You: Not true. He always opposed civil unions. I defy you to find a single instance where he supports them.
In either 2001 or 2002, Romney opposed a pre-emptive Marriage Protection Amendment that would have prohibited both same-sex marriage and civil unions. By October 2002, he said he didn't support or prefer either same-sex marriage or civil unions. Still, he said if he had to choose, he said he would "favor" civil unions. By the Fall of 2003, he was working with the state legislature to promote civil unions. By the Spring of 2004, he was recommending to 22 state Republicans to support the Travaglini-Lees "compromise amendment" which would have implemented civil unions. 15 of the 22 listened to him allowing the measure to pass by 5 votes. It wasn't til half-way through 2005 (June) that he backed off of civil unions.
2001-2002 CNN says it was 2001; the Boston Phoenix says it was 2002...these sources don't agree which year it was, but they both agree Romney made "too extreme" comment: Called first citizens' petition to define marriage “too extreme” and “bigoted” because it banned civil unions. (Source: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/20/gay.marriage.ap/ Nov. 20, 2003 [Link no longer active]) In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as "too extreme" the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits. (Source: Boston Phoenix, May 14-20, 2004)
October, 2002: A review of Romney's remarks shows that at an October 2002 campaign debate, he said: "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union." Then, after the SJC decision legalizing same-sex marriage, he told WCVB on Dec. 17, 2003, that if he had to choose, he would favor civil unions over full-fledged gay marriage. However, he added: "But that is not my preference overall. My preference overall would be neither civil union or marriage." (Source: Boston Globe, Feb. 25, 2005)
Nov.-Dec. 2003 Romney reportedly working with Legislators promoting “civil unions”: In headline "Massachussetts Governor Urges Civil Unions, not Marriage," ... Romney said Wednesday he believes the state could adopt civil unions similar to those allowed in Vermont -- then continue working toward a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.... "I believe their [the Court's] decision indicates that a provision which provides that benefits, obligations, rights and responsibilities which are consistent with marriage but perhaps could be called by a different name would be in conformity with their decision," Romney said. "Under that opinion, I believe a civil-union type provision would be sufficient." (Source: AP, Nov. 20, 2003)
March 29, 2004 Romney tells MA Republican legislators to vote for Travaglini-Lees “compromise amendment” which would ban same-sex marriage but establish civil unions (...wouldn't go to voters before Nov. 2006). Republican legislators had earlier opposed this amendment because of the civil unions clause, and it passed only due to their changed votes. "In crucial shift, governor sways 15 in GOP to support measure" 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.... it was clear that the Republican governor had a major effect on the fracturing of the 22-member bloc.... (Source: Boston Globe, March 30, 2004)
Feb, 2005: "Romney's stance on civil unions draws fire; Activists accuse governor of 'flip-flopping' on issue" -- ... Yesterday the Log Cabin Republicans sharply rebuked the Massachusetts governor, saying his remarks indicate he is backsliding on his 2002 campaign commitment to support some benefits for gay couples. He had also urged GOP lawmakers to vote for a proposed constitutional amendment last spring that would ban same-sex marriage but allow gay couples to enter into civil unions....Last March, Romney's staff told House Republicans he supported the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions.... (Source: Boston Globe, Feb. 25, 2005)
June 2005: 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...Reflecting the uneasiness among politicians over same-sex marriage, last spring the Legislature passed the Travaglini-Lees amendment to ban gay marriage but allow civil unions. It cleared by just five votes. At the time, Romney urged Republicans to back the measure because it was the only one put forth by lawmakers that had a chance of passing.<./b> (Source: Boston Globe, June 17, 2005)
So if the above references are not at times supporting civil unions, what is?
He opposed both gay marriage and civil unions for gays, but he didn't support a pre-emptive amendment, either. There's nothing inconsistent with these positions. Many conservatives share the philosophy that one should not enact a constitutional amendment unless it is absolutely necessary. Conservative judicial philosophy holds that the constitution should be amendment sparingly.
However, he immediately started to advocate an amendment when the Goodridge decision made it necessary.
By October 2002, he said he didn't support or prefer either same-sex marriage or civil unions.
He never supported either one.
Still, he said if he had to choose, he said he would "favor" civil unions.
There you go distroting his position again. From the very same source you cite:
" he told WCVB on Dec. 17, 2003, that if he had to choose, he would favor civil unions over full-fledged gay marriage. However, he added: 'But that is not my preference overall. My preference overall would be neither civil union or marriage.'"
He is simply saying that civil unions are the lesser of two evils, and if the only way to stop gay marriage is to allow civil unions, he will go with civil unions.
That's the reality of politics: you often don't get the ideal thing, so you have to settle for something less than ideal. Unlike you, Romney is rational and doesn't make the perfect the enemy of the better.
By the Fall of 2003, he was working with the state legislature to promote civil unions.
Same distortion as above. He was working to pass the only marriage amendment he could get through the legislature.
What was he supposed to do? Simply let the Goodridge decision stand without trying to pass any amendment to overturn it?
By the Spring of 2004, he was recommending to 22 state Republicans to support the Travaglini-Lees "compromise amendment" which would have implemented civil unions.
Of course, because the legislature voted down the amendment, which he supported, without civil unions. Romney was right that civil unions is a lesser evil than full-fledged gay marriage.
In politics it is sometimes necessary to support the lesser of two evils, but you're obviously you're too immature to realize that. I suggest you grow up.
The rest of your quotes are part of the same story: Romney settled for a compromise amendment with civil unions only because he could not get his preferred amendment without civil unions through the legislature.
Again, I say to you, grow up.