In 2004, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was only in his second year in office when he felt the need to release a statement that clearly stated his opinions on President George W. Bush’s stated need for a federal amendment defining marriage.  With questions now lingering about our current president’s stance on the subject centering around how strongly (but not “if”) the Obama administration will support same-sex marriage, we wanted to focus on one thing that is perfectly clear — Mitt Romney opposes same-sex unions.

Without elaborating further, please read Romney’s statement below.  The media isn’t discussing Romney’s position on same-sex marriage because of clear, concise statements like this that leave no unanswered questions — Mitt Romney opposes same-sex unions.  Period.


February 24, 2004


I agree with the President on the need for a federal marriage amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

As I’ve said before, amending the U.S. Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states and to guard against overreaching by the judicial branch.

Acts of lawlessness in San Francisco bring into even sharper focus the need to proceed with the process of amending the Constitution. I don’t think anyone ever imagined that we would have courts and local officials defining marriage in a way that has no historical precedent whatsoever, and claiming it’s been in the Constitution all along.

Of course, we must conduct this debate with decency, tolerance and respect for those with different opinions.

The definition of marriage is so fundamental to society that it should not be decided by one court in Massachusetts  or by one mayor in San Francisco.

In America, the people should decide. In America, the people are fair and tolerant. Let the people decide.


Decide we will, Mr. Romney, decide we will.

  • As a bisexual person who dearly wants to marry my partner of six years and can’t because we don’t have equal rights, I fully support President Obama in however he needs to finesse this topic. I’m aware that he needs broad appeal in order to win the election, especially since the Republicans have done so much damage to voter rights and the voting populace will be restricted. Every vote counts and if President Obama’s team knows that he needs some votes from people who will be put off if he comes out in full vocal support of marriage equality, then I don’t care. I know he supports my full equality, I see it in the policy changes he has worked so hard for. I oppose tactics to pressure him because I think those tactics just give more power to the rightwing and end up undermining our progress toward full equality under the law. If we want to move our nation in a more egalitarian direction we have only six months left to make sure the President wins reelection and that is where we should focus. 

  • Nifty Lawrence

    If President Obama truly does not oppose same-sex marriage then it is well past time he makes that clear.  Being a president is about being a leader, not about ducking an issue for YEARS because he thinks he might lose a handful of votes. 

    Whether politics or his sincere belief against gay marriage, both are shameful and  unacceptable in 2012 (and long before).  Providing cover for him only enables him.


  • Ah yes, the people should decide what who other people can marry.   Just like the “people” decided that black and whites couldn’t marry in many states until the court declared such laws unconstitutional.     You’re just a backward bigot, Mr. Romney, and frankly half the people in the GOP are too.

  • Nifty Lawrence

    Well, I hope you’re not going to now accuse President Obama of enabling the right wing given today’s long-awaited confession of support for gay marriage.  A confession prompted by pressure from activists tired of waiting around until they are granted full equality under the law.

    FDR – “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it”.

    And as far as the fallacy that Democrats can or will act as saviors, I recall almost twice as many Democrats voting FOR the federal Defense of Marriage Act than voting against it.  Later signed, of course, by President Clinton (D).

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!