Romney Backpedals On Adoption

Romney1Sorry for the double-dose of Mitt. This is apparently the week for presidents, would-be presidents, and gaystuff.

Check out this astounding bit of political softshoe from the Republican nominee-apparent: On Thursday, Mitt said of gay couples adopting children:

… if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, or even to adopt a child — in my state individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view, that's something that people have a right to do.

So — in Mitt's "view," gay people have the right to adopt. That sounds like a statement of opinion — that things ought to be a certain way. The rest of Mitt's statement seems to express his satisfaction that state legislators have concurred with his opinion.

But on Friday, in an interview with Charlotte's WCTV, Mitt backpedaled:

Well, actually, I think all states but one allow gay adoption, so that's a position which has been decided by most of the state legislators, including the one in my state some time ago. So I simply acknowledge the fact that gay adoption is legal in all states but one.

So then — what Mitt really meant when he said that "in his view" gay adoption is a "right" is that it's his opinion that it's legal, not that it's his opinion that it should be legal. Which is weird. People don't usually have opinions on whether certain classes can or can't adopt. It's not really a subjective thing.

This is what's so cringemaking about Mitt's speeches and interviews. He crafts his public utterances to obfuscate, not to clarify. What that suggests about his faith in the listening and voting public — or about his own faith in his abiiity to appeal to that public — is debatable. Whatever it is, it can't be good.

(Incidentally, Mitt's wrong. It's not "all states but one" that allow gay adoption. It's all states but two. Mitt was probably thinking of Utah; the other outlier is Mississippi.)


  1. Steve says

    It should also be noted that not all states allow gay couples to jointly adopt or for someone to adopt their partner’s biological child.

  2. mary says

    Does this mean that Mitt OPPOSES the right of gays to adopt children? Wow. An issue where I’m to the left of Mitt Romney – RINO supreme, “Masschusets Moderate extraordinaire,” ,and upper-crust establishment Republican. At the rate that Mitt and I are both “evolving” in different directions, by the end of the summer he’ll be a member of the Christian Coalition and I’ll be a dues-paying member of the Log Cabin Republicans. Weird.

  3. PJ says

    What about Florida? I remember Rosie trying to get the law changed there. Did they finally change the law to allow gay people to adopt and I missed it?

  4. dm says

    kind of like if he said that he “personally” believes in the right of gay couples to get married but won’t actually do anything to make it happen

  5. says

    AFAIK, gay adoption is banned in Virginia and Florida, unless something has changed recently. So, I think it’s four states.

    Could be more, as I believe it’s been on the ballot in a state or two in the south over the past couple years.

  6. anon says

    The cat is out of the bag on this issue already because no state requires that kids be removed from homes where one of the biological parents is gay. If evangelicals were consistent, they would insists this be so.

  7. It's hard to be a politician, isn't it? says

    This is Mitt twisting in the wind, not sure of which way it is blowing. Less than six months to the election and the Republicans aren’t sure which position to take to get the most votes.

    Obama has upped the stakes by making his statement. Thanks, Joe Biden, you did the right thing.

    Even Cheney and his gay daughter must be conflicted. I wonder if they’ll vote for Obama!

Leave A Reply