23) In almost a decade of dealing with homosexual marriage, Romney has never made a moral argument against it. Romney has never argued why homosexual behavior is wrong or immoral. One could argue it wouldn’t be wise for Romney to make such an argument in liberal Massachusetts, but even in out of state speeches to conservative and Christian groups he avoided any argument remotely resembling morality. Nor would he even touch the argument that the institution of marriage is ordained by God and is the basis of America’s Judeo-Christian culture. Such an oversight is not purposeful; Romney simply does not consider homosexuality to be immoral because he doesn’t consider homosexual behavior to be a sin.
In 2007 when Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Peter Pace publicly stated that he believed homosexual behavior to be immoral, Romney attacked him and told CNN’s Larry King that the condemnation of homosexuality by Pace was “inappropriate for the public discourse.” Romney went on to say “in a governmental setting, the right way to go is to show more of an outpouring of tolerance.” There’s no record of any comments by Romney on the appropriateness of the arguments often made in public by gay leaders about the alleged morality of their lifestyle. (49)
In connection with this controversy, Romney stated at a campaign stop that government had no authority to tell pastors what to preach about homosexuality, although he personally would not preach that homosexuality is sinful.(50)
Nor does Romney believe in the institution of marriage as a God ordained institution; rather he always describes it in utilitarian terms — as a child production unit:
I don’t believe that the institution of marriage, meaning in the sense of people being able to combine as adults, is the primary factor at stake. I believe instead it’s the development of future generations…(51)
At a speech on marriage in October, 2006, Romney again focused on the production of children:
Marriage is about the nurturing and the development of children…our fight for marriage, then, should focus on the needs of the children, not the rights of adults.(52)
Romney also seems to think the proper view of marriage is dependent on what the majority think and what’s popular. Here’s how the Boston Globe reported a conversation between Romney and David Rogers, president of the Log Cabin Club:
Romney’s meeting with Log Cabin club members in October of that year  less than a month before the gubernatorial election, led members to believe he was not morally opposed to gay marriage. ….‘He said, “right now, it’s not popular, and it would cost money,” ‘He didn’t say, when we met with him, ‘I’m sorry, folks; I’m against gay marriage because it’s morally wrong.’ He didn’t say that.’(53)
One reason why Romney does not view homosexuality as sinful is his view that it’s something a person is born with, like race, despite the fact there’s not a shred of evidence to support the genetic theory. Indeed, he has repeatedly compared sexual orientation to race:
It’s incumbent on all of us to respect one another, regardless of our difference and beliefs, our differences in sexual orientation, in race and that America has always been a place, and should be a place, to welcome and tolerate people’s differences.(54)
Not even the notoriously pro-homosexual American Psychological Association will assert that homosexuality is genetic. Indeed, the evidence remains overwhelming that homosexuality is a behavior, not a genetic trait. If Romney accepts the propaganda that homosexuality is genetic, then it makes sense for him to believe that homosexuality is not sinful behavior. This is why to this day he still supports “gay rights.” It is also why he will never say homosexuality is sinful and is why, in his heart, he really has no problem with gay marriage.