Let’s set the record straight for everyone we know! Mitt Romney NEVER flip-flopped on the issue of same-sex marriage! Here is Mitt’s response to the “news”:

“Like the vast majority of Americans, I’ve opposed same-sex marriage, but I’ve also opposed unjust discrimination against anyone, for racial or religious reasons, or for sexual preference,” Romney said in an interview with the National Review magazine published online Thursday.

This is in response to the media publishing his statements during his 1994 Senate race. Mitt Romney simply has NOT changed his position! He sought to protect ALL Americans, including homosexuals from discrimination.:

“I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party, and I would be a voice in the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts,” Romney said.

My hope is that Americans will READ what Mitt said! He believes homosexuality is wrong. And all Americans should be free from discrimination.

Who is planting such reports? Hmmmm….perhaps there are some nervous politicians who are showing that they know Mitt is really gaining momentum! And he hasn’t even announced yet. Just wait!! See this report from the LA Times:

WASHINGTON — Democrats have an overwhelmingly favorable view of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, but she would be soundly beaten if she ran for president against Republican Sen. John McCain now, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

Underscoring the New York Democrat’s potential vulnerability, the poll also found that Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican little known to most voters, would give Clinton a run for her money.

The race is on and this is the best they can do. Mitt will come out shining every time!

BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, November 28, 2006    The Wall Street Journal
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is taking the battle over same-sex marriage to a new level by taking it back to the very court that made this mess: the state’s Supreme Judicial Court. On Friday Mr. Romney–perhaps laying the groundwork for a presidential run–filed a lawsuit against his state Legislature for failing to vote on whether to put a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the ballot. He says the Legislature was required to do just that after a record number of residents (170,000) signed petitions demanding a popular vote.

Mr. Romney’s case isn’t expected go very far. Aside from the obvious separation-of-powers problem, Mr. Romney is asking the same court that imposed same-sex marriage three years ago to parse his constitutional logic. Like a second marriage, expecting the court to allow a rebuke of its earlier decision is a triumph of hope over experience.

But Mr. Romney’s case does have one salutary effect. He filed suit against the Legislature not for failing to endorse a ban on same-sex marriage, but for using a series of procedural moves to avoid voting on the issue and thereby keeping it off the ballot. Mr. Romney’s lawsuit is, therefore, an attempt to use the state’s high court for what it has heretofore resisted being: A bulwark for democracy.

Because Massachusetts’ Constitution requires votes in favor of an amendment from only one-fourth of the Legislature in two successive terms to get it on the ballot, the governor would likely win the fight if only the Democratic leaders of the Legislature would allow a vote. But the real target here isn’t the judiciary or even the Legislature. Mr. Romney filed his case in an attempted to push the debate over marriage back into the court of public opinion. And he’s thinking well beyond the confines of Massachusetts–where voters are eager for an opportunity to weigh in on the issue–and into Republican presidential primaries, where he aspires to be the candidate with the strongest social conservative credentials.
It is here that Mr. Romney performs a public service. Dozens of states have already enacted their own constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. But as these amendments have passed with overwhelming margins in even liberal states (and helped turn out Republican voters in 2004), the debate over the merits of traditional marriage has largely died down. Passing the marriage amendments have been exercises in the expression of the popular will, without also serving as an opportunity to reach a consensus on why marriage as an institution is worth protecting.

Although advocates of same-sex marriage will deny there is any connection to extending the institution to gay couples, a recent report released by the National Center for Health Statistics reveals why this debate is worth having now. The study found that although teen pregnancy rates are dropping, the number of out-of-wedlock births in America has been steadily rising since the 1990s. It seems women in their 20s and 30s are having children without getting married first. Last year the proportion of births that are illegitimate reached an all time high of 37%, or 1.5 million children.

The debate on how to address this growing social problem will likely only take place in a presidential race and only if at least one candidate vying for the Oval Office is willing to cogently make the case for marriage, rather than push the issue off to the side by calling for a federal constitutional amendment.

Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.