Romney Disapproved of Gay Parents, So He Punished the Kids
So the latest on Mitt Romney’s political personality disorder, where he’s capable of simultaneously holding every position on every issue, is that while governor Massachusetts, Romney refused to issue birth certificates to gay parents of new-born children. He threw as many administrative obstacles in their way as possible, in an effort to show his disproval for parenting that he didn’t morally agree with.
Imagine. Mitt Romney made gay parents go to a high level government official, with each and every child, in order to simply get a legal birth certificate.
At one point, Mitt Romney claimed he was more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy. Then he wanted to be president, so he became the biggest anti-gay in the village.
More Pro-gay Than Kennedy, Then Not So Much
Now, Mitt Romney flip-flops back and forth on gay rights issues all the time, sometimes changing his mind multiple times on a single gay issue in the same week (such as on the anti-gay constitutional amendment), or even in the same twenty-four hour period (like on gay adoption). As with every other position Romney takes, his views change depending on his audience that day.
So it’s been interesting, the past few days, to watch Mitt Romney lure gay Republicans into the fold with a secret meeting last week at a Virginia farmhouse where, if gay Republican leaders are to believed, something apparently happened that made them “convinced” that Mitt Romney would support a version of ENDA, a major gay rights job discrimination law (whether it would be a legislative, or administrative, fix remains unclear), and all sorts of other pro-gay issues.
Of course, none of it is to be trusted. But it’s still interesting to watch Romney’s insincere pandering, and the fact that gay Republican leaders are so desperate for a place at a table where they’re not wanted that they’re willing to compromise on their own principles by admitting that, “If LGBT issues are a voter’s highest or only priority, then Governor Romney may not be that voter’s choice.” Could you imagine an environmental group endorsing Romney and saying, “If environmental issues are a voter’s highest or only priority, then Governor Romney may not be that voter’s choice.” Only in gay Republican America.
“Some Gays Are Having Children… it’s not right!”
It seemed like a minor adjustment. To comply with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in 2003, the state Registry of Vital Records and Statistics said it needed to revise its birth certificate forms for babies born to same-sex couples. The box for “father” would be relabeled “father or second parent,’’ reflecting the new law.
But to then-Governor Mitt Romney, who opposed child-rearing by gay couples, the proposal symbolized unacceptable changes in traditional family structures.
Romney expressed similar beliefs during a speech in 2005 to socially conservative voters in South Carolina, as he was beginning to be viewed as a serious candidate for president.
“Some gays are actually having children born to them,’’ he declared. “It’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact. Every child has a right to a mother and father.’’
Romney Simply Didn’t Care
More from the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay rights group in Washington, DC:
“It’s appalling that Mitt Romney would create so many additional obstacles for same-sex parents, particularly when the path to starting a family is already so hard for LGBT people,” said HRC President Chad Griffin. “Romney prioritized his own distaste for LGBT people over the well-being of children in Massachusetts. Mitt Romney didn’t care that these children would face a lifetime of obstacles in obtaining legal documentation for things like getting a driver’s license or registering to vote; he only cared about making sure same-sex parents felt abnormal and isolated simply because they wanted to start a family.”
This isn’t the first time Romney has shown utter disregard for the challenges LGBT families face. Earlier this year, he tried to deflect from his discrimination against LGBT people by saying that adoption for same-sex couples was legal in all states but one. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Same-sex couples face overwhelming legal challenges in starting families – in fact, laws in seven states restrict same-sex couples from adopting altogether. And in the vast majority of states, adoption by LGB individuals and families is unclear and left to the discretion of judges, state agencies and adoption agencies who may discriminate.
Romney also has publicly sneered at LGBT families. During a 2004 meeting with Julie Goodridge, a plaintiff in the historic case that led to marriage equality in Massachusetts, Goodridge asked Romney what she should tell her little girl about why her two moms couldn’t marry. Romney coldly replied: “I don’t really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her the last eight years.” And at an event in South Carolina, Romney bemoaned marriage equality in his state, and said of same-sex couples: “Some are actually having children born to them.”
As the head of Log Cabin Republicans admitted in his organization’s odd endorsement of Mitt Romney for president: “If LGBT issues are a voter’s highest or only priority, then Governor Romney may not be that voter’s choice.”