Times must be tough for Republican Governor Mitt Romney. Hepresides over a notoriously liberal state that soon will become thefirst to allow gay marriages. Though he vocally opposed suchmarriages in Massachusetts, he has tread carefully for fear ofoffending the electorate. Yet Romney -- often mentioned as possiblenational candidate -- still needs to appear conservative enough atthe national level so as not to alienate himself from Republicansnationwide.
His recent decision to bar outsiders from obtaining same-sexmarriage licenses highlights the two-sided approach. He has made itclear he will uphold the state Supreme Judicial Court ruling thatlegalized gay marriage, but by dusting off the 1913 law --initially intended to curb interracial marriage -- he is able tomaintain his appeal on the national conservative stage.
He pledged not to export what he called "our marriage confusion"to other states. Though the law has never been enforced forstraight couples, same-sex couples will now have to demonstratethey reside or intend to reside in Massachusetts. Justices of thepeace, who certify all marriages, will have the discretion todetermine what satisfies that criteria. Some have already said theywill refuse to ask such questions in the interest of fairness.
This will likely help him avoid angering locals, who doubtlesslywould be upset if town clerks were punished for approving out ofstate gay marriages.
While the decision's legality is certainly debatable, it clearlyviolates the spirit of the state Supreme Judicial Court ruling. Theruling made it clear that state must treat gay couples and straightcouples equally. By resurrecting the 1913 law, Romney hassurreptitiously sidestepped this requirement by prohibitingout-of-state gays from marrying.
The Governor's flip-flopping is disappointing, to say the least.He tries to play the role of a political moderate here inMassachusetts. He said the ruling would be upheld and threatened topunish any official who refused to approve gay marriages. Yet hehas tried to delay the implementation until at least 2006, whenvoters will have the chance to amend the constitution to prohibitgay marriage.
Many Americans share Romney's objections to gay marriage, buthis politically savvy attempt to have things both ways betrays alack of political backbone. He said that in invoking the 1913 rulehe was not trying to be discriminatory, but was merely "doing [his]best to follow" the law. In reality he is resurrecting a racistlaw, dusting it off, and redirecting the discrimination itadvocated.
Wherever Massachusetts voters stand on the issue, they shouldnot be fooled when reelection time comes up. No matter how hardRomney tries to appeal to all voters, he is anything but moderatewhen it comes to the gay marriage issue.
