Monday, February 04, 2008

Romney's Social Conservatism

(Guest post, from my friend Elise, crossposted at Illinois Review)

A Clearer Look at Mitt Romney

Lately, a great deal of misinformation has been floating around regarding Mitt Romney’s views and statements. Having sought clarity on this information from the Romney campaign, I have found that “spokespeople” who claim to speak for Mitt Romney are unknown by the campaign and not authorized to speak for Mitt Romney, and news commentators and analysts who “quote” Mitt Romney are seriously misquoting him. In the interest of giving a clearer view on Mitt Romney, let me share with you accurate statements that have come directly from Mitt Romney and his campaign staff.

1. In regards to protecting traditional marriage, Governor Romney gave testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on June 22, 2004. In this testimony he advocated strongly for a federal amendment that would protect traditional marriage. http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1234&wit_id=3608 In addition to his testimony on the ramifications resulting from the court’s decision, Gov. Romney also asked that additional written remarks be added to the record. The following quotes are taken from those written remarks:

“….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 affect 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.

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.”http://myclob.pbwiki.com/06-22-2004

2. Admittedly these statements conflict with past statements that were made in his run against Senator Ted Kennedy in 1994 and his campaign as governor. Looking for clarification, I spoke with senior campaign staff this past September. According to the staff, Mitt Romney went into politics in the early 1990's with a conviction that no one should be discriminated against or harmed due to their sexual preference (This was during the time of a number of violent assaults/murders on gays and lesbians). As years progressed, and he experienced the realities and long term ramifications of the Massachusetts’ gay marriage decision (threats to religious liberty i.e. religious adoption agencies’ right to decide that babies will only be placed into heterosexual homes, the right of parents to protect their children from GLBT teachings in the public schools, etc), he now stands firmly against ENDA and civil unions (or any relationship that is just marriage by another name), and is a strong advocate for passing a federal constitutional marriage amendment to protect traditional marriage. He also supports the President’s “don’t ask don’t tell policy.”

Furthermore, according to the staff, Governor Romney’s past support of a civil union bill attached to a marriage amendment was an attempt after the Goodridge decision to gain a stay from the courts on enacting their decision while a grass roots group worked on gathering the signatures required to pass a stronger traditional marriage amendment.

Obviously Gov. Romney has been educated by his experiences in Massachusetts, and he is now fully aware of the real dangers in the GLBT movement. As a result, the governor's perspective goes beyond the theoretical and is based on real experience. Thus, his change in views is not "flip-flopping," but evidence of a full realization of the problems inherent in the GLBT activists’ agenda.

This information is further substantiated by a 2006 interview between Katherine Lopez of National Review:

Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today?

Gov. Romney: No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.

As for military policy and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I trust the counsel of those in uniform who have set these policies over a dozen years ago. I agree with President Bush’s decision to maintain this policy and I would do the same. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY1MTQyMTk0Yjk2ZDNmZmVmNmNkNjY4ODExMGM5NWE=

3. As noted above in his testimony before the U.S. Judicial Committee, he stated that he does not support classroom instruction that confuses traditional marriage with same-sex unions. In a 2005 interview with CNN Wolf Blitzer, he stated: “Once a court, as it is in Massachusetts, says that we're indifferent between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage, then, what you have on the -- in our schools is a desire to avoid what they call heterocentricity. So, we have kids in a second-grade class in Massachusetts being taught from a book called "The King and the King," where a prince doesn't find a princess to marry, but another prince. And they become the kings. We begin to say that we're indifferent between a marriage between a man and a woman and two men or two women. And we're not indifferent as a society. Fundamentally, as a society, overall, we want homes with moms and dads.” http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/17/sitroom.01.html and http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Do+you+want+to+tell+our+viewers+why+you+disagree+with+Mary+Cheney

On Fox News, Mitt Romney stated, in response to the Democrat candidates: "Not one candidate was uncomfortable with young children learning about same-sex marriage in the second grade," Romney said in the statement. "This is a subject that should be left to parents, not public school teachers. We need to strengthen our families by passing a federal marriage amendment and also insisting on marriage before having children. Change in Washington requires Democrats with the courage to stand up to their ultra liberal base and do what's right for our children. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298307,00.html

Again, there are those who will claim inconsistencies with Governor Romney’s actions as Governor. According to my conversation with senior campaign staff, Governor Mitt Romney merely allowed funding to an already existing Governor's Task Force on Gay and Lesbian Youth for the original purpose of preventing GLBT suicides (in other words, he was trying to help these youth, not promote homosexuality). When the Task Force went beyond their scope and brought in programming that promoted homosexuality, he first demanded they cease, and then disbanded them after they (1) refused to comply and (2) went to the liberal state legislature and became rechartered with a broader scope that permitted them to carry out their aggressive agenda with no oversight from the executive branch. They continued to exist as a new task force under the authority of the state legislature. Governor Romney directly opposed these actions (his veto of the new commission was overridden by the state legislature). The Boston Edge confirms this as it excoriates him for disbanding the task force and not supporting their actions.

4. On the issue of abortion, he has stated, "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate." (Governor Romney, Boston Globe, Mitt Romney Editorial, July 26, 2005) http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Values

Furthermore, as a recent article in Illinois Review shows, Mitt Romney has acted on the side of life when legislation involving life came across his desk as Governor. http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/11/romney-camp-res.html

In the same 2005 interview with CNN Wolf Blitzer, he explains his changed perspective on abortion as well as his stance on embryonic stem cell research:

BLITZER: You used to support a woman's right to have an abortion.

ROMNEY: Well, when I was elected governor, I said that I didn't support abortion, but I wouldn't change the laws in Massachusetts. And people said, well, that is effectively pro-choice. I didn't argue with them. I didn't take the label pro-choice. But I did take the label pro-life, following the debate associated with stem cell research.

I sat in my office. And a provost of Harvard University and the head of stem cell research came in and said: Governor, this isn't a moral issue, because we kill the embryo after 14 days.

And that struck me as being a -- just a blow to the gut, because I recognized that we had so cheapened the value of human life, through the Roe v. Wade mentality, that I could no longer stand on the sidelines, if you will. I had to take sides. And I call myself firmly pro-life.

BLITZER: So, you oppose embryonic stem cell research?

ROMNEY: Well, I favor using existing lines, as does the president, and using surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization. Those provide plenty of lines, as well what Dr. Hurlbut of Stanford describes as altered-state nuclear transfer, which is a type of embryonic development without actually creating a human embryo.

But I do not favor, if you will, what is known as embryo farming, taking donor sperm, donor eggs, putting them together in the laboratory, and creating new embryos. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/17/sitroom.01.html

There are those who complain that Massachusetts’ health care provides funding for abortions. In this regards, it is important to understand that Massachusetts has a state Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). These state ERAs have been used by judges to mandate government funding of Medicaid eligible abortions (N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 975 P.2d 841, 1998 and Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981/ Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, 1997). This is why we need to be so vigilant here in Illinois to make sure our General Assembly doesn’t pass the Federal ERA which would put all states under binding judicial interpretation on abortion. Clearly, we need to separate the actions of Governor Romney from those of the judges and preexisting laws of Massachusetts in trying to identify his stand on abortion.

5. Along these same lines, it’s important to understand that Governor Romney served in a state where only 13% of registered voters were Republicans. This balance was reflected in the make-up of the Governor’s Council, an executive body that must approve all judicial appointees and was composed of 8 Democrats and 1 Republican. Thus, those who complain that Governor Romney did not appoint enough conservative judges are not taking into consideration the political constraints he faced in gaining approval for his judicial nominees. These same political constraints applied to many of the government programs and legislation he encountered.

I would encourage you to cut through the misinformation and take a better look at Mitt Romney. It seems to me that a lot of the negative buzz out there might be an attempt by less principled candidates and political powers to keep someone with values and integrity out of office. Others who are well-intentioned are simply trying to figure out if they can put their trust in him. After careful searching, I believe that Mitt Romney has the integrity and principles that we need to protect our families, our values and our freedoms.

With that being said, I would also warn that we are in danger again of fractioning. We made this mistake in the Illinois Gubernatorial primary race when we saw our conservative vote split between two good, principled candidates. We failed to unite behind one, and so we found ourselves in the general election faced with a GOP candidate who didn’t share our moral values. Will we repeat that same mistake again, or will we learn from it? We can not afford to fraction.

No comments: