You are mixing up the Legislative and Executive Branch. Romney openly opposed gay adoption being forced on Catholic Charities. it was important he did so because LDS family services refuses to adopt to gays also. Something he is aware of.
Unmarked Package answers this.
____________________________________________
Take a look at the chronology of events in that issue from published stories at the time. It wasn't Gov. Romney who gave up on the fight for Catholic Charities of Boston. Romney took the actions that were available to him under law to help them based on legal counsel he was given. Catholic Charities abandoned the fight.
Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/?page=1
[President of Catholic Charities of Boston, Rev. J. Bryan] Hehir said he hoped the decision will end the tumult surrounding the gay adoption issue. The controversy began in October when the Globe reported that Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice. Over the last decades, the Globe reported, approximately 13 children had been placed by Catholic Charities in gay households, a fraction of the 720 children placed by the agency during that period.
Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state's antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state's four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.
But, on Feb. 28, the four bishops announced a plan to seek an exemption from the antidiscrimination laws. Eight of the 42 board members quit in protest, saying the agency should welcome gays as adoptive parents.
That day, Hehir and [Archbishop] O'Malley met with Romney in his State House office to make their case for an exemption, but Romney said he lacked the authority to do so. Hehir and O'Malley left the State House feeling that nothing could be done soon for their cause. The bishops had considered launching a court challenge, but Hehir said he and O'Malley realized it would cost "too much time and energy" -- without any certainty of victory.
"It became clear our options were narrow," Hehir said.
In the following parts of the article it describes the unanimous decision of the board of Catholic Charities of Boston to pull out on March 10, 2006. If any anger is expressed, it's against Catholic Charities of Boston for giving up too easily, not disappointment with Gov. Romney. We can be quite sure the liberal Boston Globe would have printed any anti-Romney sentiment on this subject if there was any hint that Romney had the authority to grant the exemption. Amateur lawyers and anti-Romney trolls will parrot the Dem talking point (Dukakis, et al) that Gov. Romney had the authority to grant the exemption. The legal advice Romney received clearly showed he did not have the authority.
Another account of the story is found in the March 17, 2006 issue of The Pilot, a Catholic newspaper (excerpts follow).
Catholic Charities ceases adoption work http://thebostonpilot.com/articlearchives.asp?ID=2961
Father Hehir also sought the council of the law firm Ropes & Gray.
"They worked for us from November to Feb. 18, they helped us clarify the legal situation and they did not charge us for any work," he said.
The committee looked for recourse in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government. Gov. Mitt Romney informed them that the executive level was not an option, and Catholic Charities determined that the legislature was not a viable option, he said.
"Catholic Charities is not supporting the governor’s bill," Father Hehir said. "We already looked at the legislative road and made a decision there was no possibility there."
Romney proposed the bill designed to allow Catholic Charities to continue providing adoptions without serving same-sex couples but still allow other agencies to provide adoptions to gay couples.
"They have within their religion the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that children should not be sent into homes without a mother and father," Romney said about Catholic Charities. "That’s their religious freedom to have that belief and we’d like them to be able to be true to that religion and at the same time provide a service to the Commonwealth of placing special needs kids."
Father Hehir added that the committee decided not to seek help from the judicial branch.
"The third route was through the courts, and that would have been a long process with inconclusive prospects," he said.
Father Hehir said he and the other members of the board were concerned that seeking an exemption "could threaten the rest of the programs over time," including their management and funding.
The same day that Catholic Charities announced they were discontinuing adoption services (March 10, 2006), Gov. Romney issued a press release announcing he would file legislation to permit religious institutions to perform adoptions without violating the tenets of their faith. http://myclob.pbwiki.com/03-10-2006 Gov. Romney filed the bill just five days later on March 15, 2006
Romney files 'religious freedom' bill on church and gay adoption http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/15/romney_files_religious_freedom_bill_on_church_and_gay_adoption/
"It is a matter beyond dispute, and a prerequisite to the preservation of liberty, that government not dictate to religious institutions the moral principles by which they are to carry out their charitable and divine mission," Romney said in a letter to House and Senate leaders.
"He said Catholic Charities' withdrawal from providing adoption services creates a void in the child welfare system."
"In this case, the needs of children must come before the rights of adults," he said.
The Governor got the following response from gay activists for his actions in favor of religious freedom:
"Arline Isaacson, the co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said Romney's proposal was reprehensible."
"These kids need loving and nurturing homes and if the best match for them is a gay family, they should be allowed to have that," she said. "When you start exempting from discrimination laws in one category, someone can come around and ask for it in another and another and another. Ultimately the kids are the losers."
The Democrats in the MA Legislature reacted predictably, and the anti-Romney trolls, as usual, parrot the Dem talking point that the legislation had no chance of passing and he was just pandering for show:
"House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and Senate President Robert Travaglini, both Democrats, have said they would oppose Romney's efforts." Romney's bill was not pandering to the Republican base for political purposes. Republican Lt. Gov. Healey opposed it.
"Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, a fellow Republican hoping to succeed Romney as governor, recently said she disagreed with the governor's position." Furthermore, as described above by Father Hehir in The Pilot article, not even Catholic Charities supported the Governor's bill. Thus, he gained nothing politically by working to help them.
192 posted on 04/14/2007 5:14:45 PM PDT by Unmarked Package (<<<< Click to learn more about the conservative record of Governor Mitt Romney)
Thanks for the info, and I’m glad to hear it, but what about the other stuff in my posts 138 & 142?
Pat Buchanan was on Ingraham’s show yesterday, and says Romney keeps changing his mind.
I am scared to death of even the possibility of a RINO winning the election in 2008.