IGF CultureWatch

In a Feb. 10 interview with National Journal, former Massachusetts governor and current Republican presidential aspirant Mitt Romney comes out against a constitutional amendment banning abortion. So his double-standard on same-sex marriage and abortion is clearer than ever. Here's the whole exchange (not available online to non-subscribers):

Q: You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct?

Romney: What I've indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decisions with regard to their own abortion law.

Q: If a state wanted unlimited abortion?

Romney: The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn't be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation -- a one-size-fits-all approach -- but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.

So it's official: Romney favors a constitutional amendment to prevent gay couples from marrying, but not to prevent what most pro-lifers regard as infanticide. Not even Marx (Groucho) could find a consistent principle here, unless political expediency counts.

More: Romney on gay rights and discrimination...

Q: In 1994, during the Kennedy debate, you presented yourself as an advocate for gay rights. Would you say that you are advocate for gay rights now?

Romney: I am an advocate for treating all people with respect and dignity, and for the absence of discrimination.

Q: What does that mean, specifically?

Romney: What that means is, in my administration, I didn't discriminate against someone on the basis of their being homosexual. And I think that it is appropriate for private citizens and government entities to take their personal care to ensure that we do not discriminate in housing or in employment against people who are gay.

Q: So, employers should not be allowed to fire someone...

Romney: Wait, wait. You have to go back and listen to what I just said, and not say something I didn't say. I didn't say there should be a law... I said that employers should take care... this is not a law. I'm not proposing a law. I am not proposing a federal mandate, or I'm not proposing that there is an act of Congress of this nature. I'm saying that as a society, I think it is appropriate for us to avoid discrimination and denial of equality to people who make different choices and decisions including gay people. I do not support creating a special law or a special status. I've learned through my experience over the last decade that when you single out a particular population group for special status, it opens the door to a whole series of lawsuits, many of them frivolous and very burdensome to our employment community, and so I do not favor a specific law of that nature. What I do favor is people doing what I did, or what I tried to do, and not discriminate against people who are gay.

...and on his record:

Q: You remember, though, in 1994, you said you'd be better for gay rights than Ted Kennedy?

Romney: And then I explained why. And that was that Ted Kennedy was a Democrat and a liberal and that I was a Republican, and therefore that I would be able to be a voice for equal treatment and non-discrimination. Let me make it very clear: I am not a person who is anti-gay or anti-equal rights. I favor the treatment of all our citizens with respect and dignity. I do not favor creating a new legal special class for gay people. And I do not favor same-sex marriage, but as I've demonstrated through my own record, I have endeavored not to discriminate in hiring... one, in my administration, and second, in my appointment of judges.

I've appointed approximately 60 judges, one or two of whom... one of whom I'm quite confident is gay, the other may be gay as well. I think he probably is, and there may be more for all I know. But I've never asked a judicial candidate, "are you gay?" and discriminated against them on that basis. Nor, if I look in their resume and there's an indication of their being gay, I don't then delve into it and say, "Gee, are you gay yourself, or are you in support of gay issues?" I believe that in America, we should not discriminate against people on the basis of our differences. But that doesn't mean that you create a law for every difference that exists between people. It opens the door to lawsuits.

Q: In a Romney administration, Romney as president in the White House, there would be no discrimination against gay people? You'd hire people who happen to be gay?

Romney: That's been my record as governor. I would not discriminate against people on the basis of their physical and personal decisions or differences.

...and on homosexuality:

Q: You say "decisions" -- does that mean you believe homosexuality is a choice?

Romney: I'm not a psychologist. I don't try and delve into the roots of differences between people.

Unlike President Bush, Romney doesn't seem to choke on the words "gay" and "homosexual." And this time, at least, he didn't use the loaded term "unjust discrimination."