By Steve Baldwin & Brian Camenker
As Mitt Romney prepares for his second presidential campaign and gay marriage threatens to undermine America’s Judeo-Christian culture, there’s a raging debate about the role he played in instituting gay marriage in Massachusetts during his gubernatorial term. This is important because Governor Romney has positioned himself as a champion of traditional values and claims to have been an opponent of homosexual marriage his entire career.
When the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a decision in favor of homosexual marriage, -- the Goodridge case -- Romney unilaterally ordered his agencies to implement homosexual marriage in Massachusetts. The court did not order him to do this nor had the legislature codified this ruling. Combined with a promise by President Obama to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, this action by Romney will lead to the spread of homosexual marriage nationwide.
Romney’s action was utterly illegal. In four different parts of the Massachusetts Constitution, it is clearly stated that only the legislature can change laws and one section specifically states that the marriage statutes are determined by the legislature, not the courts. Even the Supreme court itself stated that it could not order the legislature to act. All Romney had to do was to declare the court had no authority to enforce its unconstitutional opinion and ignore its decision.
But instead of doing that, Romney abruptly claimed the court opinion was now the law of the land and ordered his Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace to marry homosexuals -- even though the legislature never acted to codify the ruling. Indeed, according to a Fox News/AP story, even the attorney for the homosexual plaintiffs in Goodridge, held the view that the legislature would have to codify the Goodridge ruling:
Attorney Mary Bonauto, who represented the plaintiffs, said the only task assigned to the Legislature is to come up with changes in the law that will allow gay couples to marry. (1)
Thus, Romney violated his oath to uphold the state constitution. To this day, the Massachusetts legislature has never changed the marriage statute. Indeed, there have been numerous attempts by the legislature to codify homosexual marriage SINCE the Goodridge decision. (2). The flatly illegal charade of “gay” marriage exists solely in Massachusetts due to Governor Romney’s illegal actions. By ordering Town Clerks to participate in the solemnization of illegal marriages, Romney violated the state constitution. (3)
A letter signed by 44 Massachusetts and national pro-family leaders including the late Paul Weyrich, Sandy Rios, Gary Kreep, Robert Knight, Linda Harvey, Rev. Ted Pike, Peter LaBarbera, Gary Glenn, Brian Camenker, John Haskins, etc., was sent to Romney in December, 2006, urging him to use his power as Governor to reverse himself on homosexual marriage:
We note that you swore no oath to execute court opinions, but rather laws and the constitution…like much of America, many of us accepted as sincere your explanation of your role in this social and constituition crisis that is fundamentally altering the moral fabric of our culture…we are now forced to look at your role, as constitutional sentry and a gatekeeper of our form of government, in a different light. Wewould be greatly disappointed if your principal contribution to history will be imposing homosexual marriage – knowingly or unknowingly, willfully or negligently – in violation of the state constitution you swore to uphold. (4)
There was no response to the letter and Romney continued full speed ahead implementing illegal homosexual marriages, thus creating a precedent that has already led to many other victories for the homosexual movement nationwide.
Even Focus on the Family knew Romney’s actions were illegal. FOTF’s leader for many years, Dr. James Dobson -- perhaps America’s most influential evangelical leader -- was urged by key advisors to intervene, with one advisor stating that “if Gov. Romney would reverse himself on Goodridge, it would be a very good thing. It might help his presidential ambitions.” (5)
Romney defenders claim Governor Romney was forced to make a unilateral decision to implement gay marriage. But there’s no evidence that anyone forced him to do this. This interpretation assumes the judicial branch of government is absolutely supreme over the legislative and executive branches, an arrangement our founding fathers never designed nor intended.
During his gubernatorial term, Romney has had to tread a fine line. It is obvious that his numerous consultants advised him to move to the right on social issues, especially homosexual marriage, if he had any hope of winning the GOP nomination in 2008. The record shows that Romney campaigned as a liberal to win the governorship of Massachusetts but governed both like a liberal and a conservative. He was clearly using his governorship to launch a campaign for the presidency so he had to create some kind of a conservative “track record,” -- no matter how phony or tenuous that record might be -- in order to position himself as a conservative presidential candidate.
In order to carry out these conflicting goals, Romney constantly used deception to please both conservatives and liberals. This led to a record on homosexual rights that appears confusing and inconsistent, but such obfuscation served a purpose by allowing Romney to claim little victories for conservatism, albeit phony victories, that would later be used in his future presidency campaigns to claim the conservative mantle.
Due to highly skilled campaign propaganda and an army of image consultants, it takes detective type work to ascertain Romney’s true beliefs. However, actions speak louder than words so here is a summary of twenty-three actual actions by Romney that demonstrate Romney, in his heart, supported homosexual marriage early on in his career and still does today:
1) Romney promised the homosexual community he would NOT fight gay marriage. In 2002, as reported by the New York Times, Romney met with the Lincoln Club, a homosexual Republican group, and in the course of discussing homosexual marriage, promised them he would:
…obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue. ‘I’ll keep my head low,’ he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer….And, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts court decision, Mr. Romney, though aligning himself with the supporters of a constitutional amendment, did order town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some members of Log Cabin Republicans say that in doing so, he ultimately fulfilled his promise to them despite his own moral objections. (6)
The article also reported that another Log Cabin member said Romney did not “[carry] the flag with missionary zeal,” for either side of the issue. Remember, this is just two years before Romney and his consultants started to lay the groundwork for a presidential campaign based in part on him being a traditional values champion
I am more convinced than ever that as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent [Kennedy]…For some voters, it might be enough to simply match my opponent’s record in this area … .But I believe we can and must do better. 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. (7)
Notice the phrase “full equality,” a phrase often used by gays to describe gay marriage. Indeed, Kennedy had already championed every gay issue possible during his career and was winning almost all his battles -- except for one - the gay marriage battle. When Romney says he could do better than Kennedy – it was code that he, as a Republican, had a better chance of fighting for passage of gay marriage than did Kennedy.
When Romney’s campaign produced posters during Gay Pride Day, the posters said:
Mitt and Kerry Wish You a Great Pride Weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference. (8)
Again, since gays in Massachusetts already have more “rights,” than in any other state, the only other rights Romney would be referring to is the right to marry. The gay newspaper Bay Windows, reported this:
During that race [Romney’s 1994 Senate race] Romney also won Republican Gov. William Weld’s endorsement, and he said he was in step with the famously pro-gay governor on many issues, including same-sex marriage. …when Romney was asked whether he supported same-sex marriage, he answered, ‘I am sure [Weld] will study it and evaluate it and I will endorse his position on that.’ (9)
Weld later came out in support of homosexual marriage but what is shocking is that Romney, who claims to have been a traditional marriage champion his entire political career, nonchalantly announces that his view on marriage is whatever Weld’s view is. He allows his view on the most important cultural issue of the day to be dependent on someone else’s pronouncement. Strange and certainly not “champion of marriage” quality.
In another Bay Windows article from 2002, Romney is thought of as even better than Weld, the most pro-gay Governor in Massachusetts history:
Is Mitt good for gays? Good enough, said several gay Republicans who spoke with Bay Windows, including Abner Mason, Swift’s deputy chief of staff. ‘I am absolutely confident that as governor he would continue the commitment to gay equality that was started with Weld and continue with Cellucci and Swift,’ said Mason. ‘He will equal, if not better, the record of Weld, Cellucci and Swift.’ (10)
Again, for Romney to “better” Weld’s record, he would had to have told the gays that he supports gay marriage.
3) Only after Romney knew he was running for national office did he support a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, while simultaneously implementing homosexual marriage. When one constituent wrote a letter to Governor Romney asking him to defy the Goodridge court ruling, his response was bizarre. Instead of addressing the issue of defying Goodridge or even being concerned about the abolition of a 2000 year old western tradition that is the foundation of American culture, Romney wrote,
On a matter of such significance and with such tender sentiment involved, we must show respect and consideration for those with different opinions. There are real people, including traditional couples, gay couples and children, who are deeply affected by this issue. (11)
Carefully avoiding any substantive argument about the importance of marriage, and avoiding any mention of his beliefs on this issue, Romney laid the whole issue upon the altar of choice:
We must not forget that at the core of American democracy is the principle that the most fundamental decision in society should ultimately be decided by the people themselves. (12)
But marriage is part of America’s Judeo-Christian culture; the idea that people have to vote to maintain traditional marriage in order to counter an illegal court decision is ridiculous, but Romney, nevertheless, goes through the motion of appearing as if he were going to fight for this constitutional amendment.
At no time did Romney inform his constituent that the voters would not be able to vote on the pro-marriage amendment until November, 2006, over two years after the date the court gave as the deadline for the legislature to codify the ruling. Nor did Romney tell his constituent that he had already ordered all town clerks to be trained with the new procedures governing the marrying of homosexuals. He also threatened to fire them if they did not carry out this order. (13)
It is clear that Romney was already planning for the legalization of homosexual marriage and was preparing his constituents to accept them by using phrases in his letters such as “show respect and consideration for … gay couples.”
4) Romney gained national attention for supporting the marriage amendment initiative but did little to help the initiative succeed. Despite pleas from pro-family forces, Romney did little to assist them as if he knew the amendment effort was destined to fail. He didn’t even contribute a cent to the effort. Indeed, according to one of the state’s leading pro-family organizers, Brian Camenker, Romney seemed to not even care about organizing the grassroots for the upcoming initiative battle:
In the aftermath of the Goodridge decision, pro-family forces started to organize a coalition and large rallies were held in support of a series of constitutional amendments, but Romney did nothing to help rally the grassroots. During this same time he was running for president and was raising millions for his campaign but he did not donate one cent to the pro-marriage forces. Romney did show up for two large rallies at which there was television cameras but that’s about it. (14)
Even at a 2005 press conference Romney held in support of a second constitutional amendment he avoided all mention of the morality of tradition marriage. Instead, he focused on the concept of “choices”:
I think it’s important that in any discussion related to marriage that we should reiterate time and gain our view that individuals in our society should be able to make the choices they want in their lives….(15)
Romney’s rhetoric sounds like something that would be stated at a press conference held by opponents of the initiative -- not exactly a good rallying speech. Moreover, after the TV cameras were gone, Romney would disappear from the marriage battle altogether. Here’s how the Boston Herald reported Romney’s inaction on a third marriage initiative:
Despite his fervent opposition to gay marriage as governor, Mitt Romney the presidential candidate all but abandoned the cause in the Bay State this week, sitting on the sidelines as a ballot initiative to ban guy nuptials crashed in the Legislature. In the critical days leading up to yesterday’s vote, Romney did not make a single phone call in support of the gay marriage ban, Republican Lawmakers said….the vote solidified the legal status of gay marriage in Massachusetts after 3 years of contentious debate…Romney’s absence from the gay marriage fight in Massachusetts was part of a broader collapse in support that left the ballot initiative with no galvanizing leader at its most critical moment. (16)
Even the homosexual press was wondering where Romney was:
If I were a member of the VoteOnMarriage.org coalition or a signer of the anti-gay marriage petition…..I’d be furious with Gov. Mitt Romney today. I’d be wondering where he’s been the last two years on the marriage issue. Imagine if Romney had held a rally on the State House steps before the Nov. 9 constitutional convention (ConCon) and thousands of people had shown up to loudly demand that lawmakers take a vote on the marriage amendment. Romney might have change the outcome of the ConCon… The only thing motivating this governor is personal ambition. The likely reason for his failure to hold a raucous rally prior to the Nov. 9 ConCon was his calculation that he had absolutely nothing to gain from it. What if he held the rally and the measure died anyway? Too risky. So Romney waited and held his made-for-TV-ad spectacular long after it could have any impact whatsoever on the actual debate….(17)
At the “made-for-TV- ad spectacular” speech referred to above, Romney gained national attention but it was too late to really change the course of things. In a speech given three weeks earlier inside a church, Romney implied that those who oppose the choices made by homosexuals are engaged in “discrimination and bigotry” which was the same type of bogus argument used by the Supreme Court justices who issued the Goodridge ruling. No wonder this initiative failed. Romney was insulting those who supported the initiative. It is difficult to not conclude that Romney used the later marriage initiatives as an opportunity to garner national headlines portraying himself as a “pro-family” presidential candidate. (18)
5) Romney refused to support an earlier pro-marriage Constitutional amendment. In 2002, Romney refused to support an earlier marriage protection Constitutional Amendment that would have preempted the Goodridge court ruling. He called it “too extreme,” but his official reason for opposing the amendment was that it didn’t allow domestic partner benefits. In other words, he refused to support a ban on homosexual marriage because it didn’t grant benefits to homosexual lovers! Incredibly, Romney bypassed an early opportunity to save traditional marriage in Massachusetts because of promises he made to the homosexual community that he would grant them domestic partner benefits. Indeed, Romney even informed the gay press he wouldn’t support this amendment.
Bay Windows: Do you support the Protection of Marriage Amendment?
Romney: No, because it would outlaw domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples.
Bay Windows: Do you believe the Protection of Marriage Amendment initiative should be put before voters?
Romney: The people have a constitutional right to put questions before the voters. But, if it had been on the ballot, I would have voted no. (19)
6) Romney supported Civil Union legislation. He repeatedly promised homosexuals throughout his political career that he would support civil union legislation, which essentially grants all the rights of marriage but without the name. Romney even told the homosexuals that the semantic game was a ruse. While being interviewed at a 2002 Log Cabin Club meeting, Romney discussed the gay marriage/civil union issue with the gay group and said:
Call it whatever you want. Just don’t use the M-word.(20)
Moreover, by all accounts, Romney spent an inordinate amount of time lobbying legislative leaders to ensure that the 2004 marriage protection initiative contained language that enshrined “civil unions” in the State Constitution. During this time period, Romney was already making changes throughout Massachusetts government to accommodate homosexual marriage so this amendment appeared to be Romney’s plan B to appease his homosexual supporters in case the initiative passed.
It would allow him to boast to the pro-family forces that traditional marriage was preserved while at the same time demonstrating to the homosexual community that he was still committed to their agenda. After all, many legal scholars have concluded that once a government recognizes homosexuality for the purpose of granting civil union benefits, homosexual marriage will follow shortly thereafter. It’s the backdoor way to full marriage rights. (21)
Even though the Bill of Address had been used in the past, Romney publicly opposed the Bill of Address legislation, stating that, “I’m not looking to recall the judges,” while at the same time loudly criticizing them for violating the state constitution:
And I believe that there should be a separation of powers and responsibilities, and I believe that in this case that the Supreme Judicial Court engaged in legislating. I believe it was an improper decision on their part…. (22)
If Romney really believed that the state Supreme Court acted improperly, why did he follow their illegal order? Why did he not join with the 25 state legislators who sponsored or supported the Bill of Address to remove these judges? Incredibly, he never even communicated with them.
However, Romney, as reported by the press, “offered political and financial support to two openly gay Republican candidates for state representative in 2004.” One was Richard Babson, a leading same sex marriage advocate who openly ran as a “pro-marriage equality” Republican. The other was Michael Motzkin, who stated “there would be no compromise on my side [regarding gay marriage]” Nevertheless, as reported, “the Romney administration is whole-heartedly supporting Motzkin’s candidacy.” Indeed, both candidates were part of a slate Romney promoted called the “Romney Reform team.” And marriage was apparently one of the issues that would be reformed. (24)
Romney also supported out-of-state gay marriage candidates. In 2003, he endorsed and produced a television campaign spot for Rocky Anderson who ran for Mayor of Salt Lake City. Anderson was a strong supporter of homosexual marriage and campaigned hard to defeat a state-wide initiative banning same sex marriage. As Mayor, he issued an executive order granting same sex partners all the same benefits enjoyed by married couples making Salt Lake City, of all places, a city where “gay weddings flourish.” (25)
In return, Anderson supported Romney’s 2002 senatorial candidacy perhaps because he knew more about Romney’s true feelings on this issue than the voters Romney has deceived.
10) Romney granted special “Same-Day” marriage licenses to homosexuals. Following the Goodridge decision, Romney, apparently excited by the new homosexual marriage “law” he created out of thin air, issued special Governor’s one-day marriage licenses to 189 same-sex couples in 2005:
The applications Romney approved from same-sex couples included at least four from state legislators, including Jarrett t. Barrios, a state senator from Cambridge, members of the clergy from out-of-state, family members and friends. (27)
Romney defenders claim he could not legally grant special marriage licenses to only heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples. That may be true, assuming Romney was obeying the illegal Goodridge decision, but he could simply have stopped this practice altogether. Moreover, as Romney knew well, only the legislature could legalize homosexual marriage; therefore Romney had to know that every time he issued a special license to a homosexual couple, he was violating the state constitution. This incident alone demonstrated where Romney’s heart was on this issue.
12) Romney appointed pro-gay marriage judges. Here’s how the Boston Globe describes it:
Governor Mitt 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…(29)
However, on June 22, 2004 Romney made a speech to the United States Senate in which he made this statement:
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 . . ." (30)
But this was hypocrisy of the highest order. In reality Romney had no qualms advancing the legal careers of liberal activists and leading anti-marriage attorneys. One such nominee was Stephen Abany, a key player in the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association. Its website indentifies one of its goals as “ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision on marriage equality is upheld…” (31)
13) Romney relied on a pro-gay marriage attorney to advise him on the Goodridge decision. Daniel Winslow was Romney’s chief counsel during the Goodridge decision and has known Romney since at least 1994 when he served as Romney’s counsel for his 1994 US Senate race. Thanks to interviews Winslow gave to the gay media and a questionnaire he answered while campaigning for the state legislature in 2010, it is now clear Winslow was extremely biased toward the homosexual agenda.
So much so, that the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, who describes themselves at the “architect for the strategy Securing Marriage Equality,” endorsed Republican Winslow over a liberal Democrat on the basis of his support for gay marriage. One of the reasons, the MGLPC claimed, was this:
Winslow’s history as the Romney attorney that changed our state’s marriage license wording from ‘Bride and Groom’ to ‘Party A and Party B.’ (32)
Surely, Romney had to know the bias of his own counsel, yet, he didn’t seem to care nor did he ever deviate from following Winslow’s illegal advice regarding Goodridge.
But, it’s worse than that. Romney valued Winslow’s counsel over the advice given him by some of America’s leading conservative legal experts. For example, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney has acknowledged that they advised Romney to ignore the Goodridge decision since it was legally void. (33) Moreover, a group letter sent to Romney signed by numerous experts gave the same advice. But Romney had already made his decision to make history for the homosexuals, a decision probably made in his heart years earlier. (34)
14) Romney supports the right of homosexuals to adopt children. The fact that he has spent his entire career advocating homosexual adoption rights – and still does today – one can only conclude that he would also support marriage rights. One logically leads to the other position. Here’s is what Romney said about gay adoption rights:
There will be children born to same-sex couples, and adopted by same-sax couples, and I believe that there should be rights and privileges associated with those unions and with the children that are part of those unions. (35)
Two years later, in 2007, Romney said this:
There are other ways to raise kids that’s fine—single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That’s the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice. (36)
But Romney even went further than this. In 2006, when Catholic Charities announced they would exclude homosexual couples from being able to adopt children, Romney’s Department of Social Services informed them this was in violation of existing law. However, there wasn’t any “anti-discrimination” law on the books which allows the state to trump religious freedom, and if there were, it would be violate both the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution. The only obstacle were administrative regulations enforced by Romney’s Office of Child Care Services and Department of Social Services bureaucrats, which could have been easily waived by Romney. Even former liberal Governor Michael Dukakis told the media that the law didn’t apply to Catholic Charities, stating, “there’s nothing in there to the best of my knowledge that mandates anything….”
Nonetheless, Romney, with great media fanfare (he knew he was running for president at this point), said he would introduce an unnecessary bill to give Catholic Charities an exemption from this mythical law (Yes, like the gay marriage law, another mythical law) while continuing all along to assert, falsely, that gays have a right to adopt children. However, legislative leaders had informed Romney that it had no chance of passage, a little fact he left out of his news conferences.
In the meantime Catholic leaders prevailed upon him to waive his own regulations but he refused to. Ultimately, rather than compromise their religious principles, Catholic Charities had to drop their adoption services or lose their license altogether. Romney’s refusal to fight for religious freedom set a horrible precedent in Massachusetts and his nonchalant attitude toward this assault on religious freedom is typified by this statement:
There are many, many other agencies that can meet the needs of those gay couples and I recognize that they [homosexuals] have a legitimate interested in being able to receive adoptive services.(37)
15) Romney allowed a Judge to order him – Again – to ignore existing Massachusetts law. In 2006, a superior court judge issued a ruling that allows gay couples from Rhode Island to get married in Massachusetts and then take the marriage back to Rhode Island. Romney made a very public effort to stop this practice but then gave up, announcing “I have to follow the law.” What law?
The marriage statutes in Massachusetts were never changed. There isn’t any law on the books allowing homosexual marriage. He based this illegal decision on his prior illegal action when he unilaterally instituted gay marriage. Interestingly, one gay couple who married in Massachusetts tried to get a divorce in Rhode Island but the Rhode Island court and that state’s governor both refused to allow it since they didn’t recognize the validity of their “marriage.” It’s heartening to see that some officials understand the proper role of the courts. (38)
16) Romney’s administration issued “same-sex spousal” guidelines for dealing with benefits for the partners of homosexual state workers. Romney was obsessed with “diversity” quotas based on race, gender, “sexual orientation,” etc., and his administration issued a variety of reports that boasted of how his administration was meeting these “outcomes.” Romney even had a “Diversity and Equal Opportunity Advisory Council” to oversee his diversity empire. One document published by his Human Resources Department gave instructions to bureaucrats for how to handle benefits for the partners of gay state workers. These policies were put into place even before the Goodridge decision became “law.” (39)
17) Romney’s Education Department allowed children to be indoctrinated with books that feature homosexual marriage in violation of parental rights laws. Even prior to the Goodridge case, Massachusetts was famous for subjecting public school students to pro-homosexual propaganda. Common propaganda tracts were King and King and Who’s in a Family? In one nationally publicized case, a father named David Parker attempted to remove his son from a Lexington school due to homosexual indoctrination. He was arrested and charged with trespassing even though he was attending a scheduled meeting with the school principal to discuss this issue.
However, Romney, while always mentioning the Parker case in campaign speeches to conservatives, never lifted a finger to help him even though it was the school in violation of the law, not Parker. The state parental rights law allows parents to opt a child out of any curriculum dealing with sex education and human sexuality issues but Parker was never notified when his son was subjected to the sexuality issues.
Romney could have easily ordered his Department of Education appointee to enforce the parental consent law against the school district in question. Instead, Romney allowed Parker to slowly twist in the wind while the education bureaucracy brutalized him. There were numerous violations of the parental consent law by public schools during the Romney era but he never intervened with his own education department. (40)
18) Romney appointed key gay marriage advocates throughout his administration. Aside from his chief counsel, Romney appointed numerous homosexuals to key positions. One in particular, Patrick Guerriero, was appointed to Romney’s gubernatorial transition team. Previous to this appointment, Guerriero, as a leader of the Log Cabin Club, recounts a meeting with Romney:
Patrick Guerriero, a prominent Log Cabin member, told the Bay Windows newspaper immediately after the meeting that Romney showed he was in agreement with the community on every major issue. ‘If you go down the list, it’s pretty much a check-off of the real hot button concerns for gays and lesbians,’ Guerriero said. ‘I do believe that, and as you know I’m a supporter of gay marriage.’
Based on this conversation, it is clear that Romney discussed gay marriage with Guerriero and told him he supported it. When during a campaign debate Romney said he was against gay marriage, Guerriero, who consulted with Romney on gay issues, said this:
‘It was a very poor answer,’ Guerriero observes. ‘It did not reflect the positions that I know Mitt Romney has taken. ...’
A few months later Romney appointed him to his transition team, a team which in turn advises who Romney should hire for hundreds of key policy making positions. Incredibly, Romney purposely appointed a gay marriage advocate to a position where he had great influence on the people hired to advise Romney on policy.
By 2004, Guerriero had become a national leader in the battle for gay marriage. That year he earned national recognition for creating the first national television ad attacking the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. Currently, Guerriero works for the Gill foundation where he is the mastermind behind the funding and electing of dozens of pro-gay marriage candidates to state legislatures nationwide. (41) In other words, Romney is personally close to one of the nation’s leading gay marriage strategists and gave his career a boost by appointing him to his transition team. Moreover, Romney had shared with Guerriero that he was a gay marriage supporter.
19) Romney supported the Federal Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which lays the legal groundwork for homosexual marriage.
In 1994, Romney informed the Log Cabin Club that he favors ENDA, an intrusive federal law promoted by Congressman Barney Frank which forces acceptance of homosexuality within the corporate world:
I am aware of the legislation that Barney Frank proposed [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act] and do support that and would vote in favor of that. (42)
In 2007, thirteen years later, Romney told Tim Russet on Meet the Press that it “makes sense” for states to pass ENDA. (43)
ENDA, for example, would force a Christian landlord to rent to a homosexual or an evangelical book store owner to hire a homosexual and would not only destroy freedom of choice in ones business decisions but create a landslide of litigation purposely targeted at Christians. ENDA institutionalizes in Federal law, “gay rights” above religious freedom.
The Heritage Foundation, perhaps America’s leading conservative think tank, says this about how ENDA leads to gay marriage:
A significant body of evidence suggests that sexual orientation nondiscrimination laws like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) can function as important incremental steps toward same-sex marriage. .. a large body of evidence suggests that such legislation would also be viewed as, and in many cases expressly intended to be, a significant step toward redefining marriage to include homosexual unions.(44)
Once again, Romney supported policies that created the legal framework for the acceptance of homosexual marriage.
20) Romney prepares the groundwork for homosexual marriage by eliminating the STD test.
In October, 2004, Romney signed a bill eliminating the STD test required of all couples before being granted a marriage license. This is from the Romney administration letter announcing the change:
On October 29, 2004, the Governor signed into law Chapter 388 of the Acts of 2004, formerly known as House Bill 75. This law repeals section 28A of c.207 M.G.L, eliminating the premarital medical certificate requirement for marriage in Massachusetts. (45)
Just a year and a half prior to this bill, Romney’s Department of Public Health had reported “a spike in syphilis infections among gay and bisexual men in the state.” (46) One can only assume that the alarming rise in STD would force Romney’s DPH to reject many save-sex marriages, a prospect they didn’t want to face. This is more evidence that Romney puts the “rights” of homosexuals first, even at the expense of public health.
21) The Romney Administration made sure that infertility treatments for homosexual “parents” were covered in his health care plan. As Romney has made clear, his universal health insurance plan is one of his crowning achievements – until recently. Now with raising premiums, increased costs and the public knowledge that his plan was the model for Obama Care, Romney has since downplayed the plan as his masterpiece. But what many people don’t know is that the plan covered infertility treatments with no restrictions on whether the person is single or married. Nor are homosexual couples prohibited from using these services.
During his 2008 presidential campaign Romney repeatedly used the phrase that “every child deserves a mother and a father,” but in the course of designing his health insurance reform bill, he made no effort to restrict infertility treatments to only male/female married couples. Of course, by illegally recognizing gay marriage as the law of the land a short time earlier, Romney created a legal environment which would have prohibited him from pursuing any such restrictions.
However, Romney could easily have left out infertility coverage all together. Indeed, in an effort to cut the cost of “RomneyCare”, Romney vetoed dental benefits due to its $75 million price tag. But he never even tried to prohibit the far more expensive infertility treatments even though he knew by that time such treatments could be used by homosexual couples. In short, Romney’s insurance reform legislation forces every Massachusetts taxpayer to pay for a radical social policy which says that children can be born to anyone, regardless if there’s no mother or no marriage. (47)
22) Despite Romney’s claim to have been always a traditional marriage champion, he was always looking for “studies” that would let him off the hook. In 1994, Romney was asked by the gay media as to whether he wanted to study the gay marriage issue and here’s what he said:
That will occur at the state level. I’ll let the governor in Massachusetts, and the governors of other states, as well, study it, evaluate it, discuss the alternatives with psychologists and social workers and health care specialists and so forth to gather information and consider it in a very reasoned way. (48)
In other words, before Romney had decided to run for the president, he will willing to allow his views on homosexual marriage be guided by social workers and psychologists, who, as a profession, are overwhelming pro-homosexual. There’s a worldview for you.
23) In almost a decade of dealing with homosexual marriage, Romney has never made a moral argument against it. Romney has never argued why homosexual behavior is wrong or immoral. One could argue it wouldn’t be wise for Romney to make such an argument in liberal Massachusetts, but even in out of state speeches to conservative and Christian groups he avoided any argument remotely resembling morality. Nor would he even get near the argument that the institution of marriage is ordained by God and is the basis of America’s Judeo-Christian culture. Such an oversight is not purposeful; Romney simply does not consider homosexuality to be immoral because he doesn’t consider homosexual behavior to be a sin.
In 2007 when Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Peter Pace publicly stated that he believed homosexual behavior to be immoral, Romney attacked him and told CNN's Larry King that the condemnation of homosexuality by Pace was "inappropriate for the public discourse." Romney went on to say "in a governmental setting, the right way to go is to show more of an outpouring of tolerance." There’s no record of any comments by Romney on the appropriateness of the arguments often made in public by gay leaders about the alleged morality of their lifestyle. (49)
In connection with this controversy, Romney stated at a campaign stop that government had no authority to tell pastors what to preach about homosexuality, although he personally would not preach that homosexuality is sinful.(50)
Nor does Romney believe in the institution of marriage as a God ordained institution; rather he always describes it in utilitarian terms -- as a child production unit:
I don’t believe that the institution of marriage, meaning in the sense of people being able to combine as adults, is the primary factor at stake. I believe instead it’s the development of future generations…(51)
At a speech on marriage in October, 2006, Romney again focused on the production of children:
Marriage is about the nurturing and the development of children…our fight for marriage, then, should focus on the needs of the children, not the rights of adults.(52)
Romney also seems to think the proper view of marriage is dependent on what the majority think and what’s popular. Here’s how the Boston Globe reported a conversation between Romney and David Rogers, president of the Log Cabin Club:
Romney’s meeting with Log Cabin club members in October of that year  less than a month before the gubernatorial election, led members to believe he was not morally opposed to gay marriage. ….‘He said, “right now, it’s not popular, and it would cost money,” ‘He didn’t say, when we met with him, ‘I’m sorry, folks; I’m against gay marriage because it’s morally wrong.’ He didn’t say that.’(53)
One reason why Romney does not view homosexuality as sinful is his view that it’s something a person is born with, like race, despite the fact there’s not a shred of evidence to support the genetic theory. Indeed, he has repeatedly compared sexual orientation to race:
It’s incumbent on all of us to respect one another, regardless of our difference and beliefs, our differences in sexual orientation, in race and that America has always been a place, and should be a place, to welcome and tolerate people’s differences.(54)
Not even the notoriously pro-homosexual American Psychological Association will assert that homosexuality is genetic. Indeed, the evidence remains overwhelming that homosexuality is a behavior, not a trait. If Romney accepts the propaganda that homosexuality is genetic, then it makes sense for him to believe that homosexuality is not sinful. This is why to this day he still supports “gay rights.” It is also why he will never say homosexuality is sinful and is why, in his heart, he really has no problem with gay marriage.
24) Throughout Romney’s administration there was a massive push to promote homosexual marriage. This was common knowledge in Massachusetts. Romney funded programs such as the “Safe Schools” program and The “Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth” for the purpose of indoctrinating youth with pro-homosexual propaganda. Much of this propaganda had to do with promoting, as the gays call it, “marriage equality.” This propaganda was in the form of literature, speakers, parades, “Gay Pride Days,” dances, etc, and was carried out by Romney’s Departments of Education, Public Health, and Social Services. It is doubtful that anywhere in America has a governor used his administration so extensively to promote the gay lifestyle and gay marriage. (55)
Note: The real story on Mitt Romney’s obsessive effort to promote the gay agenda in Massachusetts has never been told. Much of the media ignored it during the 2008 presidential campaign. But the story is contrary to everything we have been told about Mr. Romney. However, the public needs to know this because his efforts to promote the gay agenda throughout society and even to grade school children reveal a worldview that is totally at odds with how his political consultants and the media have portrayed him. Anyone considering voting for Romney in 2012 should withhold their vote until they read MITT ROMNEY'S DECEPTION: His Stealth Promotion of "Gay Rights" and "Gay Marriage" in Massachusetts by Amy Contrada. A hard copy is not yet available, but a kindle version can be purchased here:
The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.