Posted on 01/19/2007 7:14:00 PM PST by Gelato
Romney Violated Massachusetts Constitution by Ordering ‘Same-Sex Marriage’
44 U.S. pro-family leaders signed letter asking him to recant illegal orders
By Meg Jalsevac
HARRISBURG, PA, January 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A letter addressed to Massachusetts’ ex-governor Mitt Romney has just been made public in which 44 conservative, pro-family leaders from across the nation requested that before stepping down from office, Romney would adhere to the Massachusetts Constitution and repeal his order directing public officials to perform ‘same-sex marriages’.
The letter was hand delivered to members of Romney’s staff on December 20th, 2006 at his office. Romney took no action to adhere to the letter’s requests before he left office at the beginning of the New Year.
The letter cited numerous, historical cases and the Massachusetts’ Constitution to assert that Romney’s actions in implementing ‘gay marriage’ were beyond the bounds of his authority as governor. The authors further asserted that his actions were unconstitutional as were the actions of the four initial judges who formulated the official opinion on the matter in the ‘Goodridge’ case, the case that originally brought the matter to national attention.
Commenting on the ‘Goodridge’ opinion, Judge Robert Bork said that it was “untethered to either the Massachusetts or United States Constitution.”
As quoted in the letter, the MA Constitution denies the judicial branch of its government any authority over the state’s marriage policies. So it was that three of the seven judges that heard the Goodrich case strongly dissented that the court did not have authority to formulate laws.
The letter also outlined how the MA Constitution forbids judges from establishing or altering law. According to the Constitution, such a task is to be left to the legislature. The judges’ opinion in the Goodrich case admitted that they were not altering the standing marriage statute in MA.
Instead, Governor Romney took it upon himself, despite legal counsel to do otherwise, to order officials across the state that they would have to perform ‘gay marriages’, even though, according to Massachusetts law, to do so is a felony. Officials who refused were advised to resign their position.
Throughout the whole ordeal, Romney maintained that he was personally against ‘homosexual marriage’ but that he must “execute the law.” The conservatives’ letter clearly illustrates how Romney was not “executing the law” but merely facilitating the agenda of activist judges – beyond even the judges’ own expectations.
The letter clearly explained how Romney’s actions, in reality, are a crime under Massachusetts because of his oath to uphold the Constitution.
The authors called Romney to task for ignoring the solemnity of the oath of office that he took in which he swore to uphold the Constitution of Massachusetts. They requested that Romney publicly repeal his orders to perform ‘same-sex marriages’ throughout the state and confirm the fact that, under Massachusetts law, ‘same-sex marriage’ remains illegal. They also ask that Romney publicly take to task the political officials that worked to undermine the constitution to bring about ‘same sex marriage’ in Massachusetts.
John Haskins, writer and family activist, told LifeSiteNews.com, “Mitt Romney’s contribution to history will be that he pro-actively imposed ‘homosexual marriage’ in stark violation of the state Constitution that he swore to uphold. Those denying this are subverting the rule of law and the plain language of a constitution.”
Haskins expressed frustration at conservatives like Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard and Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund who he says initially counseled Romney not to permit gay marriage but then defended the governor’s actions saying that he had no choice but to obey the law. On the MassResistance website, Haskins says, “Our lawyers, law professors and pro-family political leaders are blundering this historic challenge because we have wandered far from the Constitutional texts we swore to defend. Some of them are realizing this belatedly. Others appear determined to defend and disguise their own errors (some quite fundamental) at whatever cost to Massachusetts and America.”
The legal background and framework of the letter was researched and confirmed by attorney Robert Paine, an expert on the topic of MA’s unconstitutional ‘same-sex marriages’.
Of the 44 signers of the Romney letter, several prominent conservative leaders are listed including Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation; Robert H. Knight, veteran Washington political activist and a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Act; Linda Harvey, Mission America; Rev. Ted Pike, National Prayer Network; Randy Thomasson, Campaign for Children and Families; Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth; Dr. Chuck Baldwin, radio host and columnist; Paul Likoudis, The Wanderer; Phil Lawler, Catholic World News; David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute; Michael Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine; Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan; Joe Glover, Family Policy Network; and Bill Cotter, Operation Rescue Boston.
As reported previously by LifeSiteNews.com, Romney is known for flip-flopping and wavering on key social issues. Coinciding with his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, Romney just recently declared himself a pro-life figure despite a history of inconsistent decisions in life issues.
Read the full text of the letter: http://www.massresistance.com/docs/marriage/romney/dec_lette...
Read ‘Romney Gay Marriage Timeline’ at MassResistance.com http://www.massresistance.com/docs/marriage/romney/timeline....
Read Related LifeSiteNews.com Coverage:
Homosexual “Marriage” Not Legal in Massachusetts, Lawyers’ Coalition Says http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06092104.html
Despite Past Statements, Former Gov. and Presidential Hopeful Romney Says He is Pro-Life http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07010408.html
Romney Does Flip-Flop and Forces Catholic Hospitals to Distribute Morning-After-Pill http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05120905.html
Look at my thumb... are you dumb?
You hit abuse and ping the AM so often that almost all threads you're on end up in the SBR.
Sheeeeeesh.
First, how would you know? Second, personal attacks aren't supposed to be allowed on FR, in case you've forgotten. The one poster that I pointed the mod to on this thread I ignored for dozens of posts...slanderous lies all. Funny you would approve of that. I'm really surprised. At times I have thought better of you.
Fundamental liberties will not be protected when the executive can routinely flout court rulings. Obviously some may be wrongly decided, but one should act within the law to challenge them. Tyranny can be in the executive as well as the judiciary. That is why we have a system of checks and balances. Since you seem to like Jefferson's advocacy of political violence, I suppose you will not be satisfied until the offending judges are lynched?
Certainly not Marbury vs Madison, for Justice Marshall found that notion repugnant.
Who said anything about "routinely"?
Obviously some may be wrongly decided, but one should act within the law to challenge them.
Obviously. But my question for you is this: What do you do when the court acts outside the law?
Tyranny can be in the executive as well as the judiciary. That is why we have a system of checks and balances.
Of course. And there can be tyranny in the judiciary as well as the executive. That is why we have a system of checks and balances.
Since you seem to like Jefferson's advocacy of political violence, I suppose you will not be satisfied until the offending judges are lynched?
Violence is not required. Some simple courage will suffice. In fact, in the case in question, all this executive, Mitt Romney, had to do was exactly what the legislative branch did to check the court's unconstitutional, unlawful order was: NOTHING.
He is left out of the equation in the debate over the gay agenda. His Word makes it clear that He considers homosexuality to be an abomination in His sight.
So, for a Christian, one who believes the Bible, exactly as our founders did, to ignore His will in this matter is to have no care for this republic's future. If it is allowed to fall utterly into abomination and judgment, our children and grandchildren will have no earthly future.
Yawn right back atcha.
I really don't think they like you posting that kind of link on FR. It leads to a download. Bad.
No, Roy Moore apparently thinks just like you do: If you don't like a court ruling, you are free to ignore it.
That's why you are beating on Romney, because he didn't ignore a court order.
Puting Party over Country!
****
Following are some selections from George Washington's farewell speech.
On party politics:
They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force--to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modefied by mutual interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.
This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseperable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common & continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence & corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true--and in Governments of a Monarchical cast patriotism may look with endulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate & assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.
He is left out of the equation in the debate over the gay agenda. His Word makes it clear that He considers homosexuality to be an abomination in His sight.
So, for a Christian, one who believes the Bible, exactly as our founders did, to ignore His will in this matter is to have no care for this republic's future. If it is allowed to fall utterly into abomination and judgment, our children and grandchildren will have no earthly future.
Amen, EV, Amen!
It's amazing that people don't think God's Commandments apply to today. One of the biggest reasons that America is in trouble today, is because Americans have turned their backs on Him! He gave us His written Word in the Bible so we would KNOW exactly what He EXPECTS of us.
Judging from the mess America is in, IMO, He has withdrawn His hand of Blessings from America but still people are ignoring His 'wakeup call.' A nation without God is a nation in decline, just like America is! Anyone who seeks favor with homosexuals over God's Commandments, is a person destined for ruin! We need a Godly man who FEARS/LOVES God, and will OBEY His Commandments, as our President.
You avoided my question. I will post it again: "On what are you basing your opinion that the courts can act unconstitutionally, and all must obey them? Certainly not Marbury vs Madison, for Justice Marshall found that notion repugnant."
Remember, Marbury vs. Madison affirmed the supremacy not of the courts but of the Constitution, which derives its authority from the people. It would be contrary to that decision for the executive or legislature to obey an unconstitutional action by the court.
On the subject of disobedience, if you will notice, the Massachusetts court order was directed to the LEGISLATURE, and the legislature DISOBEYED it. After all, they are under no mandate to obey an unconstitutional edict from another branch of government, and are in fact bound by oath to refuse to act unconstitutionally. Even the Massachusetts court admits to having no power with which to control the legislature.
Mitt Romney, for whatever reason, took it upon himself to enforce the unconstitutional order, and is therefore alone responsible for gay marriage in his state.
As much as I disagree with same-sex marriage, only the Judiciary can legally decide that.
If that's true, the republic is finished.
"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarcy...The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal...knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots." - Thomas Jefferson, Sept 28, 1820 letter to William Jarvis
"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression ... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
- Thomas Jefferson
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.