Gomez: “Sullivan is a flip flopper on gay marriage.”

GOP U.S. Senate candidate Michael J. Sullivan defended his shifting message regarding gay marriage tonight as Democrats and even Republican rival Gabriel Gomez blasted him for flip-flopping on the hot-button issue.

Click here to read the Boston Herald’s article:


Even in the Boston Globe, Sullivan said in his support for gay marriage the following:

“I believe DOMA should be reversed and the federal government should respect those states that recognize gay marriage by providing those couples with the same level of benefits,” Sullivan said in the statement, referring to the federal Defense of Marriage Act that bars federal recognition of same-sex unions.”

Click here to read:


About TomKinison

  • I met Gabriel Gomez on Saturday before the Straw Poll and I like him, personally.  Several of my friends are campaign volunteers.  Gomez seems like a very good man but he needs to tread lightly on accusations of flip flopping on hot-button issues.  Why?  I’ll explain.

    The Boston Herald story states:

    Gomez’s senior adviser Lenny Alcivar added, “The failure to solve Washington’s spending problem and waffling on personal issues like marriage are why Massachusetts Republicans, Independents and conservative Democrats are tired of career politicians who put politics before principle.”


    Now, here is Michael Sullivan’s statements in the paper:

    “This is no flip-flop, no flip-flop at all,” Sullivan told the Herald in a phone interview. The former U.S. Attorney had strongly declared his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman this morning. By the afternoon, however, he had sent out a statement saying he wants to overturn a federal ban that denies benefits to spouses who live in states that have legalized same-sex marriage.

    “Marriage is a state’s rights issue,” said Sullivan, adding that while he still believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, “People should not be discriminated against.”


    Now, I may believe that marriage is a universal issue and not subject to a state-by-state jurisdiction but I can respect Sullivan for taking a federalist approach.  What’s ironic here is that Gomez is on very fragile ground for shifting his views for political opportunity expediency, and not even having the fall back of federalism upon which to rest.  No, not on the subject of gay marriage as Gomez very bluntly admits his support for that but rather on another hot-button issue, abortion.

    Here is where in this primary I verge most starkly with Gabriel Gomez.  There is a section on his website, under Issues, titled “Life Issues”.  It states:

    I am a proud Catholic, and pro-life.

    But Roe v Wade is settled law. Politicians spend way too much time on divisive issues that are already decided and far too little time on fixing our economy.


    There are several problems with this statement.  Most relevantly, Gomez professes to be both a proud Catholic and pro-life (wonderful!  So am I!) but then goes on to profess support pro-abortion policy and Constitutional belief.  Now, this is a major flip-flop, one that the Catholic Church certainly frowns upon to say the least.  

    Here is an excerpt from Catholics in Political Life by the United States Council of Catholic Bishops:

    It is the teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, founded on her understanding of her Lord’s own witness to the sacredness of human life, that the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified. If those who perform an abortion and those who cooperate willingly in the action are fully aware of the objective evil of what they do, they are guilty of grave sin and thereby separate themselves from God’s grace. This is the constant and received teaching of the Church. It is, as well, the conviction of many other people of good will.

    To make such intrinsically evil actions legal is itself wrong. This is the point most recently highlighted in official Catholic teaching. The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law. In the United States of America, abortion on demand has been made a constitutional right by a decision of the Supreme Court. Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.

    Our obligation as bishops at this time is to teach clearly. It is with pastoral solicitude for everyone involved in the political process that we will also counsel Catholic public officials that their acting consistently to support abortion on demand risks making them cooperators in evil in a public manner. We will persist in this duty to counsel, in the hope that the scandal of their cooperating in evil can be resolved by the proper formation of their consciences.


    If the USCCB doesn’t suffice perhaps Gabriel & his staff need to read, or re-read, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), an encyclical by His Holiness Pope John Paul the Great.

    Furthermore, Roe v Wade is as much settle law as Dred Scott.  Even if they were in effect for several years, they remain abominations that cry out for justice to be overturned.

    Ironically, even if Roe was overturned that would not ban abortion nationally but would “only” revert the abortion issue to the states, back to a federalist matter.  Gomez, by going all-in in support of Roe and it’s national abortion scheme doesn’t even have the federalist position to fall back upon as does Sullivan!

    Gomez’s position sets up a false choice between defending life and promoting economic prosperity.  Gomez makes the insulting position that we and our fellow Americans cannot proverbially walk and chew gum at the same time.  I won’t even get into how abortion over 40 million potential taxpayers over nearly three generations affects the economy.

    As such, Gabriel Gomez and his spokesmen like Lenny Alcivar should be very careful about “waffling on personal issues” and certainly “politicians who put politics before principle.”  I understand Gomez is not a “career” politician but he became a politician the moment he pulled papers for the US Senate.  Trying to hide the light of the his Christian, pro-life lamp under a bushel basket during and for a political campaign does not speak well to waffling and adherence to principles.

    I won’t even get into how I find the discrimination reference in his issues page insulting as a practicing, practical Catholic.  I don’t begrudge Gomez his views but I do find their articulation to be offensive and the reference to being a pro-life Catholic but professing policies and Constitutional views to the contrary to be hypocritical.

    Finally, the Gomez campaign and Democratic attacks on Michael Sullivan only reinforce one thing, they believe that he is the front runner to beat in this primary and then, just perhaps, the special election.

  • Gomez is criticizing Sullivan for wanting DOMA reversed?  Isn’t that also Gomez’s position (as can be ascertained from what little he writes about on issues).

    I oppose discrimination of any kind. Same sex couples should be free to marry.

    However, here is a little extra added onto his pablum that leaves me doubting he supports the repeal of DOMA.

    On social issues, he supports gay marriage and while he calls himself pro-life, he says “Roe v Wade is settled law” and we spend too much time focusing on “divisive issues that are already decided.”

    If gay marriage is a divisive issue already decided then does that means he favors keeping DOMA (the status quo) in place?

  • He is right that DOMA needs to be repealed, it is an unconstitutional bypass of the Full Faith and Credit clause. Congress is supposed to resolve state-by-state inconsistencies by making general laws that set a uniform proof and effect of legal acts such as marriage, not say that states don’t have to recognize each other’s acts and records. The idea is that there ought to be consistent legal status as people go from state to state, not allow for inconsistency.

    He is right that couples that are married by a state should be recognized as married by the federal government. And he is right about marriage being between a man and a woman. Congress should prescribe an effect of marriage as approving and allowing the couple to conceive offspring together using the couple’s own genes. States would not be allowed to prohibit married couples from having procreative sex and conceiving offspring together, or declare couples married that were not allowed to have procreative sex or conceive offspring together.

    Same-sex couples should not be approved or allowed to conceive offspring together, but all marriages should be approved and allowed to conceive offspring together. This ties in to the Transgender madness that also needs a federal law to stop the madness: people only have a right to procreate with someone of the other sex, as the sex they were born as. People do not have a right and should not be allowed to procreate as the other sex or with someone of the same sex.

  • Gomez is an Obama supported. After I pointed out that fact on Facebook. A Gomez staffer immediately accused me of falsehood If Gomez is as shaky as his staff, ain’t no way in hell I’m ever voting for him I’m voting for Dan Winslow, but it’s my town’s election day. “All politics is local”.  

  • This should clear up any misunderstanding that Gomez has.