Romney obsesses over gay weddings
It's strange. You go on vacation for a week, return and find
your governor a man obsessed. He once seemed such a reasonable guy: less a conservative than a square shooter, a smart
businessman who rejected the casual moral squalor of the State House, an honest
broker riding herd over the Democratic monopoly.
But gay marriage is turning Mitt
Romney into something far less admirable.
Granted, no one ever thought Mitt would be on the front
lines of the gay rights movement. "Call me old-fashioned," was the soft
line he delivered during a 2002 campaign debate, "but I don't support gay
marriage." A lot of people shared his sentiments - even Democratic
candidate Shannon O'Brien dodged marriage, preferring instead to talk about
civil unions.
But in the 18 months since, the
world has changed. Many state politicians - notably the Senate president and
the House speaker - aren't happy about that. Yet in various ways, they've
resigned themselves. Sure, they passed a constitutional amendment, one that, if
it survives a second legislative vote next year, will come before voters in
2006. Until then, they figure, gays will be getting married and they may as
well make the best of it.
Not Romney. With increasing frenzy,
the governor has been looking for a way out. The administration delayed
providing guidance and training to city clerks who, come the
On its face, that may sound eminently reasonable. Moreover,
argues Romney (and Attorney General Thomas Reilly, whose posture on gay
marriage has all the earmarks of a prospective gubernatorial candidate working
hard to placate both sides), all he's doing is enforcing the law. Gee whiz.
Isn't that what responsible public officials are supposed to do? On top of
that, he'll ensure the law applies equally to both gay and straight couples. Nope, no discrimination here.
Of course, we all know what's really going on. Romney's
newfound passion for the intricacies of marriage law is simply his latest
effort to foil the SJC's decision. (Since gay
marriage is specifically prohibited in 38 states, few
non-resident couples could get married in
Officials in Prince Edward County, Va., for example, decided
to shutter all of their schools rather than desegregate them. Officials in
Those actions - like Romney's insistence on enforcing the
1913 statute - seemed evenhanded. Officials in
Yet context and motivation both matter. Many have pointed
with disgust at the origins of the 1913 law Romney now seeks to invoke; at
least in part, it was intended to stop interracial
marriages. But the real problem is that the 1913
statute is being revived to thwart gay marriage, in the same way that the pool
and school closings were intended to thwart desegregation. The law has been on
the books but rarely enforced. Absent the SJC's
ruling, we would still be ignoring it. That fact, it would seem, provides good
ammunition for advocates who likely will challenge the statute the first time
it is used against a prospective gay spouse.
Legalisms aside, one has to wonder: If there are going to be
some gay marriages - a prospect that even Romney has to concede seems
inevitable - why not a lot of them? Why not even
encourage out-of- state gays (especially from those Defense of Marriage Act
states) to marry and settle here?
Of course, the more gays who marry, the less chance there is
that voters in 2006 approve a ban on gay marriage.
That's because it's easier to hate and fear what you don't
know. If Romney succeeds in limiting the number of gay marriages, it will be
easier to portray gay couples as something alien and apart from the mainstream.
On the other hand, the more gay couples there are, the more they will become
part of the fabric of our lives, and the harder it will be to vote against
them.
In other words, Romney's real obsession is that we'll all
discover gay marriage isn't that bad at all.
Talk back to Tom Keane at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.