From wikipedia:
When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to same-sex marriage. "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union," said Romney in an October 2002 gubernatorial debate. He also voiced support for basic domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. Romney won the endorsement of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, a Republican gay-rights group, who in 2005 accused him of reneging on his 2002 campaign commitment to support some benefits for gay couples. He also opposed an amendment, then before the General Court, that would have banned same-sex marriage and outlawed all domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. When campaigning in 2002, Romney's stated position was that "All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship."IOW: I'm against marriage, but we'll offer something that's exactly legally equivalent... don't be surprised if, for convenience's sake, we call this new thing 'marriage.'
Simply put, I do not trust the man. At all.
I can respect one thing about Obama: he's made it clear where he stands.
It is just blind foolishness to say that Romney and Obama are exactly alike.
I didn't say they were exactly alike... but I don't believe there's any significant difference in the two, politically speaking. 
"Lokai is white on the right side. All of his people are white on the right side."
And people like you sitting on your hands will help Obama be reelected and will hasten and solidify not on the universal redefinition of marriage, but the criminalization of beliefs and statements in favor of traditional marriage.
Who said anything about sitting on hands? I usually sit on my butt. (And the problem is more pervasive than President; for example that NM photographer who was taken to court and reamed because she refused to participate in a homosexual wedding... all despite the State's Constitution [Art II].)
Romney is not the one saying that businesses should get permits based on whether they toe the liberal line on “marriage”.
Romney's also not one saying that hell limit the size and scope of government. There has never, in my political lifetime, been a republican push fo smaller, more limited government. (More limited government solves this problem, as well as many economic problems).
Yes, Romney was not a profile in courage on this issue in Massachusetts, but he was not the instigator, he simply followed the court. Yes, he should have fought against it, but he was not a gay activists as some make out.
And, looking at WaffleMaster Romney, I have to say that he'll do little to no good for advancing any of the stated Republican-party planks.
Then again, the Republican party has no intention of pursuing its stated party-planks any more than absolutely minimally necessary.
How many republicans, in office, are making a push to eliminate abortion?
How many are working to repeal the NFA and/or GCA?
How many are seeking to limit the abuses of the commerce clause?
I'm tired of always hearing excuses for them not pursuing the party-planks.