Romney backs new effort to prohibit gay marriages

Governor Mitt Romney yesterday endorsed a grass-roots effort to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2008, abandoning his support for what he called a ''muddied" compromise measure that would also ban gay marriages but allow gays to enter into civil unions.

Romney, who is courting conservative voters for a possible presidential run in 2008, said the newly proposed ban would give voters a chance to consider a ''clean, straightforward, unambiguous amendment" that does not include civil unions.

''I'm concerned that the amendment currently under consideration by the Legislature is somewhat confused or muddied by the combination of two things: One is the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, which I support, and the other is the requirement that there be civil unions in the Commonwealth, which is a provision I do not support," Romney told reporters after a group of same-sex marriage opponents unveiled the new proposed amendment in a separate press conference.

In announcing their plans to back a new proposed amendment, opponents of same-sex marriage said they believe that the compromise amendment before the Legislature would be defeated because conservative lawmakers who had backed it last year would join them to support the new alternative that simply bans gay marriage.

The Legislature is expected to meet in Constitutional Convention this fall to take up the compromise amendment, which was sponsored by Senate President Robert E. Travaglini and Senate Republican leader Brian P. Lees.

''The convention has defeated the Travaglini-Lees amendment today," said state Representative Philip Travis, Democrat of Rehoboth, addressing more than 100 backers of the proposed amendment at a State House press conference.

Travis was the only lawmaker to speak at the unveiling of the amendment yesterday. Joining him were representatives of the Massachusetts Family Institute, and a host of Christian leaders, including a representative of the four dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church in Massachusetts. The ballot committee calls itself Voteonmarriage.org.

To amend the state constitution via a citizens' ballot initiative, organizers will need to gather the signatures of roughly 66,000 Massachusetts voters this fall, then win the backing of one quarter of the Legislature's 200 members in two successive sessions, and then win at the ballot box in the November 2008 election. By contrast, the compromise amendment, which was generated by the Legislature, requires a majority vote of lawmakers in two successive sessions to be sent to voters.

Yesterday's developments were a dramatic new turn in the state's political debate around gay marriage, which was legalized by the Supreme Judicial Court in a Nov. 18, 2003 decision. In March, a Boston Globe poll indicated that 56 percent of those surveyed supported same-sex marriage.

Reflecting the uneasiness among politicians over same-sex marriage, last spring the Legislature passed the Travaglini-Lees amendment to ban gay marriage but allow civil unions. It cleared by just five votes. At the time, Romney urged Republicans to back the measure because it was the only one put forth by lawmakers that had a chance of passing.

Travis said his coalition of steadfast gay-marriage opponents in the Legislature included at least a half-dozen lawmakers. If they decide the new amendment is preferable, they would probably vote against the compromise measure and help end its chances of heading to the 2006 ballot if other lawmakers maintain their positions from last year.

Gay-marriage advocates and several lawmakers interviewed yesterday said they were not convinced that the Travaglini-Lees amendment would be defeated.

Lees agreed that the landscape had changed with the announcement of the proposed gay-marriage ban, but said the course ahead was not certain.

''It will change the number of votes -- there's no doubt about that -- and the Senate president and I are going to have to look and see what the options are out there," Lees said, referring to the alternative ballot question. ''We'll have to sit down after the budget's done and figure out what course of action, if any, we want to take."

Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said she was skeptical of Travis's prediction that some conservatives would abandon the Travaglini-Lees measure. ''It's possible, but I wouldn't bet my mortgage on it," said Isaacson, who has been urging the Legislature to defeat the compromise this year.

Referring to the text of the compromise amendment, Kristian Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a Newton-based group that opposes gay marriage, said, ''Asking citizens to vote on the Travaglini-Lees amendment is like asking them to vote for George Bush and John Kerry on the same ticket."

The new amendment and Romney's endorsement were criticized by gay activists and by Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for governor in 2006.

''I'm opposed to any effort to take away the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry," Reilly said in a statement. ''It is unfortunate that the Governor's preoccupation with matters outside of Massachusetts dictate that he play politics with an issue that has been resolved and is working well."

The coalition backing the new amendment includes 20 state and national groups, including the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council, Colorado-based Focus on the Family, and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, which is the lobbying arm of the four Roman Catholic dioceses in the state. Many of the national groups involved are pivotal to the hopes of any Republican presidential aspirant.

In February, Romney told a South Carolina Republican audience that ''from day one, I've opposed the move for same-sex marriage and its equivalent, civil unions." But gay rights groups, including a leading GOP organization, accused Romney of flip-flopping, saying he had supported some benefits for gay couples in his 2002 campaign. He had also urged lawmakers in 2004 to back the compromise amendment.

Yesterday, Rick Beltram, who heads the Spartanburg County, S.C., Republican Party, said Romney's decision to back the new amendment would play well with crucial GOP voters in his state, some of whom are skeptical of a Massachusetts Republican. ''This will continue to reinforce in potential voters down here that he's a real conservative," Beltram said.

But Romney also drew a criticism that he was playing to a national conservative audience.

''As the governor considers a run for president in 2008, he has bowed to right-wing pressure to eliminate even the most basic rights for same-sex families in Massachusetts," said a statement released by the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign, which supports gay marriage.

Another analysis came from Dan Schnur, a Republican consultant in California who served as spokesman for Governor Pete Wilson and communications director for Arizona Senator John McCain's presidential campaign in 2000. He said Romney was engaging in a time-honored political tradition of ''changing his language on an issue without changing his position."

''Just as John Kerry talked about the war in Iraq much differently in the Democratic primary than during the general election, that's what Mitt Romney is doing," Schnur said.

Romney, who recently opposed a Democrat-sponsored stem cell research bill, has again found himself aligned with the four Massachusetts bishops of the Roman Catholic church. The bishops issued a statement saying they were giving their permission for the ballot committee to gather signatures outside Catholic churches.

''This proposed amendment restores to our laws the traditional definition of marriage," the bishops' statement said. ''To remain effective as society's primary institution for ensuring the well-being of children, marriage must be understood by government as a commitment involving one man and one woman."

But a religious leader who listened in on the ballot committee's press conference criticized the tone of the organizers.

''I lived outside Montgomery, Ala., in 1963, and the people there were convinced that government was forcing its agenda on them to enfranchise blacks," said the Rev. Jep Streit, dean of St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral in Boston. ''They said it was outrageous that the will of the people was opposed. The rhetoric sounds the same to me."