"Flip flop" or evolution in maturity? I'm more interested on his thoughts concerning equality in 2011, anyway.

Unless his position has changed again, isn't this kind of old news?

Can it really be called a flip-flop when the quotes are 9 years apart? I'm no Mitt defender but doesn't this just show evolution in his thinking? Isn't this what we want? To change peoples minds on the subject?

Now, if he comes out again in a speech next week going back to his 1993 thinking, then we can make all the negative, flip-flop posts we want.

I'll bet a lot of peoples' attitudes towards gays have changed since 1993. This means nothing.

At least he flipped the right way. I suspect a lot of people's ideas about "the gays" have matured since 1993.

Yeah Eli, totally off on this one. And it's al about Newt this week anyway. Man, get with it.

You can think homosexuality is perverse but still think that all people deserve equal rights. I wish more people with religious objections to homosexuality could be so objective.

@8,9: HIVEMIND.
@10: What if people were only allowed to marry same-sex partners? There would be total marriage equality, right? Gay, straight, doesn't matter; you can only marry a same-sex partner. Would you be cool with that, you miserable failtroll?

Mitt tailors his answers to the audience. In Utah, he still says gays are perverse. SL Tribune actually pointed out some of his pandering, surprisingly enough. So less of a flip-flopper and more of a silly putty guy. Either way, still not fit to be Prez.

I don't think you can call this a flip flop. In the older quote he's saying he's dismayed that people in this Mormon group are engaging in gay sex. He could be against Mormon's having gay sex while still believing that gays should have the same legal rights as straights. Religious people absolutely have the right to think gay sex is immoral. Where their rights end is at their ability to restrict gays from having legal rights that straights have.

If you're looking for a Mitt Flop (this is so standard for him it deserves its own term. Flip Flop is too general. This is a Mitt Flop.) you should be comparing his 2002 statement that gays deserve the same rights as straights with his 2011 campaign statement that he opposes gay marriage. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-2…
Now THAT is a Mitt Flop.

Flipp Flopney wants to be president of Mormon Americans. Rich Mormon Americans. Like him. What a coincidence.

What @4 said.

What has he said lately?

What's perverse is the way that Mormons in Utah conspire to allow their most conservative fringe fellow travelers to rape little girls with impunity. And that's a good example of the typical Mormon two-faced habit of public discourse. On the one hand you disown the fundamentalists and denounce polygamy. On the other hand you make sure that in the courts a man who rapes a 13 year old girl gets off with a slap on the wrist, if that.

I don't really see these as mutually exclusive ideas. I know it's uncommon, but you could think that per religious freedom, gays should have equal rights but still, personally, feel that it's perverse. In the 1993 quote, it looks like he's speaking directly to Mormons about homosexual behavior within their own "group."

After the nominination, he'll flip back to his 2002 stance.

Oopsie on 22. Keep that flop flipped the way it is Mitt.

i thought the perversion was what made it fun.

@24 FTW. That's why married men like it so much.

Yeah my opinion has gone the right way since 1993 too. My parents raised me in the south, but I got out of that backwater.

Sorry man, but 1993 is now 18 years ago. 18 years. People change in 18 years.

@Everyone: I probably should have used a quote of Romney's from 1994 along with that quote from 2002. You'll find it at the links already provided:

"During Romney’s 1994 senatorial run, for example, he pledged to 'make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.'"

@14: All right then, you agree with me. Next question:
What if all people, gay or straight, could marry either a same-sex partner or an opposite-sex partner? Would everyone be equal under the law that way?

The fact that Romney is sensitive to the rights of all people as opposed to just rights for his kind of people says volumes about his ability to work with diversities to find those areas that we all as Americans can agree on. America does not need intractable fanaticism over willingness to consider all views and even the ability to evolve one's understanding in light of new information or differing situational complexities when it comes to uniting our diverse cultural differences. Fanaticism either from the left or from the right is not what the majority of Americans want or what we need to come together as Americans. People rail at Obama for promoting "class warfare" but don't seem to see that warfare among Americans around any issue is just as destructive. Example: No one is for murdering human life, but many of us realize that "personhood for every zygote" will create consequences that are so bizarre and destructive. Do we really want the FBI to invade our homes to conduct a homicide investigation with every miscarriage? Do we want our Criminal Justice System overwhelmed even far more than our "War on Drugs" has given us. Now we want a "War against Women"!

The fact that Romney is sensitive to the rights of all people as opposed to just rights for his kind of people says volumes about his ability to work with diversities to find those areas that we all as Americans can agree on. America does not need intractable fanaticism over willingness to consider all views and even the ability to evolve one's understanding in light of new information or differing situational complexities when it comes to uniting our diverse cultural differences. Fanaticism either from the left or from the right is not what the majority of Americans want or what we need to come together as Americans. People rail at Obama for promoting "class warfare" but don't seem to see that warfare among Americans around any issue is just as destructive. Example: No one is for murdering human life, but many of us realize that "personhood for every zygote" will create consequences that are so bizarre and destructive. Do we really want the FBI to invade our homes to conduct a homicide investigation with every miscarriage? Do we want our Criminal Justice System overwhelmed even far more than our "War on Drugs" has given us. Now we want a "War against Women"!