Shannon O'Brien Wants Gay Marriage

Will Settle for Civil Unions as In Vermont

Romney Fails to Respond

MassNews Staff
October 16, 2002

Shannon O'Brien made a major switch yesterday by saying she will settle for "civil unions" for gays, which is exactly what Vermont has, but what she really wants is "gay marriage," which would make Massachusetts the only state in the country to approve gay marriage.

This was a big change because O'Brien had concealed this from voters before. When asked during the debate in Worcester only two weeks ago on Oct. 1, she said she was opposed to gay marriage.

She indicated yesterday she would be very happy to sign a gay marriage bill if it reached her desk. "I would support a marriage piece of legislation," she said.

The promise was made to the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus which endorsed her for Governor yesterday.

However, O'Brien said she did not believe gay marriage would pass the Legislature now. If it does, she will happily sign it.

She plans instead to lobby for the Vermont-style civil unions, which has been rejected by every other state in the country except Vermont and which is exactly the same as marriage except for the name.

"I think the fight needs to focus on civil unions, because I think it is one that we can win."

As for gay marriage, she said, "I still believe there are some social and religious connotations that will make it much more difficult to win. I am fighting for civil unions. We can win this fight."

O'Brien aides told the Globe she has not changed her position, but was simply responding to a reporter's question that had never previously been posed: whether she would sign a gay marriage bill if it reached her desk. They said that that hypothetical situation is so unlikely to occur that O'Brien did not feel it was necessary to mention until she was asked that question directly.

However, she was directly asked the question during the Worcester debate and responded that she opposed gay marriage.

Romney Fails to Challenge O'Brien

Romney failed to attack or challenge O'Brien about the violation of the law on this issue by most of the Democratic Party on July 17 which has shocked most citizens. At that time, Sen. President Tom Birmingham adjourned a Constitutional Convention without allowing a vote to be taken on the Protection of Marriage Amendment, as required under state law. This violation of the law by Birmingham has been supported by the Globe.

That Amendment would outlaw gay marriage, among other things. The Amendment is supported by over 60% of the voters and received many more signatures than necessary last fall to be put on the ballot for a vote by the citizens in 2004.

Although the violation of the law has shocked and angered many, Romney did not point this out, but merely stated the obvious, that O'Brien had changed her stance.

He failed to challenge her even though prominent Democrats have called for a vote on the Amendment, including Sen. John Kerry, Robert Reich and Michael Dukakis. It is required by the laws of Massachusetts.

Romney continues to miss this opportunity to seriously damage O'Brien, say many pundits. When asked about marriage during their televised debate from Worcester, neither Shannon O'Brien nor Mitt Romney answered correctly, they say. It's not vital what they think about marriage because it is the voters who should be deciding this issue at the ballot box in 2004 - if the Democrats do not continue to break the law.

They say that Birmingham's violation of the law is why O'Brien beat Birmingham in the primary. After the Senate leader led the Democratic Party into the serious blunder, his personal negative ratings skyrocketed.

The Republicans are missing an excellent opportunity, according to many experts. Instead, both Jane Swift (who has not yet called the Legislature back for a vote on the Amendment as is required of her under the state Constitution) and Mitt Romney seem intent on getting tarred and feathered with the same unlawful conduct, they say.

They wonder if O'Brien is also going to wallow in the same illegal blunder that so damaged Birmingham. Why didn't Romney point this out? What Romney and O'Brien think about marriage should not be the focus. What is important is would they obey the state Constitution, send this issue on to the people --as the people have demanded-- for their vote at the election in 2004.

A special edition of MassNews has just been mailed to 250,000 activist households in Massachusetts (more than half the circulation of the Boston Globe) which reveals the fascinating, sordid story of the illegal vote, mainly by the Democratic Party.

O'Brien and Romney also disagree on "civil unions" as are found in Vermont, with O'Brien favoring them and Romney opposing them, although it is unclear whether either of them fully understands the term.

Romney has said in the past that he favors inheritance and visitation rights for gay partners, but they can have those rights at the present time if they care deeply enough to write a simple Will. It also makes many wonder why Romney has, up until now, opposed the Protection of Marriage Amendment because that is exactly what he appears to be proposing.

Yesterday, Romney said he would allow some benefits such as health care for government employees but he does not seem to understand that that also is permitted under the Protection of Marriage Amendment if there is sufficient support for the Legislature to approve them.

But even he apparently doubts if the support exists in the Legislature because his staff told the Globe that any such move must wait until the state can afford it in light of the budget crunch and Romney's plan to repeal recent tax increases.

Romney accepted the support yesterday of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, a tiny organization of gay and lesbian Republicans and stated he opposed gay marriage. "I believe the term marriage should be reserved to the marriage of a man and a woman," he stated. He pledged to the gay group, however, to lobby for domestic partnerships.

Tuesday January 13, 2004 News Links World Net Daily **Agape Press * TownHall.com * FreeCongress.org FoxNews.com *Media Research * CNSnews.com * Human Events **