-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
There is an awful lot to criticize Mitt Romney for — I give some examples and explain why they would hurt Republicans if he were nominated here — especially on social issues like abortion. But I do think Rick Santorum’s critique of Romney on same-sex marriage, which is really an amplification an earlier critique, is somewhat overblown.
Even during his most socially liberal campaign, the 1994 run against Ted Kennedy, Romney never openly supported same-sex marriage (at the time, this would not have even been a mainstream position among Democrats). He opposed both same-sex marriage and civil unions while running for governor in 2002, by that time a fairly conservative position by Massachusetts standards. After the Goodridge decision, Romney unsuccessfully requested a stay. He twice cobbled together the votes necessary to advance measures that could have reached the statewide ballot under the commonwealth’s byzantine amendment process and possibly overturned the pro-same-sex marriage ruling. He also endorsed a federal marriage amendment.
It’s true that Romney did not do everything opponents of same-sex marriage wanted him to do. He did not refuse to comply with Goodridge. He did not press for the impeachment of pro-Goodridge judges. He did not try to issue an anti-Goodridge executive order. He did not repudiate his position on gay rights in general. He did not continue to support an anti-Goodridge amendment that would have also allowed voters to block civil unions once it became clear that amendment lacked the necessary votes.
Yet it is not clear that any of these moves would have been successful (there is dispute over whether some of them would even have been legal). It must be remembered that Romney was almost alone in his opposition to Goodridge among statewide leaders, especially once Tom Finneran ceased to be speaker of the house. By almost any fair reading of the polls, a governor who went on a crusade against Goodridge would have much more unpopular than the decision itself proved to be. The best chance marital traditionalists had was for the issue to make the ballot. Romney worked toward that end, but a lopsidely Democratic legislature thwarted him.
Romney probably could have done more to call the legislature into account for dubiously recessing the constitutional convention that was the last, best shot to overturn Goodridge. I think he can also be fairly criticized for abandoning the state in 2006 to run for president, knowing that this would make Goodridge’s reversal even less likley. But Romney probably could have spent his entire governorship on the issue and had no more to show for it than he does now.
View all comments (23) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/19/mitt-and-marriage
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- A President Loses His Power
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
bill| 12.19.11 @ 9:40AM
Mitt Romney is a big government RINO. He helped enacted same sex marriage in MA.
Some conservative outlets are attacking Newt Gingrich. Newt led the 1994 GOP revolt, and helped balance the budget and pass the welfare reform.
As a governor, Mitt almost achieved nothing. He balanced the budget, and that was it. He crafted Romneycare, a recipe for Obamacare. Even today, Mitt refuses to regret. That's unacceptable.
Between Newt and Mitt, Newt will be my choice because he is far more electable and achiever than Mitt, and Newt is articulate, charismatic, and doer.
Mitt will do whatever it takes to win the GOP node. Mitt is a Ford-Republican, unreliable, incompetent, unelectable.
NotALibertarian| 12.19.11 @ 9:56AM
"It's true that Romney did not do everything opponents of same-sex marriage wanted him to do . . ."
And eight years from now when we are facing the election of a Democrat president with none of the fed's rabid spending under control, we will be reading similar "voice of reason" defenses from pundits about President Romney's ineffective leadership on spending reductions.
That's the problem with Romney. We just can't afford him.
old school| 12.19.11 @ 10:28AM
Yea, it's "overblown" if you're of a mind that opposition to homosexualism, and opposition to legally codifying such pathology is of a species with Jim Crow.
If you're one of those who as Mark Steyn quipped, is all "cool and casual" about flamers, and is one of those who thinks that the Republican party has to "get with it" or else we'll "lose" generation "x," "y" or whatever letter or alphanumeric designate we're up to now.
Yea, if you're one of those, then Santorum even bringing the issue up in such a binary manner was indeed "overblown."
America has a choice, we can get all comfortable like with the pathology rampant and triumphant in certain areas, most notably of course New York, San Francisco, Washington, or we can, as generation after generation has going back to antiquity, reject it wholeheartedly and UNASHAMEDLY.
Can the author of this lead post state unequivocally and for one and all that he views homosexualism as a self-evident disorder, unhealthy for those who practice it as well as for any society that would seek to mainstream it.
martin j smith| 12.19.11 @ 10:36AM
What is needed is a focus on Why Mitt Romney should a) be the Republican Nominee and b) How would he differ from the crap in the WH we now have. Of course I would say the same for all candidates but I know damn well there are a bunch of phonies who support Romney who I also think of as a phoney. He is no Conservative or Tea party supporter he is a Socialist lite.
So instead of focusing on the Social issues which DO NOT MOTIVATE MOST VOTERS--let us get back into the real world of the TRUTH and hear from Romney and his supporters exactly how Romney will differ from Obama. I awaite his answer and yours--whoever you are.
Dan| 12.19.11 @ 11:26AM
I don't know if he's a "socialist lite." I wouldn't go that far, and I'm all against Romney.
It's just that he's not remotely equal to the nomination, because he's never demonstrated grit under fire, and he's not remotely equal to the office he seeks, because he's never demonstrated any eagerness to go after the overall liberal governmental structure.
The media would know if he were in office, that just go after him loud enough, and he'll fold fast on any reform effort.
He's a weakling.
People saying his loyalty to his wife demonstrates character are so far out there on the plank that they wouldn't know how to turn around and get off.
sjccoach| 12.19.11 @ 11:08AM
What a waste writing about this isssue. Romney will stick his finger in the wind, read the polls and reach across the aisle. He'll support gay marriage because it is the RINO thing to do.
Dan| 12.19.11 @ 11:20AM
Exactly, as Romney would never find the nerve to resist the establishment on this issue, he'll never find the nerve to overturn decade after decade of ruinous federal regulation.
Romney in office in would be worse than Romney on the campaign trail, and we all know how indecisive he's been on the hustings.
bill| 12.19.11 @ 11:09AM
We cannot afford Obama, neither Romney.
kingsmill| 12.19.11 @ 11:13AM
Mitt did nothing to protect marriage in Massachusetts. His administration's bureaucracy had ties to the homosexual rights movement.
Mitt read the "correlation of forces" that existed in Mass and decided that his personal ambition was best served by bowing to the dominant left, elite opinion concerning homosexual "marriage", which was prevalent with Democrats and within the RINO Massachusetts Republican party. Remember Bill Weld was a wholly owned subsidiary of the RINO gay movement.
Mitt's approach is typical of the northeastern Republican establishment. However Mitt, unlike Bill Weld, does not color himself as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal". In both 2008 and now Mitt has created a PR image that he is not a social liberal. Romney's disingenuous approach has been given a pass.
Dan| 12.19.11 @ 11:22AM
Yea, a "pass," but granted by who, and for what purpose?
Why has Romney been given every benefit of any doubts, AND on every and any issue under the Sun, but Gingrich none.
Claypoole| 12.19.11 @ 11:29AM
All the while I was watching Chris Wallace's interview with Mitt Romney last night on Fox, I was thinking that Romney reminded me of someone--just couldn't think right offhand who it was. And then it hit me--Barack Obama. Both are weasels; never a direct answer, never a 'yes' or 'no.' Romney is trying so desperately to appeal to everyone that he might as well have started spouting 'hope' and change.' No wonder Bob-I'll be anyone you want me to be-Dole endorsed Romney.
Bob| 12.19.11 @ 2:09PM
Ann use to be Arnold, no wonder Romney is confused.
Dai Alanye | 12.19.11 @ 2:47PM
Yet when disqualifying Romney the other choice becomes Gingrich, a big-government character himself, who has been all over the place on many policies. In addidtion, he's prone to major gaffes that go far beyond verbal slips or brain freeze.
This leaves us looking for someone more conservative than either, electable, and preferably not crazy, as well. The practical choices fade away quickly. Bachmann, Perry, Paul and Huntsman disqualify themselves for one reason or another, leaving only Santorum, and he's weak on electability, albeit improving.
Therefore my "solution." Romney/Santorum or Santorum/Romney or Santorum/plus anybody reasonably conservative and electable. It all depends, however, on Santorum doing well in Iowa.
Dan| 12.19.11 @ 3:05PM
Yet somehow Gingrich was supposedly a "big government" guy who somehow or other felt inclined to do something nobody else has in modern times, that is, balance a budget.
Gaffes?
Such as speaking the truth.
Like mentioning what all of us know, that the judiciary has become "grotesquely dictatorial."
Such as remarking that the State Department is another agency entirely out of control and in need of overhaul, such as remarking that the "peace process" isn't about peace at all.
If we as a society have become so emasculated that we can no longer countenance candor, ------------------ if it's that bad with us now, then we're way further up that creek than many of us suspect.
MikeN| 12.19.11 @ 4:10PM
The main issue is being ignored. The judiciary is keen to amass more power for itself and consider itself supreme. How likely is Romney to do anything about this, given that he did nothing in Massachusetts? While the author of this post is mainly right, Romney was not required to change marriage licenses, or consider that gay marriage was required, as the Mass Constitution said it is the purview of the legislature and governor. The legislature still has not passed a law changing the definition of marriage. Only Governor Romney has done so.
ChesterBelloc| 12.19.11 @ 4:35PM
Romney will align himself with the elites. The judiciary are mainly products of the elite law schools and interest groups power structure. Therefore Mitt will work to further their interests. Unlike BHO, Mitt will attempt to sell himself as working for the middle class. The resulting policy will be very similar.
Wayne| 12.19.11 @ 7:15PM
And I suppose Romney's support of Cap and Trade and belief in Man-caused Global Warming is over-blown also.
Wayne| 12.19.11 @ 7:16PM
My question is how can same-sex marriage be married while polygamy is illegal. Makes no sense to me.
bill| 12.19.11 @ 7:53PM
Abortion and same sex marriage are the two weapons liberals use to lure minority votes. It's just politics.
Ban abortion and same sex marriage in all 50 states.
Greg B.| 12.20.11 @ 8:30PM
Abortion and same-sex marriage are the two weapons conservatives use to lure right wing extremist votes. It's just politics.
Ban any laws or constitutional amendments that strip civil rights from citizens in all 50 states.
Clint| 12.19.11 @ 9:27PM
The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney Is The Ruling Elite Patrician, Who Gives Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
ImissBuckley31| 12.20.11 @ 2:21AM
I was watching the Contenders while back, I believe was the episode on Thomas Dewey. There was quote from Dewey about Nelson Rockefeller, "I like you, but I can't afford you." Well the same thing can be said about Romney I like him, but we cannot afford him. It's unfortunate, but I still haven't found a candidate I can support.
Greg B.| 12.20.11 @ 6:56PM
I agree on one thing: Mitt Romney was not responsible for, nor was he a supporter of, marriage equality in Massachusetts. A Mass SJC decision led to marriage equality in the state and the subsequent constitutional amendment proposed in response to that ruling was blocked (in accordance with the procedures set forth in the state constitution) by the legislature. Neither of those events was under the control of Governor Romney. But in his October 6, 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, which can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/7onburm, Romney writes “as we seek to establish FULL EQUALITY for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent” (my capitalization). He continues “But I believe we can and must do better (than Ted Kennedy's record)...we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.” The fact that supporting marriage equality may not have been a mainstream position for a politician at that time is irrelevant. What matters is that marriage equality was very much a component of the concept of “full equality for gay and lesbian citizens”, even way back then in 1994. Remember, this was a year after the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that state must show a compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage and just two years before 1996's DOMA was enacted. Ted Kennedy (the guy who Romney promised to be more pro-gay than) voted 'no' on DOMA saying at the time “I regard it as a thinly disguised example of intolerance. But regardless of anyone's views on same-sex marriage, this bill is a flatly unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority.” Obviously, we will never know how Romney would have voted on DOMA had he won the election and was sitting in that seat on that day instead of Kennedy. However, we do know that that the 2011 Romney would vote 'yes' without even blinking. And what is undeniable is that if Romney had voted 'yes' on DOMA in '96, it would have been a complete and total abandonment of the campaign promises he'd made in that letter just two years earlier. It is incomprehensible that someone would try to claim that the mid-90's version of Mitt Romney could have actually been a stronger advocate on full equality for gays and lesbians than Ted Kennedy and, simultaneously, a fierce supporter of banning marriage rights for them. There's a lie in there somewhere. Yes, Mitt stopped short of mentioning marriage in that letter and we know that wasn't a mere oversight. See, I'm not arguing that he did support marriage equality then changed, I'm saying that that he implied that he did, then changed. Lying is far worse than legitimate flip-flopping. If he pledged to support “full equality for gays and lesbians” while being staunchly opposed to marriage equality (but not willing to say so), then it was a blatant misrepresentation of his position and of his intentions. The issue is not whether Romney is or isn't, was or wasn't pro-gay. What matters most is his dishonesty to voters. That seventeen year old letter is proof that Romney made a blatantly dishonest pledge to score votes. What makes anyone think that he will honor the ones he's making today? You may have many reasons to support Mitt Romney but trying to defend him against the legitimate and well-earned charges of being inconsistent on gay rights is just absurd.