One Wants Equality. One Wants Us Invisible

It seemed so easy. It could have been wonderful. But not with Mitt Romney in charge.

Way back in Ott-Three, when the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts decided in favor of marriage equality, the state Registry of Vital Records and Statistics deemed it necessary to revise its birth certificate forms for children born to the now legally recognized same-sex couples. The box normally checked for “father” would forever be called “father or second parent,’’ reflecting the new law.

Except .... then-Governor Mitt Romney, who opposed child-rearing by gay couples because you know it's icky and stuff, declared the changes unacceptable and rejected the Registry of Vital Records plan. Mittsy, because he knows all--or at least his wallet tells him so--insisted that his own legal staff would individually review the circumstances of every single birth to same-sex parents, and, only upon winning the A-OK from the Romney We Decide What Denotes A Family squad, could hospital officials and town clerks manually cross out "father" and write in the words "second parent."

The practice of requiring the newly formed We Decide What Denotes A Family squad continued for the rest of Romney’s term, despite a warning from a Department of Public Health lawyer, Peggy Wiesenberg, who said such a system placed the children of same-sex parents at an unfair disadvantage.

In December 2004, Wiesenberg sent a memo to Mittsy's general counsel, Mark Nielsen, and warned him that the use of handwritten alterations, like the "crossouts", to birth certificates constituted a violation of “existing statutes’’ and harmed “the integrity of the vital record-keeping system’’. She also said the changes would impair law enforcement and security efforts in a post-9/11 world, and children with altered certificates would be likely to “encounter [difficulties] later in life . . . as they try to register for school, or apply for a passport or a driver’s license, or enlist in the military, or register to vote.”

But hey, they have two gay parents so life would already be difficult in a Mitt Romney world where gay folks are "less than" so what's the big deal?

Most of the delays caused by Romney’s We Decide What Denotes A Family squad resulted legally married--and let's remember they are legally married--lesbian couples from being awarded birth certificates for their children. Gay men had a much tougher time; they had to obtain a court order to be listed on a birth certificate as "parent".

To be fair, most of this wait-wait-wait was just that. But it required the health department to, after the child was born, email the We Decide What Denotes A Family squad with the particulars of the birth, such as [and this is an actual email exchange]: “Birth at UMass Memorial Medical Center. Facts (married mother, same sex spouse, anonymous donor) are similar to 23 other cases that Mark has reviewed . . . [and] instruct[ed] the hospital to list mother & same sex spouse as the second parent on the child’s birth certificate.”

The WDWDAF squad emailed back: "You are authorized to inform the Medical Center that may list the same sex spouse as a second parent on the birth certificate.”

But in one instance, in which a couple asked that the handwritten alteration for the second parent say “wife” instead of second parent, the request was denied, obviously because in a Mitt Romney world, the second parent couldn't be a wife if the first parent was also a wife. Two wives! Who ever heard of a family with more than one wife .....

Never mind.

In another, the WDWDAF squad refused to allow a birth certificate to be issued listing a same-sex couple as the parents because they were not married.

Mittsy's campaign has naturally declined to comment.

Nor are they commenting on the fact that in 2005, Massachusetts' association of town clerks complained publicly about the absence of updated forms, calling the use of handwritten changes inappropriate. At that time, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said the Registry of Vital Records had not changed the birth certificate form because such a change required an act of the state Legislature.

Oops. See that was a lie, and was contradicted by Wiesenberg, who had told Romney’s lawyers the previous year that authority to make the changes rested with the Department of Public Health.

So, why? Why all the fuss over same-sex couples--legally married again, mind you--being noted on their children’s birth certificates as "parents" or even "second parents"? Well, it's because Mittsy was out to do whatever he could to deny any kind of equality to gay couples, especially given that while on his watch, Massachusetts had gone all equal and shiz.

In remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington, Mittsy decried the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling and outlined his misgivings about the request from the Registry of Vital Records:

“The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother. What should be the ideal for raising a child? Not a village, not ‘parent A’ and ‘parent B,’ but a mother and a father.’’

Romney also warned about the societal impact of gay parents raising children:

“Scientific studies of children raised by same-sex couples are almost nonexistent. It may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole.’’

Changes to Massachusetts birth certificates formally acknowledging children to same-sex marriages did not come into effect until after Governor Deval Patrick, a Democrat, assumed office.

So, what does all this mean about Romney? It means it's quite clear: he doesn't want The Gays to be equal. he doesn't want The Gays having children and he doesn't want children of same-sex parents to have their parents listed as parents on birth certificates. He's also on record as saying he wants a federal Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. He doesn't want the Gays married, having children raising children, living in his country, probably.

He's a bigot in a thousand-dollar suit and we're part of the 47%; we're the "you people" that neither he nor his are willing to discuss. So, what to do, what to do?

Well, don't vote for him, if you’re gay. I understand that there are all kinds of gays, conservative and liberal, open-minded and racist, but, we have a clear choice between a man who wants equality fore the LGBT community and a man who does not want us anywhere in the grand scheme of things.

So, don't vote Romney. Gay? Don't do it. Gay-friendly, gay-ally? Just say no. And we can take Mittsy's chance of entering the White Grouse as anything other than a guest away from him.

And, to borrow a phrase from the man who will get my vote next week: Yes, We Can.

According to a new Gallup Report, 71% of LGBT Americans, who are registered voters, support President Obama for reelection, while just 22% support Romney. From June to September, non-LGBT registered voters preferred Romney to Obama by one percentage point, 47% to 46%, but when you add in the LGBT voters to electorate, Obama moves slightly ahead of Romney, 47% to 45%.  

Right. It seems that maybe, just maybe, The Gays will have an edge in electing the next President. A big hand in electing The Man.

And do you want that man to be one who works overtime, both as a governor, and as a potential president, to deny us any form of equality, or do you want to vote for a man who has had our backs since he took the oath of office in 2009?

As I said, I've got the back of the man who has my back. 

Romney Rejected New Birth Certificates For Gay Parents

Gallup Special Report: The LGBT Vote