Posted on 06/19/2005 8:13:03 PM PDT by MassachusettsGOP
Governor Mitt Romney yesterday endorsed a grass-roots effort to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2008, abandoning his support for what he called a ''muddied" compromise measure that would also ban gay marriages but allow gays to enter into civil unions.
Romney, who is courting conservative voters for a possible presidential run in 2008, said the newly proposed ban would give voters a chance to consider a ''clean, straightforward, unambiguous amendment" that does not include civil unions.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
But if it bans civil unions also, can it still pass in Mass?
Probably.
Does this bill necessarily ban civil unions also? Or does it just leave them out of it?
This new one would ban both gay marriages and Civil Unions.
But what proportion are for civil unions? I bet the people voting against gay marriage will be more motivated to get to the polls.
Even in Massachussets? I hope so.
I wonder who these 45% are??? Last I checked there are barely any religious people in Massachussets, and virtually no conservatives.
Mitt Romney's lack of response to the Amirault fiasco tells me all I need to know about him. He's hardly any better than the Dems -- and a shame to his father.
BRAVO!!!! Thank you for beating me to it.
Karl Rove noticed early on that W was doing 5% better in MA on election night 2004 than he did in 2000. At that point he was convinced that the information from the exit polls that had been released during the afternoon were heavily skewed to Kerry. Even MA fit the trend for the rest of the country. W did better in the counties with the highest fertility, while Kerry did best in the counties with the lowest fertility.
"W did better in the counties with the highest fertility, while Kerry did best in the counties with the lowest fertility."
I read recently that conservatives have triple the birthrate of liberals. In the 1960's their birthrates were equal. I wonder what the implications of that will be.
Mitt's more Conservative than his Father by a lot.
Gays for the Boy Scouts
Benefits for 'partners'?
Special protection under discrimination statutes?
Domestic partnerships? whatever those are
Gay indoctrination in schools?
Public funding of "gay pride" events?
Nominating radical gay activists as judges -- this one he just did if I understand correctly
"Good News for Mass"
Not sure about that. Instead of an amendment that was likely to pass, we are ending up with an amendment that is unlikely to pass. If it ever makes it through the legislature.
But Mitt will be long gone in 2008 from MA. This is about him improving his prospects in the presidential primary, not about achieving an optimal outcome for MA.
The man will never be the rep. nominee. Religeous conservatives will never vote for a mormon. Their beliefs are just too wacko. That pervert Joseph Smith being the prophet of God. Mormons will regret the day he runs for president because it will put a lot of focus on what that religion really is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.