OK, I checked and you're right, his officially stated position is that he's opposed to "civil unions", but he's also said that he supports "some" same-sex "partner benefits". It all looks like semantic dancing to me.
Uttering the phrase "woman's right to choose" was his open sesame to the governorship.
I don't buy it. Even normal voters who are for abortion don't go around talking like that. That is purely a buzzphrase used by Planned Parenthood and organizations of their ilk (and the politicians who do their bidding). If he had simply said that he wouldn't attempt to restrict abortion for women, no one would have known the difference. Every time an alleged conservative uses that phrase, he scores a big propaganda victory for the abortion industry.
I feel strongly that it isn't "dancing." Civil unions would be defined as having exactly the same status, legal obligations, and benefits as marriage. Legally, the two "institutions" will have no independent existence - the people will not be able to change one without changing the other. That's profound, and a profoundly bad idea.
The most important thing about domestic partnerships, whatever they may be, is that they won't be that.
DPs would make it easier to name a partner as next-of-kin, things like that. They would provide a framework for some benefits, but not defined to be the same as marriage benefits.
In my opinion, legal partnerships like that would be fine and I don't see why such a thing must encode a sexual relationship at all; it could be two spinster sisters, but unfortunately, that's not what's blowin' in the political wind. President Bush has spoken favorably about same-sex DPs (at variance with the party platform.)
Uttering the phrase "woman's right to choose" was his open sesame to the governorship. -NutCrackerBoy
I don't buy it. Even normal voters who are for abortion don't go around talking like that. That is purely a buzzphrase used by Planned Parenthood and organizations of their ilk.
I agree with you that "a woman's right to choose" is an activist's phrase. Clearly, Romney was genuflecting to a political interest. I assure you, liberal voters in Massachusetts (who sometimes vote for Republican governors, or at least don't try very hard to defeat them) may not talk that way, but they do not hear it as weird coming from a politician. In essence, it was a dodge. It worked. He won't pay a significant price for it, in my opinion, in his standing with liberals OR conservatives.