counter statistics

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Mitt Romney Has Ad About Gay Marriage Up

Caucus Blogs at the NY Times:

Mr. Romney has his own complicated history on gay rights to work through as well. He has been consistent in his opposition to gay marriage over the years, but when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 1994 and then for governor in 2002 his tone on gay rights was decidedly different than it is on the presidential campaign trail today. Back then, he portrayed himself as someone who would fight for gay equality, including partnership rights for same-sex couples. In 1994, when he ran against Senator Edward Kennedy, Mr. Romney said he supported federal legislation to bar discrimination against gays. In 2002, he also promised members of Log Cabin Republicans, a gay organization, according to several people who were at a meeting with him, that he would not champion a fight for or against gay marriage.

Mr. Romney would go on, of course, to become one of the most visible crusaders in the country against same-sex marriage, after a court decision paved the way for it in Massachusetts while he was governor. Mr. Romney is careful on the stump today to say he opposes discrimination against gays, but he sidesteps questions about what that might mean more specifically.

Commenters point out:

September 18th,
3:43 pm

Those on the Right who might share Romney’s fury towards homosexuals should pause and consider that nobody every buttered gays (or pro-choice people) up more than Romney did when he ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy and then later for Governor of Massachusetts. He completely betrayed everybody whose vote he sought, and now that he’s in the Republican primaries he does nothing but run down Massachusetts, speaking as if it were a little Azerbaijan whose inexorable descent into sin and misgovernment he managed temporarily to slow. In other words, he has a history — prominently displayed this year — of turning his back on those who got him where he is. I don’t know why anybody on the Republican fringe (the so-called “Values Voters”) should be confident that he won’t do exactly the same with them. He doesn’t seem to have any bedrock principles he won’t alter to fit the circumstances.

— Posted by ducdebrabant

I think many of the theocrats are aware of this.