National
Romney, in his own (contradictory) words
GOP frontrunner’s tortured history on LGBT rights
Mitt Romney speaks at high school rally in Bedford, N.H. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney has been criticized as a flip-flopper during his presidential campaign — and although he’s defended himself against accusations that his positions have pivoted on LGBT rights, his record shows that he’s also changed on these issues.
During a Dec. 15 debate in Sioux City, Iowa, when Fox News moderator Chris Wallace said Romney has changed his positions in the last 10 years on abortion, gay rights and gun control, the candidate took exception to this list and said his positions have been consistent on gay rights.
“I’m firmly in support of people not being discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation,” Romney said. “At the same time, I oppose same-sex marriage. That’s been my position from the beginning.”
But an examination of Romney’s previous statements reveals any assertion that he’s held the same positions on LGBT rights — including opposition to same-sex marriage — since the beginning of his political career is false.
From marriage to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to civil unions to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Romney’s positions have wildly changed as he has pursued different offices and public opinion has grown to support LGBT issues.
Most of Romney’s earlier pro-LGBT positions can found in a 1994 letter that he wrote while running as a U.S. Senate candidate in Massachusetts against the late Sen. Edward Kennedy. In the missive, Romney boasted he could go further on gay rights than Kennedy, saying “I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.”
“If we are to achieve the goals that we share, we must make, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” Romney said. “My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.”
Romney pledged to co-sponsor a version of ENDA, and if possible to expand the measure to include housing and credit. The then-Senate candidate also called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which had been recently signed into law by former President Clinton, a first step in a process that will “ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.”
But prior to the 2008 election when Romney began pursuing his presidential ambitions, his support for employment non-discrimination legislation and open service vanished.
For example, in a 2006 interview with the National Journal, Romney said when asked about his previous support for that he doesn’t “see the need for new or special legislation” because passage of the bill would open a floodgate of litigation.
In 2007, Romney said during a presidential debate he “was wrong” in thinking “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a silly idea and said “it seems to be working.” The candidate continued to say repeal would be “a social experiment” and that he “wouldn’t change it” during a time of war.
Asked again during his current campaign about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during an editorial board meeting with the Des Moines Register in December, Romney pivoted again, saying he’s “not planning on reversing” open service now that wars are over.
Even on marriage, Romney has changed in his opposition to gay nuptials. In an interview with Bay Windows in 1994, Romney said marriage is “a state issue as you know – the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction.”
But that position changed after the Massachusetts Supreme Court under his watch as governor legalized same-sex marriage, prompting him to call for a Federal Marriage Amendment.
Still, his vision for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage has changed even over the course of his current campaign. In an August debate, Romney said marriage isn’t “an activity that goes on within the walls of a state” and said it “should be constant across the country.”
But in a December interview with the Boston Herald, Romney said his vision of a Federal Marriage Amendment would allow existing same-sex marriages to remain intact.
“I think it would keep intact those marriages which had occurred under the law but maintain future plans based on marriage being between a man and a woman,” Romney said.
That vision of allowing states to maintain existing same-sex marriages would, at least temporarily, result in varying laws with respect to marriage for state throughout the country.
LGBT rights groups on the right and left said Romney’s varied positions on LGBT rights demonstrates either a lack of character or his willingness to reconsider his views on the issues depending on the political alignment of the organization.
Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the gay conservative group GOProud, commended Romney for repeatedly speaking out against discrimination in debates, despite his changing positions on LGBT issues.
“He’s been consistent in his opposition to discrimination,” said LaSalvia, who’s endorsed Romney. “He has a record of hiring gay people, and, as governor, he appointed gay people to high-level positions.”
Jerame Davis, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, said Romney’s varied positions on LGBT rights demonstrates Romney “clearly has no moral compass and will say anything to get elected.”
“The only thing Mitt Romney stands for is Mitt Romney,” Davis said. “On issue after issue — LGBT or otherwise — he has pandered to the least common denominator and allowed the political winds to guide his every word.”
A roundup of Romney’s statements on LGBT issues follows:
On the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
In a 1994 letter to Log Cabin Republicans, Romney said he would co-sponsor ENDA:
“We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to housing and credit.”
In a 2006 interview with National Review Online, Romney said he no longer supports ENDA:
“I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.”
In a 2007 interview on “Meet the Press,” Romney said ENDA-like laws should be left to the states:
“At the state level, I think it makes sense for states to put in provision of this. I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be implemented at the state level. If you’re looking for someone who’s never changed any positions on any policies, then I’m not your guy. I learn from experience.”
On ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
In a 1994 letter to Log Cabin Republican, Romney called “Don’t Ask” a transitional policy that would lead to open service:
“One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue’ military policy. I believe that Clinton’s compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.”
In a 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College, Romney said “Don’t Ask” was working:
“When I first heard of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, I thought it sounded awfully silly. I didn’t think that would be very effective. And I turned out to be wrong. It’s been the policy now in the military for what, 10, 15 years, and it seems to be working. This is not the time to put in place a major change, a social experiment, in the middle of a war going on. I wouldn’t change it at this point.”
In a June 2011 debate in New Hampshire:
“I believe it should have been kept in place until conflict was over.”
In 2011, he spoke about open service with the Des Moines Register:
“That’s already occurred and I’m not planning on reversing that at this stage. … I was not comfortable making the change during a period of conflict, by virtue of the complicating features of a new program in the middle of two wars going on, but those wars are winding down and moving in that direction at this stage no longer presents that problem.”
On civil unions
From a 2003 document found on the governor’s old website:
A day after the Supreme Judicial Court decision, Gov. Romney told reporters that he believed a civil unions statute would “be sufficient” to satisfy the justices’ concerns. Joining Romney in the call for civil unions legislation was Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty, chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In a 2005 interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s “Hardball” on the difference between civil unions and marriage:
“I’d rather have neither to tell you the truth. I’d rather have domestic partnership benefits, such as hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples. I don’t want civil unions or gay marriage, but there is a difference. Even with just the word, there’s a difference.”
In 2012, a Romney campaign spokesperson reaffirmed the candidate’s opposition to civil marriage:
“[H]e has not been in favor of civil unions, if by civil unions you mean the equivalency to marriage but without the name marriage. What he has favored, and he talked about this, I believe, last night, was a form of domestic partnership or a contractual relationship with reciprocal benefits.”
On LGBT Pride
Text from 2002 Pride flier from Romney’s gubernatorial campaign:
“Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend. All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference.”
In 2012, Romney’s campaign disavowed the letter:
“I don’t know where those pink fliers came from. I was the communications director on the 2002 campaign. I don’t know who distributed them … I never saw them and I was the communications director,” Eric Fehrnstrom said.
On same-sex marriage
Romney in 1994 to gay newspaper Bay Windows:
Same-sex marriage is “a state issue as you know – the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction.”
In 2004 testimony before Congress:
I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment. Some retreat from the concept of amendment, per se. While they say they agree with the traditional definition of marriage, they hesitate to amend. But amendment is a vital and necessary aspect of our constitutional democracy, not an aberration.
In an August 2011 debate:
“Marriage should be decided at the federal level. You might wonder, why is that? Why wouldn’t you just let each state make their own decision? And the reason is, people move from state to state of course in a society like ours. … Marriage is a status; it’s not an activity that goes on within the walls of a state. And as a result, our marriage-status relationship should be constant across the country. I believe we should have a federal amendment to the constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.”
In a December 2011 interview with the Boston Herald:
Romney expressed support for a constitutional amendment that could create a complex three-tier system of marriage —maintaining marriage rights for straight couples, allowing gays who have already married to remain married, but barring future same-sex marriages.
“I think it would keep intact those marriages which had occurred under the law but maintain future plans based on marriage being between a man and a woman,” Romney said.
In 2011 he told the Des Moines Register:
“I would like to see a national amendment defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. But that was tried maybe three or four years ago. I don’t think that’s likely to receive the necessary support, at least in the near term.”
During a January 2012 debate:
Romney said he’ll advocate for “full rights” for gay people, although he said he remains opposed to same-sex marriage.
“If people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people — that have different sexual orientation don’t have full rights in this country, they won’t find that in me,” Romney said.
Vice President JD Vance and his wife, second lady Usha Vance, will visit Hungary next week.
An announcement the White House released on Thursday said the Vances will be in Budapest, the Hungarian capital, from April 7-8.
JD Vance “will hold bilateral meetings with” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. The announcement further indicates the vice president “will also deliver remarks on the rich partnership between the United States and Hungary.”
The Vances will travel to Hungary less than a week before the country’s parliamentary elections take place on April 12.
Orbán, who has been in office since 2010, and his Fidesz-KDNP coalition government have faced widespread criticism over its anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
The Associated Press notes polls indicate Orbán is trailing Péter Magyar and his center-right Tisza party.
President Donald Trump removed Attorney General Pam Bondi from her post Thursday, following growing criticism over how she and the Department of Justice handled a range of issues, including matters related to sex offender and Trump ally Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump announced Bondi’s removal on Truth Social, where he also said Todd Blanche will serve as acting head of the Justice Department.
“Pam Bondi is a great American patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my attorney general over the past year,” Trump wrote on the platform. “Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown on crime across our country, with murders plummeting to their lowest level since 1900.”
Trump was seen as recently as Wednesday with the now-former attorney general at a Supreme Court hearing on citizenship.
The decision contrasts with Trump’s previous public praise of Bondi, the 87th U.S. attorney general and former 37th attorney general of Florida, who served in that role from 2011-2019 before joining the Trump-Vance administration. He has frequently lauded her loyalty and said he speaks with her often. Bondi was also one of president’s defense lawyers during his first impeachment trial.
Privately, however, Trump had grown frustrated that Bondi was not “moving quickly enough” to prosecute critics and political adversaries he wanted to face criminal charges, according to multiple sources. The New York Times reported that her inability to charge former FBI Director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James with any crimes is a large factor in the president’s choice to fire her from the government’s primary law enforcement agency.
The move comes as Trump has sought to minimize public turmoil within his administration, avoiding the perception of a revolving-door Cabinet that defined his first term.
Lee Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York who unsuccessfully ran for governor, has emerged as a leading contender to lead the Justice Department. He has been one of Trump’s most reliable allies.
“He’s our secret weapon,” Trump said of Zeldin in February during a White House event promoting the coal industry, adding, “He’s getting those approvals done in record-setting time.”
Bondi has also growing faced scrutiny from Congress.
The House Oversight Committee recently subpoenaed her to testify about the department’s handling of certain files, where she declined to answer key questions during a contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing in February.
The Tampa native has a long history of opposing LGBTQ rights through her roles in government. As Florida attorney general, she fought against the legalization of same-sex marriage, arguing it would cause “serious public harm,” pushing forward a legal battle that cost taxpayers nearly half a million dollars. She also asked the Florida Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that found the state’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.
More recently, Bondi established a “Title IX Special Investigations Team” within the Justice Department focused on restricting transgender women and girls from participating in women’s and girls’ sports teams and accessing facilities aligned with their gender identity. She also told Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia to turn over the medical records of anyone under 19 who received gender-affirming care.
Her removal follows Trump’s decision last month to oust another controversial female Cabinet figure, Kristi Noem.
The White House
VIDEO: Gay journalist detained for booing Trumps at ‘Chicago’ opening night
Eugene Ramirez booed first family at Kennedy Center
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump attended the opening night of “Chicago” at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Tuesday. They were greeted by a mix of cheers, applause, and some audible boos.
Among them was Eugene Ramirez, a gay Washington resident, who later shared his account of the night after being briefly detained by security for booing the president and giving a thumbs-down gesture — an expression of what many would call a textbook definition of constitutionally protected speech to criticize the government.
Ramirez attended the opening night performance with a group of friends, hoping to catch a final show before the center undergoes two years of major changes under Trump oversight. The musical, based on a 1926 play of the same name, has become synonymous with Broadway success.
With music by John Kander, lyrics by Fred Ebb, and a book by Ebb and Bob Fosse, “Chicago” has cemented itself as a cultural staple — known for its signature Fosse choreography, stripped-down staging, and sleek, campy aesthetic. The story follows Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly, women who murder their husbands but — with the help of the manipulative, charismatic, and narcissistic attorney Billy Flynn — walk away scot-free.
It remains the longest-running American musical in Broadway history, and its 2002 film adaptation famously won the Academy Award for Best Picture. On this night, however, the production also became the backdrop for a very modern moment of political protest.
“I accompanied five friends to opening night of ‘Chicago’, as a way to enjoy a final performance in the Kennedy Center as we know it,” Ramirez began to recount to the Washington Blade, describing the moment his group settled into their seats inside the ornate Opera House theater.
Just before the performance began, the twice impeached president and first lady appeared in the balcony box, drawing immediate attention from the audience below. Theatergoers stood, cheered, clapped, and waved, while Ramirez made a different choice.
While accounts of the crowd’s reaction have varied, Ramirez said his response was intentional, immediate, and within his rights. Moments after booing and giving a thumbs-down while recording on his iPhone, security intervened.
The video of Ramirez booing the Trump’s is here:
“Within moments, the director [of security] and another guard approached and escorted me to a side area where several other security guards were waiting,” he said. “I was detained until everyone was seated and the lights dimmed.”
As he was escorted away, Ramirez said his instincts as a journalist kicked in. A former lead anchor for Sinclair’s national evening news broadcast, he said the situation immediately felt off — or more aptly put — as if he could see the strings being pulled from someone attempting to control the narrative.
“Journalism is a vocation, not just a job. I immediately knew there wasn’t just an uncomfortable interaction with security,” he said. “The Kennedy Center is a federally funded cultural institution, and being questioned about speech related to the president in that setting felt like something the public should know about.”
Ramirez explained the difference between a standard visit by a public official and this performance: the president’s appearance wasn’t just ceremonial; it was very clearly a media moment.
“The White House press pool was there, and it was clear this was an effort to manage the president’s image in the media,” Ramirez continued. “The irony was not lost on me that this was happening on opening night of ‘Chicago’, a musical about manipulating the press to shape public perception.”
According to Ramirez, the explanation he received from Kennedy Center Director of Safety and Security Karles C. Jackson Sr., was brief, but illuminating.
“He said, ‘they don’t want booing,’ and even called out my thumbs-down gesture. He never clarified who ‘they’ were, but whether it was the administration or the Kennedy Center, the distinction felt meaningless,” he explained. “Mr. Jackson ultimately told me he was just trying to do his job, shook my hand, and allowed me to return to my seat once the lights dimmed and the overture started playing.”
Ramirez said he didn’t blame the guard individually, noting the broader context of the Kennedy Center’s uncertain future and the pressures staff were under.
“With the center closing in the coming months, some of these security guards being pressured to restrict our freedom of speech may only have a few weeks of work left.”
He believes the decision to remove him was driven less by disruption than optics, particularly given the presence of the press.
“It was very clearly about protection — whether protecting the president from visible dissent, or his image before the media present. There was no disruption as almost everyone was standing and reacting loudly to the arrival of the president and first lady, with cheers, applause, and hand gestures. The difference was that my reaction, unlike most, was negative.”
Drawing on his experience covering public officials, Ramirez said the incident felt more about controlling perception than security.
“Usually, law enforcement may monitor or intervene if there’s a disruption, but here there was no disruption at all. Simply expressing dissent in a public, cultural space drew the attention of security. It made it feel less like a matter of decorum and more like an effort to control the narrative around the president,” he said. “It’s about what happens when dissent is treated as disruption rather than a right.”
“The show hadn’t started. I threatened no one. Billy Flynn would have approved of the optics. The rest of us should be paying attention.”
Ramirez framed the incident as part of a broader constitutional concern, one that is plaguing the Trump-Vance administration as they continue to reject rules and normalcy set forth by other reserved presidents.
“Being singled out by security at a federally funded institution for expressing dissent shouldn’t be brushed off; it undermines the First Amendment,” he said, looking at it slightly distanced from it now. “Being of Cuban heritage, and a journalist, it’s a right I’m not willing to give up readily.”
“Publicly funded cultural institutions should allow visible dissent, even in politically charged moments,” he added. “Of course, I understand the need to manage disruptions during a performance, but that was not the case here.”
The themes of “Chicago”, a long-running satire about media manipulation and public perception, added another layer of irony to the experience, Ramirez explained.
“The satire truly leapt off the stage! A show about controlling the narrative, manipulating the press, and covering up truths by leaning on showmanship and distractions. The show is decades old, but could’ve been written today. We’re being razzle-dazzled daily and it’s getting harder to tell fact from fiction, no matter where you get your news.”
He, being gay, also acknowledged how hard it must have been for the performers on stage, assuming that at least some in the cast were also members of the LGBTQ community — and artists — two things Trump doesn’t always get along with.
“It was not lost on me that many of the actors on that stage, that the president and first lady presumably applauded, are members of the LGBTQ community which this administration has rolled back protections for under the guise of religious liberty and free speech, resulting in blatant discrimination.”
He pointed to a particular number that felt surreal given the circumstances.
“Its ‘Razzle Dazzle’ number celebrates keeping audiences off balance; at its climax, a massive American flag descends as the song celebrates blinding audiences to what is real. Watching that scene after being detained for a thumbs-down was surreal.”
Ramirez said the show’s closing lines were especially sharp given the presidential audience and what he just experienced.
“At the end of the show,
Velma says: ‘You know, a lot of people have lost faith in America.’
Roxie replies: ‘And for what America stands for.’
Velma: ‘But we are the living examples of what a wonderful country this is.’
Roxie: ‘So we’d just like to say thank you and God bless you.’
They had both just gotten away with murder!”
His closing lines, however, were a bit more pointed than “scintillating sinners” Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly’s were in the show.
“Democracy only works when citizens are allowed to boo,” he said. “Tuesday night at the Kennedy Center, ‘Chicago’ made that point better than I ever could.”
The Blade reached out to the Kennedy Center but did not receive a comment back.
How Pepper the courthouse dog helps victims of abuse
Women’s FEST returns to Rehoboth Beach next week
Belarusian lawmakers approve bill to crackdown on LGBTQ rights
Calendar: April 3-9
How new barriers to health care coverage are hitting D.C.
‘Out for McDuffie’ event held at D.C. gay bar
Thousands attend ‘No Kings’ protests in D.C.
Ghanaian president welcomed to Philadelphia amid backlash over anti-LGBTQ bill
PHOTOS: ‘No Kings’ rally and march
