Like every other issue, Mitt Romney has been on every side of the marriage equality issue depending on what he thinks is most politically expedient at any given moment. After absurdly claiming in 1994 that he would be “better than Ted Kennedy” on gay rights, during the Republican primary this year he signed a pledge to support the Federal Marriage Amendment that would ban same-sex marriage nationwide and overrule all state laws on the matter.
But then one of his primary media surrogates, Bay Buchanan, told The Advocate that Mitt thinks this should all be left up to the states:
Asked how his positions, which include support for DOMA, would help families led by same-sex parents, Buchanan responded that Romney would not get in the way of what states decide to do on marriage and adoption.
“He very much supports traditional marriage, but he’s also a very strong advocate for the Tenth Amendment,” she said. “It’s a state issue.”
Well those two things don’t square at all. You can’t say it’s a state issue and support a federal constitutional amendment that would override all state laws on the subject. So now Buchanan is shaking the etch-a-sketch again and, magically, it went right back to his first (or is it second?) position:
A top Romney adviser disavowed remarks and a position reported this past week that appeared to be a reversal of the campaign’s support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would bar states from allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Although campaign officials did not respond to inquiries prior to publication, Bay Buchanan issued a clarification to BuzzFeed this afternoon following initial publication of this story, writing, “Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage.”
Hey, whatever is convenient at the moment.