Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said yesterday he was ready to work with lawmakers to craft a "civil union"-style law to give some marriage rights to homosexual couples, even though he also supports a constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage . . . Mr. Romney yesterday told TV news stations that he would support a Vermont-style civil union law in Massachusetts, but reiterated his support for a constitutional amendment that would clarify that "marriage is an institution between a man and a woman." - Washington Times, 11/20/2003
In 2005, Romney tried to tell South Carolina Republicans that he had always opposed civil unions:
Massachusetts Governor Romney is coming under fire for comments he made about gay marriage to Republican activists in South Carolina. Romney told Monday night's gathering in Spartanburg County that he's always been opposed to same-sex marriage as well as what he called "it's equivalent, civil unions." Romney, however, has for months backed a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that would ban gay marriage but provide for civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. Massachusetts State Representative Phil Travis says Romney can't be for civil unions when he's in Massachusetts and against them when he's out-of-state. Travis has been a leading opponent of same-sex unions. - Associated Press, 2/23/2005
Romney strong-armed conservative Republicans into supporting a constitutional amendment that included civil unions:
Through all the twists and shifts during the gay-marriage debate this year, there was one constant: 22 Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed every measure that would grant gay couples civil unions in the constitution. That all changed yesterday, however, when 15 of that 22-member bloc broke away at the urging of Governor Mitt Romney and voted in favor of a proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage but create Vermont-style civil unions. Those 15 members provided the margin of victory, observers from both camps said yesterday after the measure passed by just five votes. In the end, the 15 agreed that approving a measure that they viewed as highly undesirable was preferable to the possibility that nothing would be sent to the state ballot for voters to weigh in on. - Boston Globe 3/30/2004 (Note: This amendment, which included mandated provisions for civil unions, was ultimately defeated in the Legislature and never did go to the voters.)
There is a difference between “Mr. Romney yesterday told TV news stations that he would support a Vermont-style civil union law in Massachusetts”, and “he supports civil unions”.
The word support means two different things in those two phrases. The first is what he was willing to compromise on in order to get the constitutional amendment barring Gay Marriage, in a state that would NEVER ban Gay marriage And Civil unions in the legislature.
The second is what he would propose if he were king of the world.
I don’t think he should have been willing to give in to civil unions in order to ban Gay marriage. But this specific example does not mean he would PROPOSE civil unions.
I happen to live in a state where we have not only banned gay marriage, but any contractual equivalent. I’m proud we were able to achieve that. In Massachusetts, as soon as Romney left office, even his watered-down Gay marriage ban was deep-sixed by the legislature. It’s amazing I guess that it stayed alive so long, even though I think it would pass if it made it on the ballot.
I’m not arguing about the “times past” for Romney, my support for him is based on my own OPINION that I can trust him, and then what he is now saying. If he can’t be trusted, what he’s saying is useless (that’s true for any candidate). If he can be trusted, what he’s saying is as good as anybody else that is electable.
I know others don’t believe Romney can be trusted.