On June 2, 2006, Romney sent a letter to each member of the U.S. Senate urging them to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment .[61] In the letter, Romney stated that the debate over same-sex unions is not a discussion about "tolerance," but rather a "debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage." Romney wrote that "Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation."
Romney's letter was his second attempt to persuade the U.S. Senate to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment. On June 22, 2004 he testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, urging its members to protect the traditional definition of marriage. "Marriage is not an evolving paradigm," said Romney, "but is a fundamental and universal social institution that bears a real and substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of all of the people of Massachusetts." [62]
Romney was heavily involved in attempts to block implementation of the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that legalized same-sex marriage in 2003. Romney criticized the decision as harming the rights of children: {{cquote|They viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults…Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother." [60]
In 2004, the Massachusetts General Court attempted to address the issue of gay marriage before the implementation of the Goodridge decision. During a constitutional convention, the heavily Democratic legislature approved an amendment that would have banned gay marriage, but established civil unions. An initial amendment offered by House Speaker Thomas Finnernan that would have simply banned gay marriage without a provision for civil unions was narrowly defeated. [63]The compromise amendment needed to be approved in a second constitutional convention to be held a year later before it would have appeared on a state election ballot. The amendment was voted down in the subsequent convention and never made it before the voters of Massachusetts. [64]
Romney reluctantly backed the compromise amendment, viewing it as the only feasible way to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts. "If the question is, 'Do you support gay marriage or civil unions?' I'd say neither," Romney said of the amendment. "If they said you have to have one or the other, that Massachusetts is going to have one or the other, then I'd rather have civil unions than gay marriage. But I'd rather have neither." [65]
In June 2005, Romney abandoned his support for the compromise amendment, claiming that the amendment confused voters who oppose both gay marriage and civil unions. The amendment was defeated in the General Court in 2005 when both supporters of same-sex marriage and opponents of civil unions voted against it. In June 2005, Romney endorsed a petition effort led by the Coalition for Marriage & Family that would ban gay marriage and make no provisions for civil unions. [66] Backed by the signatures of 170,000 massachusetts residents the new amendment was certified as a valid referendum on September 7, 2005 by Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly. [67] The measure needs the approval of 50 legislators in two consecutive sessions of the Massachusetts General Court to be placed on the ballot.[68] The Massachusetts legislature however declined to vote on the initiative in two consecutive sessions held on July 12, 2006 and November 9, 2006. [69]
The Romney Administration resurrected the "1913 law," which prohibits non-residents from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage would be void in their home state; the law had not been enforced for several decades. While some legal experts have argued that the original purpose of the legislation was to block interracial marriages and have noted that the law was enacted at the height of public scandal over black heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson's interracial marriages,[70] Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly has stated that the law had nothing to do with race. [71] In March of 2006 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared the statute legal under the state's constitution. [4] Romney applauded the decision, saying that the "ruling is an important victory for traditional marriage." He also stated that "It would have been wrong for the Supreme Judicial Court to impose its mistaken view of marriage on the rest of the country. The continuing threat of the judicial redefinition of marriage, here and in several other states, is why I believe that the best and most reliable way to preserve the institution of marriage is to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution." [5]
When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions. [6] "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union," said Romney in an October 2002 gubernatorial debate. He also voiced support for basic domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. Romney told the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts (a Republican gay-rights group) that he did not support same-sex marriage or civil unions, but would fight discrimination against gays and lesbians. [7] He also opposed an amendment, then before the General Court, that would have banned same-sex marriage and outlawed all domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. As a result, the Log Cabin Club endorsed Romney in the gubernatorial election. [8]. When campaigning in 2002, Romney's stated position was that "all citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of sexual orientation" and that "homosexuals should have the right to a domestic partnership status that affords them the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship." [9]
During his 1994 campaign against Senator Edward Kennedy, Romney said that same-sex marriage "is not appropriate at this time" [72] but supported Federal legislation that would prohibit discrimination in the workplace against homosexuals. [73]
"I feel that as a society and for me as an individual, it's incumbent on all of us to respect one another, regardless of our differences 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.
"I personally feel and one of my core beliefs is that we should accept people of all backgrounds and recognize everyone as a brother and a sister because we are all part of the family of man."
On whether he'd go beyond merely accepting gay people and advocating for the rights of lesbians and gay men:
"The answer is yes. When I speak of free agency, I don't just mean that each person can do what they want to do, I mean that our society should allow people to make their own choices and live by their own beliefs. People of integrity don't force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have. That's the great thing about this country: it was founded to allow people to follow beliefs of their own conscience. I will work and have worked to fight discrimination and to assure each American equal opportunity. You'll see that, for instance, in my relations in the workplace. …
"For a number of years, I was chief executive at Bain and Co. It's an environment that fosters openness and fights discrimination. I believe it is a good place for gay and lesbian individuals to work. I know of nothing in our workplace that doesn't encourage promotion and compensation based on performance, without regard to personal differences, such as sexual orientation. I believe that my record, my life, is a clear indication of my support and insistence on anti-discrimination and on efforts to assure equal rights for all."
On who he aligns himself with in the GOP:
"Well probably more like Bill Weld. It's hard for me to align them person by person but I think Bill Weld comes as close as anyone. … I think Bill Weld's fiscal conservatism, his focus on creating jobs and employment and his efforts to fight discrimination and assure civil rights for all is a model that I identify with and aspire to."
On how he felt about "conservative Republicans like Pat Roberston of Jesse Helms":
"Any party ends up being a large tent and I don't want to toss people out of the party, but I do not favor people using the party as a platform for the views of different special interest groups.
"I remember in my earliest political experience my father fighting to keep the John Birch Society from playing too strong a role in the Republican Party. He walked out of the Republican National Convention in 1964, when Barry Goldwater said, 'Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.' Because he saw that as a tacit approval of the effort the John Birch Society was making to influence the Republican Party. I think that extremists who would force their views on the party and try to shape the party are making a mistake.
"I welcome people of all views in the party, but I don't want them to try to change our party from being a large tent, inclusive party, to being one that is exclusive."
On whether he would have supported Helms's amendment to the 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act to ban federal funding to public schools that encourage or support "homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative":
"I would have opposed that amendment. I don't think the federal government has any business dictating to local school boards what their curriculum or practices should be. I think that's a dangerous precedent in general. I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there's an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it's wrong-headed and unfortunate and hurts the party by being identified with the Republican party."
On whether he supported a federal bill to prevent anti-gay discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation and credit:
"I am not fully aware of that bill, so I would need to study that more fully. 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.
"I also philosophically support efforts to ban discrimination in housing. The particulars of the bill you're speaking about I have not studied, so I shouldn't state a position. Philosophically, I support efforts to remove discrimination from the workplace, from housing, from education and so forth."
On whether he supported Mass. Congressman Marty Meehan's bill proposal to form a federal panel to explore ways to reduce gay youth suicides:
"I support efforts both to understand and reduce gay and lesbian suicide. I applaud Gov. Weld's leadership in that regard in Massachusetts, as well."
On whether he supported domestic partner benefits legislation for gay federal employees:
"I think what Bill Weld has done here in that regard is the right step and moves in the right direction. [Weld granted sick leave and bereavement time to management-level state employees].
"I think when people have a commitment to one another, either a heterosexual or homosexuals relationship, that they should have the benefit of visitation rights and leave privileges and things of that nature. The question for me in regards to the health care benefits would be to determine what the cost is, what the implications are, where one would draw the boundaries , how one would define commitment. And those are areas I haven't studied so I won't take a position on that. I do support generally the proposition that people in homosexual relationships should not be discriminated against in terms of employment benefits."
On whether he supported the civil marriage rights of same-sex couples:
"I line up with Gov. Weld on that, and it's a state issue as you know — the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction. My understanding is that he has looked at the issue and concluded that certain benefits and privileges should be offered to gay couples. But he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position."
On whether he'd want more studies done on the marriage issue:
"That will occur at the state level. I'll let the governor in Massachusetts, and the governors of others states, as well, study it, evaluate it, discuss the alternatives with psychologists and social workers and health care specialist and so forth to gather information and consider it in a very reasoned way. I have confidence the governor will take the right action."
On whether he supported the repeal of archaic sex laws:
"I'm not sure which ones each of those are, but I don't think it makes sense to have laws on the books that are not enforced and that only hang over people as possible threats, and so again it's a state-by-state decision and I wouldn't want to impose on a federal level what each state does on their laws, but I think it's a mistake for us to leave laws that are not enforced."
On whether he supported condom distribution in federal prisons:
"I would support the conclusion of medical professionals and social workers in prisons as to what they thought was helpful to prevent the spread of the disease. If that was something they thought was appropriate, then I would support it. I don't see any reason why that would be an inappropriate thing."
On whether he'd support condom distribution in schools:
"Here again you'll hear me saying the same thing on a number of issues, there are choices I think should be made at the state and local level that I don't like the federal government getting into. I like important moral decisions being made closest to where people live, at the state and local level. So if the community feels that condom distribution is a helpful thing, then that community should be able to do that. And if another community feels that's something they don't support, then they should have the right to do that, as well.
"You will find in me a continuing philosophical commitment to allow people to make their own choices and to allow the people in the country to decide what's best for them, instead of letting politicians decide what should be done for the country."
On whether people with HIV should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S.:
"I have to admit I have not spoken to immigration officers about the extent or the costs of that policy, so I hesitate to speculate. I think it is a legitimate right of the government to say, 'We don't want to take on massive medical costs which we as a society would have to bear.' On the other hand, I think it would be wrong to deny people who are HIV-positive access to the United States if there were no substantial costs to us. I would feel the same way, by the way, if someone came to the door who had cancer and was indigent and said, 'I want to come to the United States.'
"I'd say, 'Gee can you care for yourself?' — because it's a concern that our government would have that someone would come and cost our system a lot of money. If somebody has the ability to care for themselves then I see no reason to have restrictions on HIV or cancer or any other kind of patient."
On why the gay community should support Romney over Kennedy, given Kennedy's record of supporting both civil rights and the gay community:
"Well, I think you're partially right in characterizing Ted Kennedy as supportive of the gay community, and I respect the work and efforts he's made on behalf of the gay community and for civil rights more generally, and I would continue that fight.
"There's something to be said for having a Republican who supports civil rights in this broader context, including sexual orientation. When Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, he's seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights he's seen as a centrist and a moderate. It's a little like if Eugene McCarthy was arguing in favor of recognizing China, people would have called him a nut. But when Richard Nixon does it, it becomes reasonable. When Ted says it, it's extreme; when I say it, it's mainstream.
"I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party and I would be a voice in the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts.
"The other thing I should say is that the gay community and the members of it that are friends of mine that I've talked to don't vote solely on the basis of gay rights issues. They're also very concerned about a $4 trillion national debt, a failing school system, a welfare system that's out of whack and a criminal justice system that isn't working. I believe that while I would further the efforts Ted Kennedy has led, I would also lead the country in new and far more positive ways in taxing and spending, welfare reform, criminal justice and education. That's why I believe many gay and lesbian individuals will support my candidacy and do support my candidacy.
"I have several friends in the gay community who are supporters, who are working in my campaign. I think they believe I would be a better senator."
Quotes from Governor Mitt Romney on Marriage
- "America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home." Mitt Romney
- ""Experience shows that kids have a far better chance of succeeding if they have a mother and a father at home. Of course, divorce or death means that there will always be many, many single parents; these single parents often make huge sacrifices and their kids can indeed succeed. But let's do everything we can to encourage our kids to have their kids after they've married, not while they're single and in school. We have sex education in our schools. Let's also have abstinence education in our schools. Marriage and two parent families are fundamental to the development of children and to our success as a culture. We cannot afford to shrink from the timeless, priceless principles of human experience."
- Governor Mitt Romney
- "We can praise the virtues of parental involvement all day, but until we actually get parents to follow through we are simply singing to an empty music hall," said Romney. "Voluntary programs will not get the job done. It is essential that mandatory training be put in place."
- Governor Mitt Romney, 01-21-2004 Press Release
- "Today, you are witnessing democracy in action. On issues of fundamental importance affecting all of the people, it is ultimately up to the people to decide. That is what this Constitutional Convention is all about. It serves as an important reminder that no one person and no branch of government is above the voice of the people. This is as it should be. Amending the constitution is a serious matter and any changes to the document itself should be finely and narrowly drawn. I recognize that the Senate President and the Senate Minority Leader are trying to find a compromise that will satisfy people on both sides of this issue, but their proposed amendment goes too far. The Constitution should not be used to legislate new social policy. A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not a new proposal but rather a codification of longstanding policy and tradition. Civil union language is best left to the legislative process. My hope is the Constitutional Convention will approve an amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. If we do that, we will have taken an important step toward restoring the people's voice in their own government."
- Governor Mitt Romney, 02-11-2004 Press Release
- "I agree with the President on the need for a federal marriage amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. As I've said before, amending the U.S. Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states and to guard against overreaching by the judicial branch. Acts of lawlessness in San Francisco bring into even sharper focus the need to proceed with the process of amending the Constitution. I don't think anyone ever imagined that we would have courts and local officials defining marriage in a way that has no historical precedent whatsoever, and claiming it's been in the Constitution all along. Of course, we must conduct this debate with decency, tolerance and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is so fundamental to society that it should not be decided by one court in Massachusetts or by one mayor in San Francisco. In America , the people should decide. In America, the people are fair and tolerant. Let the people decide."
- Governor Mitt Romney, 02-24-2004 Press Release
- "Good afternoon. Our elected representatives met yesterday and took the first steps toward passing an amendment to the state Constitution that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. I applaud Senate President Travaglini, Speaker Finneran and all the members of the Legislature for conducting a respectful and thoughtful debate. As we saw, some people feel that the amendment changes the Constitution; I, and many others, feel that it preserves the Constitution. This amendment process began after the state Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage, setting aside thousands of years of recorded history and legal precedent. The Court directed the Legislature to take action as it deemed appropriate. That's just what the Legislature did yesterday. The Legislature is now on a track to put this issue before the voters. Ultimately, this is as it should be: the people of our state will decide. I know there are deeply held personal convictions around this issue. There are real people and real lives that are affected. On a matter of such significance and with such tender sentiment involved, I would ask that we continue to show respect and consideration for those of differing views . For all of us, the rule of law is bedrock. We've seen the lawlessness that has erupted in other states and how it undermines the higher purposes we all seek to preserve. I know there's been a lot of speculation about what action I will take as Governor of the Commonwealth. Until the Legislature completes its work at the end of this month, I will have no comment on the options before me. But let me state clearly that whatever I do will be within the bounds of the law. Just as the Legislature is working within the constitutional and legal structure of our state, I will do the same. The Legislature has taken the first step. As the process continues, let us hope the final step will be taken by the people. Thank you."
- Governor Mitt Romney, 03-12-2004 Press Release
- "Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, Senator Kennedy, distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for asking me to join you today. First, I ask that my written remarks be inserted into the record of this hearing. You have asked for my perspectives on the recent inauguration of same sex marriagein my state. This is a subject about which people have tender emotions in part because it touches individual lives. It also has been misused by some as a means to promote intolerance and prejudice. This is a time when we must fight hate and bigotry, when we must root out prejudice, when we must learn to accept people who are different from one another. Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians. Given the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Congress and America now face important questions regarding the institution of marriage. Should we abandon marriage as we know it and as it was known by the framers of our constitution? Has America been wrong about marriage for 200 plus years? Were generations that spanned thousands of years from all the civilizations of the world wrong about marriage? Are the philosophies and teachings of all the world's major religions simply wrong? Or is it more likely that four people among the seven that sat in a court in Massachusetts have erred? I believe that is the case. And I believe their error was the product of seeing only a part, and not the entirety. They viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults. If heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual adults must also marry to have equal rights. But marriage is not solely for adults. Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother. Of course, even today, circumstances can take a parent from the home, but the child still has a mother and a father. If the parents are divorced, the child can visit each of them. If a mother or father is deceased, the child can learn about the qualities of the departed. His or her psychological development can still be influenced by the contrasting features of both genders. Are we ready to usher in a society indifferent about having fathers and mothers? Will our children be indifferent about having a mother and a father? My Department of Public Health has asked whether we must re-write our state birth certificates to conform to our Court's same-sex marriage ruling. Must we remove "father" and "mother" and replace them with "parent A" and "parent B?" What should be the ideal for raising a child: not a village, not "parent A" and "parent B," but a mother and a father. Marriage is about even more than children and adults. The family unit is the structural underpinning of all successful societies. And, it is the single-most powerful force that preserves society across generations, through centuries. Scientific studies of children raised by same sex couples are almost non-existent. And the societal implications and effects on these children are not likely to be observed for at least a generation, probably several generations. Same sex marriage doesn't hurt my marriage, or yours. But it may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole. Until we understand the implications for human development of a different definition of marriage, I believe we should preserve that which has endured over thousands of years. Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing. One person may choose to live as a single, even to have and raise her own child. Others may choose to live in same sex partnerships or civil arrangements. There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding. But there is a difference between individual rights and marriage. An individual has rights, but a man and a woman together have a marriage. We should not deconstruct marriage simply to make a statement about the rights of individual adults. Forcing marriage to mean all things, will ultimately define marriage to mean nothing at all. Some have asked why so much importance is attached to the word "marriage." It is because changing the definition of marriage to include same sex unions will lead to further far-reaching changes that also would influence the development of our children. For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same sex practice. It is inconceivable that promoting absolute indifference between heterosexual and homosexual unions would not significantly effect child development, family dynamics, and societal structures. Among the structures that would be affected would be religious and certain charitable institutions. Those with scriptural or other immutable founding principles will be castigated. Ultimately, some may founder. We need more from these institutions, not less, and particularly so to support and strengthen those in greatest need. Society can ill afford further erosion of charitable and virtuous institutions. For these reasons, 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. The constitution's framers recognized that any one of the three branches of government might overstep its separated powers. If Congress oversteps, the Court can intervene. If the Executive overreaches, Congress may impeach. And if the Court launches beyond the constitution, the legislative branch may amend.** The four Massachusetts justices launched beyond our constitution. That is why the Massachusetts legislature has begun the lengthy amendment process. There is further cause for amendment. Our framers debated nothing more fully than they debated the reach and boundaries of what we call federalism. States retained certain powers upon which the federal government could not infringe. By the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, our state has begun to assert power over all the other states. It is a state infringing on the powers of other states. In Massachusetts, we have a law that attempts to restrain this infringement on other states by restricting marriages of out-of-state couples to those where no impediment to marry exists in their home state. Even with this law, valid same sex marriages will migrate to other states. For each state to preserve its own power in relation to marriage, within the principle of Federalism, a federal amendment to define marriage is necessary. This is not a mere political issue. It is more than a matter of adult rights. It is a societal issue. It encompasses the preservation of a structure that has formed the basis of all known successful civilizations. With a matter as vital to society as marriage, I am troubled when I see an intolerant few wrap the marriage debate with their bias and prejudice. I am also troubled by those on the other side of the issue who equate respect for traditional marriage with intolerance. The majority of Americans believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but they are also firmly committed to respect, and even fight for civil rights, individual freedoms and tolerance. Saying otherwise is wrong, demeaning and offensive. As a society, we must be able to recognize the salutary effect, for children, of having a mother and a father while at the same time respecting the civil rights and equality of all citizens. Thank you."
- Governor Mitt Romney, 06-22-2004 Press Release
