E-Mail This Article to a Friend Schiz Romney (continued)

Romney defenders insist that the governor’s actions in the gay-marriage debate do not contradict his past image of tolerance toward gays. After all, they argue, he has always opposed same-sex marriage. And the reason he objected to the conservative 2002 constitutional amendment was that it would have denied not just civil-marriage rights, but also domestic-partnership benefits to same-sex couples. By contrast, the current amendment would establish civil unions. "The Governor has not changed his position at all," says Romney communications director Eric Fehrnstrom in an e-mail to the Phoenix. "His concern in the wake of the [SJC] decision was that the people get the chance to decide the issue" — which, he adds, merely reflects the public will. According to a University of Massachusetts poll released last month, 44 percent of residents reject same-sex marriage, as compared to 40 percent who back it. Meanwhile, the poll reports that 52 percent of voters approve of the governor’s attempt to seek a stay of the SJC ruling. Says Charles Manning, a Republican political consultant and a close Romney adviser: "His positions show him to be totally in step with the majority of residents."

But these arguments ignore the fact that the governor is the remaining holdout among Beacon Hill leaders in the attempt to block gay marriages in the state. Every prominent gay-marriage opponent, from Reilly to Senate president Robert Travaglini, has eventually backed down. Even House Speaker Tom Finneran, a long-time foe of the gay community, has bowed out of the fight. Romney, by contrast, has continued to bring up the issue. "He reminds me of a fifth grader who wants to stay up late," says State Representative Liz Malia of Jamaica Plain, one of three openly gay legislators on the Hill who have led the fight for civil-marriage rights for same-sex couples. "He asks, ‘If I clean my room can I stay up late?’ He’s told no, but he keeps coming back."

At times, Romney has been so fixated on gay marriage that some of his efforts have seemed contradictory or have even backfired. He has made it plain, for example, that his administration will not tolerate any of the state’s 1200 justices of the peace refusing to officiate at a same-sex wedding out of protest. On April 25, Romney’s legal counsel, Daniel Winslow, told the Massachusetts Justices of the Peace Association that justices who disagree with same-sex nuptials would have to resign rather than flout the law. Why was he suddenly and inexplicably doing the right thing on this issue? Likewise, the governor has defended his policy of strictly enforcing the 1913 law by challenging critics to wipe the statute off the books. "If people don’t like the law as it currently exists, they should endeavor to change it," Fehrnstrom told the Boston Globe, according to an April 25 article. Yet Romney is now promising to veto an amendment to the state budget that would repeal the controversial statute, which State Senators Jarrett Barrios of Cambridge and Stan Rosenberg of Amherst plan to file this week. As Barrios wryly puts it, "The governor might need to think about seeing a therapist, because he’s developing a bad case of schizophrenia on this issue. He’s been all over the place."

Such inconsistencies, at least in part, are a function of the governor’s competing political and legal interests. Romney, a practicing Mormon, may genuinely oppose gay marriage on moral and religious grounds. But he has taken his opposition further than necessary to pander to certain constituencies. Suburban voters — who largely dominate Massachusetts politics — tend to want "clean government" and are conservative-leaning without being overtly redneck. National considerations also apply, which explains why many political observers chalk up the governor’s impassioned stance on same-sex marriage to political gamesmanship: Romney may be crafting an image to sell on the national stage in 2008, particularly to the Republican Party’s hard right. "It’s all about his national ambitions," says Philip Johnston, chair of the state Democratic Party. "He is acting in a craven political manner to erect hurdles for gay men and lesbians" so he can immunize himself from criticism by fellow Republicans on the national level.

Gay marriage, according to Lou DiNatale of UMass Boston’s McCormack Institute of Public Affairs, represents what he calls "meatballs" — by which he means a classic socially conservative issue — to feed the right wing of the national Republican Party. "Romney isn’t going to get tagged as a liberal Republican from Massachusetts" — à la former governor Weld — "because that’s a death knell in the national realm," DiNatale explains. "So he’s ratcheted up his rhetoric [on gay marriage] as a stunt for national Republicans."

At the same time, Romney, as the state’s chief executive officer, cannot be seen as deliberately flouting the law. So while he appears to be doing all he can to thwart the SJC ruling, he also has had to prepare for the gay-marriage onslaught — last week, for example, his administration distributed revised marriage-license applications and trained municipal clerks to handle the throng of same-sex couples sure to materialize beginning next Monday. Arline Isaacson, of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, points out that the governor "simply cannot do what he wants to do" because he has to obey the law. If he did something illegal, she says, "it would be a real conundrum for him."

Interestingly enough, Romney’s unwillingness to violate the law is what his defenders hold up as key evidence that he has remained a "moderate and mainstream" politician on the issue. Rather than behave like a true social ideologue who would pander to the Republican right by attempting to block gay marriages at any cost, they say, Romney has carefully followed the statutes. Even in the face of his personal opposition to gay marriage, they note, the governor has abided by the law. As Fehrnstrom writes in an e-mail, "The Governor has said he will enforce the laws as they exist on May 17. Some people don’t want him to enforce the [SJC] ruling. Other people only want him to enforce the ruling, and not other laws relating to marriage. But the Governor is going to enforce all the laws."

Manning puts the sentiment more succinctly: "The governor has done his job and played it straight within the law. How is that an activist?"