Romney, in his own (contradictory) words

BTL Staff
By | 2012-02-23T09:00:00-04:00 February 23rd, 2012|News|

By Chris Johnson, Washington Blade

Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney has been criticized as a flip-flopper during his presidential campaign. Although he’s defended himself against accusations that his positions have pivoted on LGBT rights, his record shows he’s also changed on those issues.
During a Dec. 15 debate in Sioux City, Iowa, when Fox News moderator Chris Wallace said Romney has changed his positions in the last 10 years on abortion, gay rights and gun control, the candidate took exception to the list and said his positions have been consistent on gay rights.
“I’m firmly in support of people not being discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation,” Romney said. “At the same time, I oppose same-sex marriage. That’s been my position from the beginning.”
But an examination of Romney’s previous statements reveals any assertion is false that he’s held the same positions on LGBT rights since the beginning of his political career, including opposition to same-sex marriage.

RELATED: Santorum crystal-clear on anti-LGBT stance

On the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

In a 1994 letter to Log Cabin Republicans, Romney said he would co-sponsor ENDA: “We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to housing and credit.”
But in a 2006 interview with National Review Online, Romney said he no longer supports ENDA: “I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.”
In a 2007 interview on “Meet the Press,” Romney said ENDA-like laws should be left to the states: “At the state level, I think it makes sense for states to put in provision of this. I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be implemented at the state level. If you’re looking for someone who’s never changed any positions on any policies, then I’m not your guy. I learn from experience.”

On ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

In a 1994 letter to Log Cabin Republican, Romney called DADT a transitional policy that would lead to open service: “One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue’ military policy. I believe that Clinton’s compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.”
But in a 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College, Romney said DADT was working: “When I first heard of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, I thought it sounded awfully silly. I didn’t think that would be very effective. And I turned out to be wrong. It’s been the policy now in the military for what, 10, 15 years, and it seems to be working. This is not the time to put in place a major change, a social experiment, in the middle of a war going on. I wouldn’t change it at this point.”
In a June 2011 debate in New Hampshire: “I believe it should have been kept in place until conflict was over.”
In 2011, he told the Des Moines Register: “That’s already occurred and I’m not planning on reversing that at this stage. … I was not comfortable 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 in that direction at this stage no longer presents that problem.”

On LGBT Pride

Text from 2002 Pride flier from Romney’s gubernatorial campaign: “Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend. All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference.”
But in 2012, Romney’s campaign disavowed the letter: “I don’t know where those pink fliers came from. I was the communications director on the 2002 campaign. I don’t know who distributed them … I never saw them and I was the communications director,” Eric Fehrnstrom said.

On civil unions

From a 2003 document found on the governor’s old website: A day after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision requiring marriage equality, Gov. Romney told reporters that he believed a civil unions statute would “be sufficient” to satisfy the justices’ concerns. Joining Romney in the call for civil union legislation was Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty, chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary.
But in a 2005 interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s “Hardball” on the difference between civil unions and marriage: “I’d rather have neither to tell you the truth. I’d rather have domestic partnership benefits, such as hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples. I don’t want civil unions or gay marriage, but there is a difference. Even with just the word, there’s a difference.”
In 2012, a Romney campaign spokesperson reaffirmed the candidate’s opposition to civil marriage: “[H]e has not been in favor of civil unions, if by civil unions you mean the equivalency to marriage but without the name marriage. What he has favored, and he talked about this, I believe, last night, was a form of domestic partnership or a contractual relationship with reciprocal benefits.”

On same-sex marriage

Romney in 1994 to Boston’s LGBT newspaper Bay Windows: Same-sex marriage is “a state issue as you know – the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction.”
But in 2004 testimony before Congress: “I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment. Some retreat from the concept of amendment, per se. While they say they agree with the traditional definition of marriage, they hesitate to amend. But amendment is a vital and necessary aspect of our constitutional democracy, not an aberration.”
In an August 2011 debate: “Marriage should be decided at the federal level. You might wonder, why is that? Why wouldn’t you just let each state make their own decision? And the reason is, people move from state to state of course in a society like ours. … Marriage is a status; it’s not an activity that goes on within the walls of a state. And as a result, our marriage-status relationship should be constant across the country. I believe we should have a federal amendment to the constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.”
In a December 2011 interview with the Boston Herald: Romney expressed support for a constitutional amendment that could create a complex three-tier system of marriage; maintaining marriage rights for straight couples, allowing gays who have already married to remain married, but barring future same-sex marriages. “I think it would keep intact those marriages which had occurred under the law but maintain future plans based on marriage being between a man and a woman,” Romney said.
In 2011 to the Des Moines Register: “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.”
During a January 2012 debate: Romney said he’ll advocate for “full rights” for gay people, although he said he remains opposed to same-sex marriage. “If people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people that have different sexual orientations don’t have full rights in this country, they won’t find that in me,” Romney said.

About the Author:

BTL Staff
Between The Lines has been publishing LGBTQ-related content in Southeast Michigan since the early '90s. This year marks the publication's 25th anniversary.