Then perhaps you missed this from above:
My view is that marriage should be defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. I also maintain that something so fundamental to our society as marriage should be decided by the citizens, and not by a court with a one-justice majority. My preference is that when the issue is decided by the citizens, that it's a very clean, straightforward, unambiguous amendment which they have the opportunity to vote on, rather than something which is confused by multiple features being combined. And I'm concerned that the amendment currently under consideration in the legislature is somewhat confused or muddied by the combination of two things. One is the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, which I support. The other is the requirement that there be civil unions in the Commonwealth, which is a condition I do not support.
It wasn't highlighted so, it was easy to miss since it was right next to a highlighted section.
Don’t you think a candidate’s current rhetoric should bear at least some passing resemblance to their actual record?
"The other is the requirement that there be civil unions in the Commonwealth, which is a condition I do not support."
Romney's actual record:
Within days of the Goodridge ruling, Romney announced that he supported homosexual civil unions: Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said yesterday he was ready to work with lawmakers to craft a "civil union"-style law to give some marriage rights to homosexual couples, even though he also supports a constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage . . . Mr. Romney yesterday told TV news stations that he would support a Vermont-style civil union law in Massachusetts, but reiterated his support for a constitutional amendment that would clarify that "marriage is an institution between a man and a woman." - Washington Times, 11/20/2003
In 2005, Romney tried to tell South Carolina Republicans that he had always opposed civil unions: Massachusetts Governor Romney is coming under fire for comments he made about gay marriage to Republican activists in South Carolina. Romney told Monday night's gathering in Spartanburg County that he's always been opposed to same-sex marriage as well as what he called "it's equivalent, civil unions." Romney, however, has for months backed a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that would ban gay marriage but provide for civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. Massachusetts State Representative Phil Travis says Romney can't be for civil unions when he's in Massachusetts and against them when he's out-of-state. Travis has been a leading opponent of same-sex unions. - Associated Press, 2/23/2005
Romney strong-armed conservative Republicans into supporting a constitutional amendment that included civil unions: Through all the twists and shifts during the gay-marriage debate this year, there was one constant: 22 Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed every measure that would grant gay couples civil unions in the constitution. That all changed yesterday, however, when 15 of that 22-member bloc broke away at the urging of Governor Mitt Romney and voted in favor of a proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage but create Vermont-style civil unions. Those 15 members provided the margin of victory, observers from both camps said yesterday after the measure passed by just five votes. In the end, the 15 agreed that approving a measure that they viewed as highly undesirable was preferable to the possibility that nothing would be sent to the state ballot for voters to weigh in on. - Boston Globe 3/30/2004 (Note: This amendment, which included mandated provisions for civil unions, was ultimately defeated in the Legislature and never did go to the voters.)