bay Windows: “What is your position on each of the following issues? Domestic partner benefits for state and municipal employees –”

Romney:  “I support domestic partner benefits. With regard to specific eligibility and benefits, I would need to study the costs and regulations associated with it in light of the state’s fiscal crisis.”

Bay Windows: “Repeal of sodomy laws –”

Romney: “I don’t think government should interfere in the private lives of consenting adults.” …

Bay Windows: “Do you have openly gay people on your campaign staff, either in a paid or volunteer capacity?”

Romney:  “Yes.”

Bay Windows: “If elected, would you hire gays and lesbians?”

Mitt Romney: “I will impose no litmus test, but instead will look for the best qualified people to work in my administration, regardless of sexual orientation.”

Basically, Romney has maintained that he opposes same-sex “marriage” because as a social institution he believes that status is reserved only for one man and one woman. As for domestic partner benefits, Romney supports granting the legal privileges that heterosexual spouses enjoy, such as health insurance coverage, hospital visitation rights, joint ownership of property, survivorship rights, child custody, etcetera.

gay

(AP Photo)

That support for spousal benefits across-the-board apparently explains why Romney opposed the Massachusetts amendment to protect marriage--because it would not have afforded those benefits to gay couples.

While he has not explained his views in too much detail, Romney, in effect, supports providing the legal and social benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy to homosexual couples who enter into “domestic partnership” agreements. But this “partnership” must not be recognized by the state as a marriage, according to Romney.

In August 2011, Romney signed a pledge by the National Organization for Marriage stating that if he is elected president, he will “support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification,” as well as “defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act vigorously in court.”

When asked about that pledge during an editorial meeting with the Des Moines Register on Nov. 9, Romney was asked, “You signed a pledge opposing same-sex marriage. What’s the basis of your opposition to it, and what would you do about it as president?”

Romney said, “The basis of opposition is my view that the ideal setting for raising a child is where there’s a male and a female involved. I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, and support that concept. The action that I take as president depends in part on the state of play in Washington, the people that are there, and what options that exist. But certainly I would defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which the current president has refused to defend. I believe that the Defense of Marriage Act was well constructed and should be maintained. I would like to see a national amendment defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, but that was tried maybe three or four years ago. I don’t think that’s likely to receive the necessary support at least in the near-term.”

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. It essentially says that for any federal purpose, a marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. It does not touch on state laws or non-federal actions that may concern marriage. But it does protect one state from having to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. The Obama administration has refused to defend this law, claiming it is discriminatory against homosexuals.

Children of Gays

In this Oct. 22, 2011 photo provided by the family, Jeff Littlefield, left, and his husband Tommy Starling pose with their 5-year-old daughter, Carrigan Starling-Littlefield, at a friend's wedding in Pawley's Island, S.C. (AP Photo/Gregory Pittman)

As for children, Romney believes it is okay for homosexuals to adopt and rear children. Romney does not think this is the ideal situation for the child, but he would not oppose it, according to his statements on the issue, but leave it up to states to decide how to handle the topic.

In a statement sent to CNSNews.com in October, Romney’s spokesman said: “Gov. Romney has consistently said that gay adoption should be assessed on a state-by-state basis--not at the federal level.

Back on Oct. 17, 2006, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Romney: “Should--do you believe that gays and lesbians should be able to adopt children?”

Romney said,”Well, they are able to adopt children.”

Blitzer: “But do you think that’s good?”

Romney: “And I’m not going to change that.”

In the 2008 presidential campaign, when Romney had tried to win the GOP nomination, he explained further that states should decide whether homosexuals can adopt children. See video:

As for homosexuals serving openly in the military – a position that most all congressional Republicans opposed – Romney says it is fine and he would do nothing to reverse the Obama administration’s repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

In his November interview with the Des Moines Register, a reporter asked Romney: “How do you feel about gays serving openly in the military?”

Romney said,  “That’s already occurred. I’m not planning on reversing that at this stage.

Question: “But you’re comfortable with it?”

Romney: “I was not comfortable with making the change during a period of conflict, by virtue of the complicating features of a new program in the middle of two wars going on. But those wars are winding down, and moving to that direction at this stage no longer presents that problem.”

gay, rainbow

(AP Photo)

In response to Romneys’ support for domestic partnerships and across-the-board benefits for gay couples, Peter LaBarbera, head of Republicans for Family Values, said: “If Romney wins the Republican nomination, it will be a huge blow to the pro-family movement and our efforts to stop the normalization of sexual perversion. Romney personifies the failure of the current ‘marriage-only’ approach toward resisting ‘same-sex marriage’ – i.e., the idea that homosexuality is not the issue, but only ‘defending marriage.’

“Here is the supposed GOP standard-bearer saying that he has stood tall for real marriage,” said LaBarbera, “and yet, like some soulless post-modern, he proudly embraces legal ‘rights’ based on a crime against nature that once dared not speak its name.”

“Being against ‘gay marriage’ (in name only) while campaigning to legitimize state-supported legal ‘rights’ for an unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle condemned by God (and shown to be changeable through Christ) is not a ‘pro-family’ position,” said LaBarbera.

Mitt Romney is a Momon who served as a ward bishop for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) in Belmont, Mass., in the early 1980s. From 1986 to 1994, Romney further served his church by presiding over numerous congregations in eastern Massachusetts. By most accounts, Romney devoted many hours of his spare time to counseling and helping fellow church members and visiting the sick.

In a 2008 document, The Divine Institution of Marriage, the LDS church explained and defended the institution of marriage as being set by God and that the liberal drive to advance homosexual “marriage” would contribute to the corruption of children and the family.

“[T]he legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children,” reads the letter. “Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?

“As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim.

“Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations.  These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.”