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.