Romney’s all-out support for homosexual rights in 1994

Don Feder, former long-time columnist for the Boston Herald, told me in an e-mail that he thinks Romney is as bad as Giuliani. I asked him why, and he sent me a February 2007 article he wrote on Romney’s record, which includes, among other things, this:

Running against Kennedy in 1994, Romney told [the Log Cabin Republicans] he’d make a better advocate for gay rights than the incumbent.

“We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do that. I can and will,” the future family-values champion intoned. During a debate with Kennedy, Romney said the Boy Scouts should accept gay scoutmasters—which would make for tense times on camping trips. (Romney was then a member of the BSA’s executive council.)

Now read this:

But, let’s give Mitt the benefit of the doubt….

Don’t listen to all of the RINO stuff I said back in 1994 and 2002, when I was appealing to liberal voters in Massachusetts, instead “look at my record as governor,” W. Mitt pleads.

Fair enough. He was governor when the courts ordered Catholic Charities—the state’s largest adoption agency—to give same-sex couples an equal opportunity to adopt, or get out of the business. Romney did nothing.

He could have saved the Church from this bizarre scenario. Even one of his Democratic predecessors, former Governor Mike Dukakis, said Romney could have exempted Catholic Charities by executive order. Dukakis urged, “The state’s anti-discrimination statutes do not preclude an exemption for the Catholic organization.”

There’s a lot more.

Feder thinks that conservatives will be “well, you know” if they “hop into bed with Romney.” I do not deny the weird and appalling fact of Romney’s ever shifting positions that Feder details. But I also believe, to use a more benign metaphor, that he stays with the girl he brought to the dance. Though he has been a liberal in the past, he is now running as a conservatives. He will at least have to attempt to govern as a conservative. Even if he only succeeds partly, the results would still be far better than what Hillary or Obama would do.

I am not saying this as someone who will vote for Romney for President. As I’ve said before, it would be very difficult for me to vote for someone who tacitly endorsed making Spanish a language of American politics, which, to their utter disgrace, Romney, Thompson, and all the other candidates except Tancredo did when they appeared in the Univision debate. But that issue, which is probably decisive for me, is not decisive for many others, and the fact that I personally will not vote for a candidate doesn’t mean that on balance he would not be better for the country and for conservatism than his opponent.

Or, to paraphrase the motto of FOX News, I blog, you decide.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 16, 2007 03:53 PM | Send