Exactly. Where does Romney stand on this? I don't think there's anyone against civil unions.
I believe Romney opposes them, but he's trying to win by getting to the right of the front-runners, and thus, getting the support of the social conservatives/evangelicals.
Now firmly pro-life, despite 2002 tolerance for abortion. (Dec 2006)How convenient, focus groups.
Supports benefits for gay partners, but not gay marriage. (Sep 2002)Talk about Clintonese parsing
Sexual orientation should not preclude being a Scout. (Oct 1994) Great, gay scoutmasters trolling through the troops.
Mitt Romney touched on this topic during an interview today (2/18/2007) on ABC News This Week with George Stephanopoulos.
In summary, Mitt Romney does not favor action at the national level to sanction civil unions and would leave it to the several states to define the permissible contractual relationships between two people. Romney would not seek to impose, at the national level, a prohibition on contractual relationships between two people.
Romney has always opposed same-sex marriage and has diligently lobbied Congress in favor of a Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage to be between one man and one woman.
The pertinent excerpt of the transcript for the television interview today is provided below:
Mitt Romney: From the very beginning of my political life and well before that, I've felt marriage is between a man and a woman and not between people of the same gender.Stephanopoulos: You have been consistent about that, but what do you think about legally recognizing domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples?
Mitt Romney: I don't know if there needs to be a legal recognition, meaning two people can enter into a partnership, whether they're people who love each other or whether they're just friends. They can enter into a contract and have contractual relationships with one another.
Stephanopoulos: But not sanctioned by the state.
Mitt Romney: But that doesn't require a sanction by the state and so that's a decision each state would have to make. I wouldn't seek to impose, at the national level, a prohibition on contractual relationships between two people.
But my view is, at the national level, we should define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. And this isn't about adult rights.
A lot of people get confused that gay marriage is about treating gay people the same as treating heterosexual people, and that's not the issue involved here.
This is about the development and nurturing of children. Marriage is primarily an institution to help develop children and children's development, I believe, is greatly enhanced by access to a mom and a dad.
I think every child deserves a mom and a dad, and that's why I'm so consistent and vehement in my view that we should have a federal amendment which defines marriage in that way.