NOM BLOG

Obama and Romney on Marriage: Words & Actions

 

As pro-marriage voters prepare to participate in the presidential election, the Baptist Press has done an invaluable service by charting out the concrete actions Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have taken as well as what they have said about marriage.

Here, for instance, is what they found Mitt Romney's actions on marriage to be while Governor of Massachusetts:

-- November 2003: The same day that Massachusetts' highest court issued its first-in-the-nation decision that would legalize gay marriage, Romney endorses a proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man, one woman.

-- March 2004: Announces his desire to ask the court to prevent its ruling from going into effect until after citizens can vote on a state constitutional marriage amendment. Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, though, declines to make such a request to the court. (The court had "stayed" its ruling for 180 days, meaning it did not take effect until May 2004.)

-- April 2004: Files an emergency bill with the state legislature that would give him the power to ask the state's high court to delay its ruling until after citizens can vote on a constitutional marriage amendment. (The bill fails.)

-- April 2004: Announces that because of an obscure 1913 law, out-of-state gay couples won't be able to marry when the court's ruling takes effect in May 2004. Romney's interpretation goes further than the interpretation of the attorney general, who had limited the application of the law to only the 38 states that had explicitly defined marriage in the traditional sense. Romney said couples from any state that doesn't recognize gay marriage are ineligible.

-- May 2004: Announces he will veto any bill that allows out-of-state couples to marry in Massachusetts.

-- June 2004: Appears before a U.S. Senate committee, urging passage of a federal constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as between one man, one woman. Such an amendment would overturn the gay marriage ruling in his state.

-- November 2006: Speaks before 7,000 people at a rally in Boston supporting a state constitutional marriage amendment.

-- November 2006: Sues state legislators to try and force them to vote on a state marriage amendment. Citizens had gathered 170,000 signatures to place the amendment before the body, and the constitution requires a vote. (The court sided with Romney. The legislature subsequently passed the amendment in January 2007, although it failed to pass it again during the next session, as required. The state constitution requires the amendment to pass twice before being placed on the ballot.)

-- December 2006: Threatens to withhold a pay raise from state legislators if they fail to vote on a marriage amendment.

17 Comments

  1. Zack
    Posted October 8, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    It's a amazing though that in a state as left-wing as Massachusetts, the overwhelmingly democratic dominated legislature managed to pass an amendment.

    Shame it didn't pass the second time.

  2. Timothy Kincaid
    Posted October 8, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    Thank you, NOM. That was very useful and will be, I'm certain, something that will help people decide for whom to vote.

  3. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted October 8, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, NOM. This should help dispel any remaining concerns voters may have about Romney's commitment to marriage. It also helps add to the growing list of distinctions between the candidates.

  4. George
    Posted October 8, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    Romney threatened to withhold a pay raise from state legislators if they fail to vote on a marriage amendment?

    So blackmail and coercion didn't work for Romney. Glad I'm not voting for him.

  5. Ash
    Posted October 8, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    I've believed for some time now that Mitt is a strong marriage defender, but it was wonderful reading his past statements on marriage, and of the actions he took to defend it.

  6. John N.
    Posted October 8, 2012 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    Excellent blog NOM!!!!!!!!! All of you NOM supporters should know that I am from Massachusetts, I know that this is all true and that I experienced it.

    One further note not mentioned in the blog. The same court that imposed SSM also ruled that we had a right to vote on it. Then Governor Romney wanted us to be able to vote but the cowardly state legislature tried to get the court to stop the vote. When the court ruled the Governor then pressed the legistature to do its job and let the people vote. The Democrats were opposed to democracy and did not want a democratic vote of the people. So they stopped it.
    Mitt Romney did all that he could but the Dems had more than the 2/3 majority to overide his vetos. So we never got to vote. When he left office in 2006 as he did not seek reelection the next legislature repealed the out of state law. The liberals showed their true colors and hate by advocating the willfull and malicious breaking of other states laws.

    This is why we need a constitutional amendment.

  7. Leo
    Posted October 8, 2012 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, NOM.

  8. Richard
    Posted October 8, 2012 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    Thank you, NOM. You have helped solidify my vote for Obama.

  9. Daughter of Eve
    Posted October 8, 2012 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    Go Mitt!

  10. Zack
    Posted October 8, 2012 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    @George

    "Romney threatened to withhold a pay raise from state legislators if they fail to vote on a marriage amendment?"

    He wanted them to consider the amendment. When they weren't he pushed for it. But Obama bribing and bullying senators to pass Obamacare is perfectly okay?

    I suppose you think the California Legislature having their pay withheld for not doing their job is a terrible thing too huh?

  11. Zack
    Posted October 9, 2012 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    Well I was going to support Mitt Romney anyway, but this makes me feel even better about him.

  12. Michelle
    Posted October 9, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    It is good to know he doesn't flip flop like Obama!!

  13. elm
    Posted October 9, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    Before the debate, I was still squishy on Romney. I would never vote for Obama, but wasn't sold on Romney. I still wonder how Mitt thinks he was helping the issue of one man/one woman marriage when he helped his son and daughter in law surrogate a baby. This is not what a good strong marriage witnesses. How is having a your child in another woman's womb not adultery? IVF has been the scourge of this country and has created more problems than it has solved, ei frozen embryos who are held in limbo.

  14. hadenough
    Posted October 9, 2012 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    Read the bible you need to learn the definition of adultery! Study before you start writing!

  15. elm
    Posted October 9, 2012 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    Another man's child in a woman's womb is the sign of adultery.

  16. Forrest
    Posted October 9, 2012 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    Thanks,NOM. You helped to solidify my vote for Romney.

  17. KU
    Posted October 9, 2012 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

    elm - that embryo would be the child of the man and his WIFE, in a suitable womb. Please tell me you're not going to claim to be a Christian. Go back and read and allow the Holy Spirit to teach you the Bible. Don't take things out of context to work into your own twisted agenda.