I’ve got to give it to my PRESIDENT. There’s no end to his END game. For anyone thinking that this whole same-sex brouha ha hasn’t been a calculated, well-planned strategy for President Obama to make his announcement today, well, THINK AGAIN!
History is being made today.
The President’s announcement on marriage will be dominating the news today, but as you’re writing about it we wanted to make sure you didn’t miss Mitt Romney’s statements too.
Romney came out AGAINST Civil Unions, putting him to the right of George W. Bush, and Romney supports a federal marriage amendment, which would roll back rights for committed gay and lesbian couples and invalidate state laws legalizing SSM. And it would be the first time in history that the constitution has been amended to discriminate and deny rights. Additionally, he’s funded hateful groups like NOM that have engaged in fear-mongering on this issue.
Key Points on Federal Marriage Amendment:
- A federal “Protect Marriage Amendment” would roll back rights for committed gay and lesbian couples and limit American freedoms.
- A federal “Protect Marriage Amendment” could prohibit committed gay and lesbian couples from marrying, and prevent courts from guaranteeing same-sex couples the same rights as other Americans.
- State laws allowing gay marriage would be invalidated. All states could be required to discriminate against committed same-sex couples, taking this decision away from the states and making it a matter of federal constitutional law.
If enacted, this would be the first time the Constitution was amended to discriminate and deny rights.
- Our Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times, and the amendment process has been used throughout history to expand America freedom. Constitutional amendments have eliminated slavery; given women, racial minorities, and eighteen year olds the right to vote; and guaranteed our rights to free expression, a fair trial, and the free exercise of religion.
- America has not used its constitutional amendment process to limit freedom or require discrimination. Indeed, the history of amendments to our Constitution displays a steady march of progress.
ROMNEY REFERRED TO HIMSELF AS “ONE OF THE NATION’S LEADING ADVOCATES OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE”
Romney: “I Stood Up To Fight Same Sex Marriage. I Was One Of The Nation’s Leading Advocates Of Traditional Marriage.”[KVRR (Fargo, ND), 3/1/12]
ROMNEY HAS OPPOSED CIVIL UNIONS SINCE “DAY ONE”…
2012: Romney Senior Adviser Eric Fehrnstrom: Romney “Has Not Been In Favor Of Civil Unions, If By Civil Unions You Mean The Equivalency To Marriage But Without The Name Marriage.” “‘[H]e has not been in favor of civil unions, if by civil unions you mean the equivalency to marriage but without the name marriage,’ Fehrnstrom said. ‘What he has favored, and he talked about this, I believe, last night, was a form of domestic partnership or a contractual relationship with reciprocal benefits.’” [Huffington Post, 1/8/12]
2007: Romney: “I Opposed Then, And I Do Now, Gay Marriage And Civil Union” And “I Am Proud Of The Fact That I And My Team Did Everything Within Our Power And Within The Law To Stand Up For Traditional Marriage.” “During his dinner speech at the National Review Institute’s Conservative Summit, the former governor said he was a strong opponent of a November 2003 state supreme court decision making Massachusetts the first state to legalize gay marriage. ‘I opposed then, and I do now, gay marriage and civil union,’ he said. ‘I am proud of the fact that I and my team did everything within our power and within the law to stand up for traditional marriage.’” [Associated Press, 1/28/07]
2005: Romney Said He Has Been Against Gay Marriage And Civil Unions Since “Day One.”“In February, Romney told a South Carolina Republican audience that ‘from day one, I’ve opposed the move for same-sex marriage and its equivalent, civil unions.’ But gay rights groups, including a leading GOP organization, accused Romney of flip-flopping, saying he had supported some benefits for gay couples in his 2002 campaign.”[Boston Globe, 6/17/05]
2002: Romney Opposed Civil Unions Saying “For All Intents And Purposes” Civil Unions And Gay Marriage “Are The Same.” In an interview with Bay Windows, Romney was asked, “To you, what is the difference between civil unions between same-sex couples and gay marriage?” He responded, “Very little, if any. For all intents and purposes, they are the same.” He was then asked, “Do you support civil unions?” and responded, “No, because I believe it’s virtually identical to marriage.” [Bay Windows interview, 1/1/02]
…AND WOULD ALLOW STATES TO DENY BENEFITS TO GAY COUPLES IN DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS INCLUDING HOSPITAL VISITS
Romney Would Leave “Each State Can Decide The Benefits Associated With People Who Live In Domestic Partnerships.”Romney: “My preference again would be to have a national standard, with one standard for the nation. Now that doesn’t mean that same sex couples can’t enter into domestic partnerships, and the benefits associated with domestic partnerships could be, developed from, by enterprise, by the state, by the federal government. So one could say for instance that in Iowa, a same sex couple can come together, can adopt a child. And they can have hospital visitation rights and so forth. I mean you could decide what benefits, each state can decide the benefits associated with people who live in domestic partnerships. But I believe the term marriage should be defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.” [Ames Tribune Editorial Board Interview, here.
Romney: “So One Could Say For Instance That In Iowa, A Same Sex Couple Can Come Together, Can Adopt A child. And They Can Have Hospital Visitation Rights And So Forth. I Mean You Could Decide What Benefits, Each State Can Decide The Benefits Associated With People Who Live In Domestic Partnerships.” [Ames Tribune Editorial Board Interview here.
- GEORGE W. BUSH CAME OUT IN FAVOR OF CIVIL UNIONS
George W. Bush: “I Don’t Think We Should Deny People Rights To A Civil Union, A Legal Arrangement, If That’s What A State Chooses To Do So.”PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: “Well, I, I,I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so.”CHARLES GIBSON: “The Republican platform opposes it.” PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: “Well, I don’t. I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman. Look, if you’re, if you’re interested in preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there is one way to do so, that’s through the constitutional process. This is too important a decision to have a handful of judges making on behalf of the American people.” [ABC News, World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, 10/25/04]
ROMNEY SURROGATES HAVE STATED THEIR SUPPORT FOR CIVIL UNIONS
Chris Christie: “I Have Been Just As Adamant That Same-Sex Couples In A Civil Union Deserve The Very Same Rights And Benefits Enjoyed By Married Couples—As Well As The Strict Enforcement Of Those Rights And Benefits.” “Renewing his push for gay marriage to go to New Jersey voters in a referendum in November’s general election, Christie said an ombudsman should be appointed to ensure the state’s civil union law is being followed. ‘I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples — as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits,’ Christie said.” [The Star-Ledger, 2/18/12]
Jon Huntsman: “I Think Civil Unions Are Fair. I Think There’s Such A Thing As Equality Under The Law.” “Personally, I think civil unions are fair. I support them. I think there’s such a thing as equality under the law. I’m a married man. I’ve been married for 28 years. I have seven kids. […] And I don’t feel that my relationship is at all threatened by civil unions. On marriage, I’m a traditionalist. I think that ought to be saved for one man and one woman, but I believe that civil unions are fair. And I think it brings a level of dignity to relationships. And I believe in reciprocal beneficiary rights. I think they should be part of civil unions, as well. And states ought to be able to talk about this. I think it’s very — I think it’s absolutely appropriate.” [ABC/Yahoo!/WMUR Republican Primary Debate,1/7/12]
REPUBLICAN SENATORS HAVE ENDORSED CIVIL UNIONS
Mark Kirk: “I Support Civil Unions.” At a debate in 2010 Kirk said, “I oppose gay marriage, and– I support civil unions. But I also don’t think we should have a federal takeover of all marriage law in the United States. I think the federal government is already trying to take over too much.” [Illinois Senate Debate,10/19/10]
Scott Brown: The Characterization Of Me As “Gay-Hating” Is “Mean Spirited And Certainly A Misrepresentation,” Since “I Have The Same Position As Barack Obama” In Supporting Civil Unions. “He has been the bête noire of gay rights activists since 2001, when he said it was `not normal’ for Jacques and her partner to have children, and referred to Jacques’s role in the relationship as `alleged family responsibilities.’ Brown quickly apologized and said he chose his words poorly. Activists have neither forgotten nor forgiven. `Scott Brown has demonstrated a persistent antagonism toward equality’ for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community, said Scott Gortikov, executive director of MassEquality, an advocacy group. `He’s not someone who even likes or tolerates gay people or their families.’ Brown responded that `it was never about hating or disliking any particular group because of their sexual orientation. `When I read the headlines in Bay Windows or any other groups – you know, `gay-hating Scott Brown’ – it’s mean-spirited and certainly a misrepresentation,’ he said, `especially when I have the same position as Barack Obama,” who, like Brown, favors civil unions.” [Boston Globe, 11/20/09]
ROMNEY VOWED TO “FIGHT FOR A FEDERAL AMENDMENT DEFINING MARRIAGE AS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN”
Romney: “When I Am President, I Will Preserve The Defense Of Marriage Act And I Will Fight For A Federal Amendment Defining Marriage As A Relationship Between One Man And One Woman.” [Romney Prepared Remarks, Conservative Political Action Conference, 2/10/12]
Romney: “We Should Have A Constitutional Amendment That Defines Marriage As A Relationship Between A Man And A Woman.”“‘My view is that we should defend the Defense Of Marriage Act and that we should have a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman,’ he said, before adding: ‘This path is one that as you watch it, we become more and more of a secular nation.’” [New York Times,1/16/12; Romney, South Carolina Faith & Freedom Coalition.
Romney Said He Supported A Constitutional Amendment To Ban Same-Sex Marriage Rather Than Leaving It Up To The States.At the New Hampshire primary debate John King asked, “Are you a George W. Bush Republican, meaning a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, or a Dick Cheney who, like I believe, the congresswoman just said, this should be made — this decision, same sex marriage, should be a state’s decision?” … KING: “Governor Romney, constitutional amendment or state decision?” ROMNEY, “Constitutional.” [New Hampshire Debate,6/13/11]
Romney Vowed To “Champion A Federal Marriage Amendment.” Romney, at “Values Voters” conference: “As president. I will work with the people in this room, as I have for the past four years, to champion a federal marriage amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman.” [Chicago Tribune, 10/21/07]
THE FEDERAL “PROTECT MARRIAGE AMENDMENT WOULD ROLL BACK RIGHTS FOR LGBT INDIVIDUALS AND USE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A GROUP OF PEOPLE FOR THE FIRST TIME.
The Federal Protect Marriage Amendment Would Define Marriage As Between A Man And A Woman And Could Prevent Courts From Providing Marriage-Like Benefits. Under the proposed amendment, the Constitution would be amended to say: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” [H. J. RES. 88, introduced June 6, 2006]
- “Barack Obama Voted Against The Federal Marriage Amendment In 2006 Which Would Have Defined Marriage As Between A Man And A Woman And Prevented Judicial Extension Of Marriage-Like Rights To Same-Sex Or Other Unmarried Couples.” [Change.gov,accessed 05/09/2012]
Mary Cheney Said A Federal Marriage Amendment “Is Writing Discrimination Into The Constitution.”Mary Cheney: “I think that is what the federal marriage amendment is. It is writing discrimination into the constitution… Well, I certainly don’t know what conversations have gone on between Karl and anybody up on the Hill. But you know, what I can say is look, amending the constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation. It is writing discrimination into the constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong. Now, I would certainly hope that, you know, and understand, this is an issue that Americans do disagree on and that we do need to debate and discuss. And I would certainly hope that those discussions would continue. And I would also hope that no one would think about trying to amend the constitution as a political strategy, that people wouldn’t try and use amending the constitution to further their own political goals.” [Fox New Sunday, Fox, 5/14/06]
2008: ROMNEY SENT FUNDS TO THE ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE GROUP, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MARRIAGE
Headline: “Mitt Romney Fuels NOM’s Divisive Racial Tactics” [LGBT Weekly,3/31/12]
Headline: “Mitt Romney Secretly Supported Anti-Gay-Marriage Group”[Daily Beast,3/30/12]
Headline: “Mitt Romney’s PAC Funded Anti-Gay Marriage Group Under The Radar” [Huffington Post,3/30/12]
2008: Romney’s Free And Strong America PAC Contributed $10,000 To National Organization Of Marriage “At A Time When The Anti-Gay Rights Organization Was Seeking Repeal Of A California Law Legalizing Marriage Equality.” “In 2008, Mitt Romney’s political action committee made a $10,000 donation to the National Organization of Marriage at a time when the anti-gay rights organization was seeking repeal of a California law legalizing marriage equality. … But when Romney eventually made his donation, he did so quietly, and through an unusual channel. Records filed by Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC with the Federal Election Commission did not include details of that $10,000 donation. Nor did NOM’s public 990 form. In fact, record of the payment was only uncovered Friday when the pro-gay rights Human Rights Campaign was sent a private IRS filing from NOM via a whistleblower. The Human Rights Campaign shared the filing with The Huffington Post.” [Huffington Post,3/30/12]
- 2008: Free and Strong America Contributed $10,000 To National Organization For Marriage, Inc. [National Organization for Marriage, Inc. Form 990, Schedule of Contributors, 2008]
- 2008: Romney Spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom: Romney Donated $10,000 To The National Organization For Marriage And “Feels Strongly That Marriage Is An Institution Between A Man And A Woman.” “Romney, a former Massachusetts governor claimed by Utahns as a favorite son candidate before he dropped out of this year’s presidential race, appears to be positioning himself for another run for the White House. … The former leader of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City also has contributed more than $375,000 from his Free and Strong America political action committee to a variety of conservative candidates and causes.Those causes include California’s Proposition 8, which would reverse that state’s Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage there earlier this year. Romney donated $10,000 to the National Organization for Marriage, [Romney spokesman Eric] Fehrnstrom said. ‘The governor feels strongly that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, and one of the most high-profile fights on this subject is happening in California,’ Fehrnstrom said.” [Deseret News,10/28/08]
- Romney Campaign On Romney’s Contribution To NOM Through Free And Strong America: “Romney Believes Marriage Is An Institution Between A Man And A Woman And His PAC Made A Donation To A Group Supporting That View.” “Free & Strong America PAC Alabama, one of a network of state-level PACs that has raised and disbursed money on Romney’s behalf, gave the donation in 2008 to the National Organization for Marriage, which at the time was working to pass Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage in California, disclosure records show. … The Romney campaign says the donation to NOM is hardly surprising given the candidate’s opposition to same-sex marriage and his avowed support for Proposition 8, which was approve by California voters. ‘Gov. Romney believes marriage is an institution between a man and a woman and his PAC made a donation to a group supporting that view,’ campaign spokesman Andrea Saul said Friday.” [Washington Post, 3/30/12]
2008: ROMNEY DONATED $10,000 TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE TO HELP IN THEIR EFFORTS TO PASS CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSITION 8 INCLUDING A NUMBER OF ADS
Romney Donated $10,000 To The National Organization For Marriage To Help In Their Efforts To Pass California’s Proposition 8 Including A Number Of Ads.“In 2008 presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney donated $10,000 through his PAC to the National Organization for Marriage to help in their efforts to pass California’s Proposition 8, which reversed the state court’s decision to legalize gay marriage. Here are three ads Romney helped pay for.” [BuzzFeed 3/8/12]
- Yes On California Proposition 8 Ad: Warned That Children Would Be Taught They Could Marry Someone Of Their Own Sex In Schools.“Yes on 8 TV Ad: Its Already Happened”: Daughter: “Mom, guess what I learned in school today?” Mom: “What sweetie?” “Daughter: “I learned how prince married a prince and I can marry a princess.” Professor Richard Peterson, Pepperdine University School of Law: “Think it can’t happen? It’s already happened. When Massachusetts legalized gay marriage schools began teaching second graders that boys can marry boys. The courts ruled parents had no right to object.” Voice: “Under California Law public schools instruct kids on marriage. Teaching children about gay marriage will happen here unless we pass proposition 8. Yes on 8.” [NationForMarriage.org, 2/4/09; BuzzFeed 3/8/12]
- Yes On California Proposition 8 Ad: “Gay Marriage Will Be Taught In Our Schools Unless We Vote Yes On Proposition 8.”Transcript for “Everything To Do With Schools” ad: Voiceover: “Some say that gay marriage doesn’t have anything to do with schools.” Woman: “But it has everything to do with schools.” Robin Wirthlin: “After Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, our son came home and told us the school taught him that boys can marry other boys. He’s in second grade.” Robb Wirthlin: “We tried to stop public schools from teaching children about gay marriage but the courts said we had no right to object or pull him out of class.” Woman: “It’s already happened in Massachusetts. Gay marriage will be taught in our schools unless we vote yes on Proposition 8.” [NationForMarriage.org ,2/4/09]
- Proponents Of Proposition 8 Claimed Gay Marriage Would Be Taught In Schools – Though “The Opposing Side Insists That This Is Fear-Mongering,” “The Yes On 8 Campaign Has Made It The Center Of Its Television Advertising Campaign.” “Supporters of the constitutional amendment, under which marriage would be defined as only between a man and a woman, contend that if Proposition 8 does not pass, gay marriage will be taught in public schools. ‘We are already seeing that happen,’ said Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Yes on 8. The opposing side insists that this is fear-mongering and notes that there is no mention of schools or curriculum in the language of the proposition… Still, recognizing how politically potent the issue is, the Yes on 8 campaign has made it the center of its television advertising campaign. ‘Mom, guess what I learned in school today?’ a little girl says in one spot. ‘I learned how a prince married a prince.’ As the girl’s mother makes a horrified face, a voice says: ‘Think it can’t happen? It’s already happened. . . . Teaching about gay marriage will happen unless we pass Proposition 8.’” [LA Times, 10/19/08]
- Think Progress: National Organization For Marriage’s “It’s Already Happened” Ad That Ran During The Proposition 8 Campaign Is “The Most Infamous Example” Of NOM’s “Overt Accusations That Homosexuals Recruit And Molest Kids To The More Recent And More Subtle Threat That Young People Might Actually Be ‘Taught Homosexuality’ In Schools.”“It’s no secret that anti-gay groups have primarily targeted children in their campaigns, whether through overt accusations that homosexuals recruit and molest kids to the more recent and more subtle threat that young people might actually be ‘taught homosexuality’ in schools. The intended audience for all of these messages is parents, as the National Organization for Marriage confirms in their 2009 confidential strategy memos released today… This tactic can clearly be seen in NOM’s many ads, produced by its go-to media company, Schubert Flint Public Affairs — a partnership the organization flaunts to donors throughout the documents. Perhaps the most infamous example (of which there have been many variations in other states) was the ‘It’s Already Happened’ ad that ran during the Proposition 8 campaign… The obvious anti-gay animus behind this ‘parental rights’ strategy confirms that NOM’s opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with actually protecting children. In fact, allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt is good for children, because it allows more of them to find homes and ensures that their families are protected and secure.” [Think Progress, 3/27/12]
- October 2008: Lawyers Opposing Prop. 8 Sent A Letter That “Urged Television Stations Not To Run The Ad Featuring The Young Girl And Her Mother, Saying It Was False And Misleading To Say That ‘Teaching Children About Gay Marriage Will Happen Here Unless We Pass Proposition 8.’”“‘People watch TV,’ said Chip White, a spokesman for the Prop. 8 campaign. ‘The ads are doing a good job of dramatizing the threat. It lets people know there are real consequences to not passing Prop. 8.’ How real those consequences are depends on who’s being asked. ‘We’re concerned when people spend millions of dollars to lie to Californians,’ said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California and a leader in the anti-Prop. 8 fight. ‘These charges are lies, and the other campaign knows it.’ Kors and others argue that same-sex marriage will have no effect on churches, schools or opponents of such unions. Massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriage since 2004, and churches there still have tax exemptions and people still complain about it without being forced into court. A letter sent out this week by lawyers for the Prop. 8 opposition urged television stations not to run the ad featuring the young girl and her mother, saying it was false and misleading to say that ‘teaching children about gay marriage will happen here unless we pass Proposition 8.’” [San Francisco Chronicle, 10/11/08]
So Mitt Romney, WHERE DO YOU STAND ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AGAIN? TODAY?