2012 Election | Gay Marriage | Mitt Romney | News

Flashback: Romney Compared Mass' Marriage Equality Court Win To Pro-Slavery Dred Scott Decision

RomneyLetterLDuring Mitt Romney's reign as Governor of Massachusetts, Marc Solomon was head of MassEquality, the lead group fighting for LGBT rights in the Bay State. His position gave him a unique view inside the current GOP presidential candidate's anti-gay policies, and today at AlterNet, Solomon is using his knowledge to hit back at the Log Cabin Republicans' pro-Romney endorsement.

I'm sad to say that Romney is someone whose track record is one of turning to LGBT people as an easy point of attack when the going gets tough, in order to burnish his socially conservative credentials, and someone whose personal interactions betray no genuine empathy for gay people, gay families or gay youth, not even when he has taken an oath (and made political promises) to stand up for them.

I won't speculate on what led the Log Cabin Republicans to put forward their "qualified endorsement," but I can say it takes no speculation to know what a Romney presidency would portend for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. The record is clear.

As part of his argument against Romney, Solomon cites Romney's refusal to grant birth certificates for the children o f legally married same-sex couples and his knee-jerk destruction of a state-based commission meant to protect LGBT youth.

And then there was Romney's October 2004 Wall Street Journal op-ed equating a state Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality and the 1857 Dred Scott decision that said black slaves were property and therefore not protected by the U.S. Constitution.

From Romney's op-ed, called "A Citizen's Guide to Protecting Marriage":

With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution.

Here is what Lincoln said: "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That's wrong.

The Dred Scott decision was of course over-turned with the ratification of the 14th amendment giving black people citizenship in 1868.

I've included a screenshot of the article, via Good As You, AFTER THE JUMP.


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Because relegating people to the status of property is the same as granting people equal rights and protection under the law.

    Posted by: fritzrth | Nov 1, 2012 12:13:38 PM

  2. Not that there's much to like about Mitt, but my disdain for the man solidified because of his actions in 2003 and 2004.

    Posted by: Frank O'File | Nov 1, 2012 12:23:49 PM

  3. I never cease to be amazed that Mittens himself is the product of a very non-traditional marriage a few generations ago, when his great grandfather and multiple wives moved to Mexico to continue their polygamy.

    And when they were kicked out of Mexico came back to the US, destitute, and relied on government assistance to get back on their feet.

    It's so easy to forget inconvenient facts...

    Maybe one of the tax loopholes Mittens will close will be to eliminate the tax exemptions that churches enjoy? Nah...

    Posted by: Burt | Nov 1, 2012 12:42:13 PM

  4. and THIS is why GOProud keeps making up those completely bogus "we got violently attacked by blacks and liberals!" Stories.

    They're not supported by their own party, in fact their own party is running its most anti-gay campaign platform in DECADES, and to distract themselves from this reality they've had to resort to...fabricating stories about Gay Liberal on Gay Conservative violence.

    just so ya know, gay republicans, that's time and energy that would have been better spent talking to your fellow republicans about how your right to equality does not come at their expense.

    alas, it's clear you don't have the balls to do that. nor the brains.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Nov 1, 2012 12:42:51 PM

  5. Formerly 100%-47%, now 100% Mitt is fooling on one. His poll numbers have nosedived. Now his chance of winning is only at 21% according to Nate Silver.

    Posted by: simon | Nov 1, 2012 1:38:24 PM

  6. There is also some suspicion that his government fired two women in leading administrative positions after they married their partners.

    And don't forget that he resurrected a 1913 law against interracial marriage to prevent out of state couples from marrying in MA.

    Posted by: Steve | Nov 1, 2012 2:29:36 PM

  7. There is no way ever on this Earth that I will vote for a candidate who openly despises and disparages me or my family or anyone else's family.

    Posted by: Bill Michael | Nov 2, 2012 4:40:30 AM

Post a comment


« «HRC To FCC: Investigate Texts Saying Obama 'Forcing' Gay Marriage« «