E-Mail This Article to a Friend Go your own way Romney’s gay-marriage opposition may bring him national prominence, but don’t expect many Bay State GOP legislative candidates to follow his lead on the issue this fall BY ADAM REILLY

THE CONTRAST WAS striking, even surreal. On June 22, former governors Bill Weld and Jane Swift joined the crowd gathered in Beacon Hill’s King’s Chapel for the marriage of Mitchell Adams, Weld’s former revenue commissioner, and Kevin Smith, Weld’s former chief of staff, with Weld delivering the wedding homily. On the same day, in Washington, DC, Governor Mitt Romney warned the Senate Judiciary Committee that marriages like Adams and Lash’s pose a grave cultural threat. "[M]arriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children," Romney declared. "The children of America have the right to a father and a mother.... Same-sex marriage doesn’t hurt my marriage, or yours. But it may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole."

If there was any doubt that Romney has jettisoned the socially liberal approach of his predecessors for a more conservative variant — one which, as many observers have noted, is more marketable to a national Republican audience — it was banished by his testimony last week. But while Romney’s rightward shift is clear (see "Schiz Romney," News and Features, May 14), its implications for the state Republican Party are less certain.

To paraphrase a line commonly attributed to Louis XIV, Romney is the Massachusetts GOP in a way that neither Swift nor Paul Cellucci nor Weld were. Without Romney in the State House’s corner office, railing against Democratic dominance on Beacon Hill and laboring to build up the party’s moribund grassroots, the state GOP’s current 131-person candidate slate would likely be much smaller. And judging from early remarks by those candidates, as well as from Scott Brown’s special-election win earlier this year, Republican aspirants to the legislature will be parroting Romney’s tried-and-true Optimistic Reformer script unceasingly between now and November. But both Democratic and Republican observers predict that — despite Romney’s increasingly high national profile as an anti-gay-marriage spokesman — most members of the so-called Reform Team won’t be following their leader on the campaign trail when it comes to gay marriage.

"It depends on the district you’re in and the person you’re running against, but this is not an issue like, ‘I’m against raising taxes,’" says a former Democratic legislator. "Every Republican legislative candidate would grab that coattail and run with it, but this is certainly not an issue that speaks to a Republican Party platform."

"I think in some areas of the state it may be an issue that’s worthwhile pursuing, while in others it’s not," adds one Republican insider. "But even then, it may not be so much anti-gay-marriage as weaving it into the reform message — ‘This thing was botched in the legislature from the beginning, it ended up going to the courts when the legislature should have taken action years ago, this just shows how inefficient and in need of reform the legislature is.’ That’s one strategy a campaign might pursue — but if you go too far, you’re labeled as a hater. That’s the danger for anyone who speaks out in any way against gay marriage."

Romney’s passionate opposition to gay marriage may not signal a new direction for the state party, but it could end up undermining Republican candidates in November’s state legislative elections. Among gay-rights activists already girding for next year’s Constitutional Convention, there’s a widespread sense that the members of the "Reform Team" — with the exception of sympathetic Republican legislators like Senate minority leader Brian Lees — will follow Romney’s lead on gay marriage when the ConCon reconvenes. This may not affect the vote in districts represented by Democratic gay-marriage opponents like State Representative Phil Travis of Rehoboth. Elsewhere, though, it could result in an overwhelming gay vote for the Democratic candidate, which could be decisive in a close election.

"I am disturbed that Mitt Romney is speaking out so vocally against equal rights, but I am increasingly confident that it is having the exact opposite effect from what he desires," says Mass Equality campaign coordinator Marty Rouse. "A poll we did showed that 83 percent of voters in Massachusetts have a friend or family member who is gay or lesbian, and in most districts it’s hard to imagine that bashing on gays is going to be helpful to winning an election." Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, makes a similar point. "We’re finding that the marriage issue is not a top agenda item in most districts — that even those who oppose gay marriage tend to be more concerned about education, health care, and the economy," Isaacson says. "That’s not surprising; poll after poll has always showed that. However, for those in the GLBT community, this issue is the top issue, and will determine how our people vote in 95 percent of the races." Of course, anti-gay-marriage activists will also be working to get out the vote in elections where candidates have starkly different views on the issue.

According to Romney’s communications director, Eric Fehrnstrom, the notion that Republican legislators must follow the governor’s cue on gay marriage is off base. It is "not important" to the governor that Republican legislators share his views on the issue, Fehrnstrom said in an e-mail. "There are many Democrats who oppose gay marriage, including their nominee for president, John Kerry. Likewise, there are Republicans who support gay marriage. It’s not an issue that cuts cleanly across party lines." Fehrnstrom also rejects an argument made hopefully by many Democrats and gay-rights advocates — namely, that Romney’s lobbying against gay marriage, which might alienate the very moderate independents who were key to his election in 2002, indicates he’s not planning to seek re-election in 2006. "As the governor has said many times previously, he is planning to seek re-election to a second term," Fehrnstrom wrote. "I’m sure there are many issues that will be taken up over the course of the re-election campaign, including gay marriage. The governor’s views ... are moderate and mainstream, and have not changed since the last campaign. Believing that marriage is between a man and a woman is hardly an extreme point of view."

Even if the state GOP and its current crop of candidates give marriage a generally wide berth over the next four months, however, expect the occasional subtle-but-meaningful nod to the issue from candidates looking to consolidate their conservative base. "If we go out there with an army of Republican candidates beating the gay-marriage drum, well, guess what? We’re going to get 35 percent of the ballot," another Republican insider says. "That’s the same reason the Democrats aren’t talking about it either — that only gets them the lefties. But look back on 2000, when George Bush went down to Bob Jones University. Everyone thought that was a mistake, but that was done on purpose; he looked at the pros and cons and knew he’d take a short-term hit, but the pro was that that sent a message — ‘I’m the conservative candidate.’... Both sides are going to be sending messages to their bases on this issue, but it’s going to be done much more under the radar screen than in a public fashion."

Adam Reilly can be reached at areilly[a]phx.com