O'Brien & Romney Don't Seem to Get It; Republicans Miss an Opportunity

MN Staff
November 2002 Print Edition

When asked about marriage during their televised debate from Worcester, neither Shannon O'Brien nor Mitt Romney answered correctly, say most pundits. It's not vital what they think about marriage because it is the voters who will decide this issue at the ballot box in 2004. The politicians should just get out of the way and let the people vote. They should obey the law and not violate the Constitution as Tom Birmingham did when he stopped a vote on the Marriage Amendment. That's why O'Brien beat Birmingham in the primary . . . he led the Democratic Party into a serious blunder and his negative ratings skyrocketed.

The Republicans are missing an excellent opportunity, according to many experts, to blame the unlawful actions of Sen. Birmingham on the Democrats. Instead, both Jane Swift and Mitt Romney seem intent on getting tarred and feathered with the same unlawful conduct.

Is O'Brien also going to wallow in the same illegal blunder? 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?

When asked at the debate about gay marriage, both of them said they oppose it. But neither raised the point that their belief is not as important as whether they will urge that the matter be sent on to the people. This was an excellent opportunity for Romney to say that both candidates will vote in the privacy of their own polling booths in 2004 if the Democrats stop breaking the law. But he missed the opportunity because he apparently doesn't realize that over 60% of the voters favor the Amendment - and they are his core supporters.

The two candidates disagree on "civil unions" with O'Brien favoring them and Romney opposing them, although it is unclear whether either of them understood the term. "Civil unions" is usually thought of as what they have in Vermont where there is a ceremony performed similar to a marriage. "Domestic partnerships" usually refers to what has been proposed in Massachusetts where two people merely declare they are partners, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Romney said 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.