Replies

>>>In what he was able to do in MA, as opposed to what he couldn’t re; gay marriage, he denied local officials the ability to deny licenses for gay marriage.<<<

I’ve addressed this in quite a bit of detail on another post, and I’ll do it again. But I have to run now.

That said, I have a simple question to ask:

How did gay couples get married in Iowa? Did the governor not need to authorize that? Or the legislature pass laws?

In a word, nope. It took the judiciary to put a stay on the ruling for the marriage lincenses to stop flowing.

There is some rather poor understanding of the way the judiciary interacts with the Constitution and the law. That makes sense, as it’s a complex subject.

But long story short, the Mass Supreme Court struck down the Mass DOMA law as unconstitutional, stating that gays had the right to marry under the Mass constitution of equal protections. That DOMA law was all that was keeping gay coulpes from marrying in Mass.

At that point, the only branch of government who could have reversed what the judiciary did was the legislature, and that only course of action was by passing a Constitutional Amendment.

All Romney would have done by refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay couples was to violate the Mass State Constitution as interpreted by the Mass Supreme Court (which in a common law system and under Marbury v. Madison, they have every right to do)—the very document he took a vow to uphold.

The right move and the move Romney made was to try to bring about an amendment. Your legislature in Mass wasn’t too keen on hearing what the people thought, though, was it?

>>>In what he was able to do in MA, as opposed to what he couldn’t re; gay marriage, he denied local officials the ability to deny licenses for gay marriage.<<< I’ve addressed this in quite a bit of detail on another post, and I’ll do it again. But I have to run now. That said, I have a simple question to ask: How did gay couples get married in Iowa? Did the governor not need to authorize that? Or the legislature pass laws? In a word, nope. It took the judiciary to put a stay on the ruling for the marriage lincenses to stop flowing. There is some rather poor understanding of the way the judiciary interacts with the Constitution and the law. That makes sense, as it’s a complex subject. But long story short, the Mass Supreme Court struck down the Mass DOMA law as unconstitutional, stating that gays had the right to marry under the Mass constitution of equal protections. That DOMA law was all that was keeping gay coulpes from marrying in Mass. At that point, the only branch of government who could have reversed what the judiciary did was the legislature, and that only course of action was by passing a Constitutional Amendment. All Romney would have done by refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay couples was to violate the Mass State Constitution as interpreted by the Mass Supreme Court (which in a common law system and under Marbury v. Madison, they have every right to do)—the very document he took a vow to uphold. The right move and the move Romney made was to try to bring about an amendment. Your legislature in Mass wasn’t too keen on hearing what the people thought, though, was it?

You keep tossing all of this rhetoric into the debate as before, yet you never answer the simple questions (just as you kept dodging the ones about the STATE paying for those making 300% of poverty-level): Why didn't Romney do what he was constitutionally capable of doing on this issue re: local officials and the ability to deny licenses?

You go on, and on, and on, but other than your silly attempt to claim superior understanding of Massachusetts law (inspired no doubt by those Romney talking points you seem to have handy at all times) you don't address the ISSUE.

Maybe you should keep this handy for reference:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/timeline.html

Timeline Documents Romney's Role in Creating Same-Sex "Marriages"

Some highlights...(including an answer to your retort that he had no ability to influence the situation I brought up which you are obviously unaware of):

* 1994 Campaign vs. Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate: Romney pledged he “will provide more effective leadership” than Kennedy on homosexual rights; endorsed by Log Cabin Republicans.

* 2000-2002: As head of Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, Romney banned Boy Scouts from participating.

* 2001 Called first citizens' petition to define marriage “too extreme” and “bigoted” because it banned civil unions.

* 2002 Campaign for Governor: Romney makes promises to GLBT community, according to leading Boston homosexual newspaper; endorsed by homosexual activist Log Cabin Republicans.

* Feb. 2004 Justices of the Peace are told by their professional association they will be able to claim “conscientious objector” status and refuse to perform same-sex marriages -- though this was never agreed to by Romney administration.

* Feb.-May 2004 Pro-family leaders and columnists urge Romney to defy court, and issue Executive Order to block same-sex marriage; no public comment from Romney.

* March 26, 2004 Word leaks out that Romney’s Dept. of Public Health (DPH) and attorneys are planning training sessions for Town Clerks and preparing same-sex marriage licenses.

* March 29-31, 2004 Romney seeks stay of SJC ruling until constitutional amendment issue is settled, but Atty. General Reilly refuses to take Governor’s case before SJC. [Did Romney believe that same court that issued Goodridge ruling would seriously consider his request for a stay?]

* March 30, 2004 Romney says he’ll “abide by the law of the land as it exists on May 17” and says he would not order town clerks to defy court edict. Romney says he’d not explored the Constitution section giving him power over “causes of marriage” and whether it gives him any legal power to stop same-sex marriage (according to spokesman).

* April 12, 2004 Romney spokesman says training sessions for town clerks will begin “with plenty of room to spare before May 17.” Ron Crews of Mass. Coalition for Marriage states hope for an Executive Order to halt the marriages.

* April 15, 2004 Romney’s DPH Registrar of Vital Records informs town clerks by letter of training sessions before SJC ruling becomes effective.

* April 22, 2004 Romney does not comment on Rep. Goguen's filing of Bill of Address for Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance to remove the 4 SJC judges, or Article 8’s revelation of Chief Justice Marshall’s violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. (Marshall had appeared as keynote speaker at homosexual advocacy group dinner in 1999 advocated extension of “rights” for homosexuals, and failed to recuse herself from ruling on same-sex marriage though she had publicly expressed her bias.)

....

I thought we were supposed to like Romney for his energy and smarts and all that. Looks like he didn't exactly show much political courage here, and there were definite opportunities for such.