Replies

This is who Romney is...

In 2005, the Boston Globe revealed that Catholic Charities of Boston had placed a small number of special-needs children with homosexual couples for adoption. The Archdiocese of Boston responded in early 2006, stating it would no longer place children with homosexual couples (as the Church considers homosexuality “gravely immoral”). A media storm quickly followed.

Responding to charges that it was illegally discriminating against homosexuals, the Archdiocese then asked the state to grant a religious exemption to Catholic Charities, but the Legislature balked. Existing Massachusetts non-discrimination laws referencing “sexual orientation” plus “legal gay marriage” would not allow the Church to follow its moral precepts, it was claimed.

Governor Romney said his hands were tied by the law, the Legislature’s refusal to act, and the Supreme Court ruling which had forced same-sex marriage on the state. All he could do was to file a bill to “protect religious freedom” in Massachusetts, specifically targeting the laws covering adoption, and hope for the best. The Legislature then killed his bill, and the Church had to end its adoption services in order not to violate its own tenets. But Romney had done all he could for religious freedom!

But that’s not exactly what happened. In fact, Romney erroneously blamed the Church’s predicament on non-existent law and could have rescinded the administrative regulations that would not let Catholic Charities deny placement of children with homosexual couples. Romney also failed to point out that religious freedom was already protected in both the state and federal constitutions. The Archdiocese could have fought this in court but did not — perhaps out of fear of losing major donors with liberal views (who were well represented on Catholic Charities’ board). In the end, the homosexual activists and their allies got their way, and it was another public whipping for the Catholic Church — all of which Romney could have prevented.

Romney falsely claimed the law required Catholic Charities to place children with homosexual couples. ...

This story is significant because it lays bare Romney’s hypocrisy and self-contradiction. He simultaneously accepted homosexuality and laws or policies banning discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation,” yet blamed those very laws or policies for threatening “religious freedom.” If he understood that conflict in March 2006, how could he ever have supported laws banning discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation”? (It is unclear whether he still supports such laws; see Chapter II.) Did he (and does he) not see how they set up conflicts with basic constitutional rights?

Romney blamed Massachusetts law for the problem. But there is no overarching law in Massachusetts concerning “sexual orientation” discrimination. The phrase “sexual orientation” appears in only certain specific Massachusetts statutes (signed into law by Democrat Governor Michael Dukakis in 1989). In any case, these statutes do not trump freedom of religion, constitutionally protected both the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution.

One could even question Romney’s motives. He had said in 2003 that he favored “adoptive parent rights” for same-sex couples, but on many other instances tried to sidestep that question. In a clear statement at the height of the Catholic Charities adoption story, he said that same-sex couples have “a legitimate interest” in adopting children...