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.
Well, frankly, I don’t trust much of anybody in the upper tiers of power anymore. The Republican Party is very nearly a lost cause.