Monday, February 16, 2004
Romney Flipped on Gay Marriage Question
Two years ago, Willard Mitt said he opposed a Defense of Marriage Act petition that his wife, son and daughter-in-law had signed (search "Ann", "Romney", and "Belmont") which would have proposed a constitutional amendment banning both gay marriage and domestic-partner benefits in Massachusetts.
Romney's loathsome $150,000-a-year spokesmen said Willard Mitt opposed gay marriage but also opposed the amendment. He claimed Romney's family members had signed the petition "without reading the fine print," that Willard Mitt "did not know they signed it, and does not support it (as) it goes farther than current law, and therefore it's unnecessary." (source: Boston Globe, 5/22/2002)
But now the Fraud Governor is telling anyone who will listen (and some who will not) that "marriage should be preserved as an institution between one man and one woman" (source: Boston Herald, 1/25/2004) and that he now wants to change the marriage laws.
How perverse.
We can't wait to read the fine print.
Two years ago, Willard Mitt said he opposed a Defense of Marriage Act petition that his wife, son and daughter-in-law had signed (search "Ann", "Romney", and "Belmont") which would have proposed a constitutional amendment banning both gay marriage and domestic-partner benefits in Massachusetts.
Romney's loathsome $150,000-a-year spokesmen said Willard Mitt opposed gay marriage but also opposed the amendment. He claimed Romney's family members had signed the petition "without reading the fine print," that Willard Mitt "did not know they signed it, and does not support it (as) it goes farther than current law, and therefore it's unnecessary." (source: Boston Globe, 5/22/2002)
But now the Fraud Governor is telling anyone who will listen (and some who will not) that "marriage should be preserved as an institution between one man and one woman" (source: Boston Herald, 1/25/2004) and that he now wants to change the marriage laws.
How perverse.
We can't wait to read the fine print.
