Governor Romney on the Need for a Federal Marriage Amendment

Mitt Romney for President Campaign Press Release ^ | 14 September 2007 | Mitt Romney for President Campaign

[Spiff]

Governor Romney on the Need for a Federal Marriage Amendment

Friday, Sep 14, 2007

Governor Mitt Romney
MSNBC's "Morning Joe"
September 14, 2007

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "Do you support a national constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage?"

Governor Romney: "Boy, I sure do. You know, that's a topic that's really, I think, very important to the country because marriage is not just about adults. Marriage is about the development and nurturing of kids, and in my view, the development of a child is enhanced by having a mom and dad. And so, I think it's very important that we have a national standard because marriage is a status. You get married in one place and then you move to another, you're still married at least in the eyes of the community and the children and the benefits may not follow you, but ultimately we're going to have one standard of marriage in this country and that standard ought to be one man and one woman."

Scarborough: "Any other major Republican candidates support the marriage amendment?"

Governor Romney: "You know, I don't think that Rudy or Fred or John McCain support the marriage amendment and I think they're in error on that one."

To watch Governor Romney, please see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSRzeAb4SDs

[Spiff]

• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •

[2ndDivisionVet]

Is this the same Governor Willard “Mitt” Romney that let his state (Massachusetts) become the first in the nation to legalize homosexual “marriage” because there was no DOMA in place? Or did I hear that story told incorrectly?

[Spiff]

Is this the same Governor Willard “Mitt” Romney that let his state (Massachusetts) become the first in the nation to legalize homosexual “marriage” because there was no DOMA in place? Or did I hear that story told incorrectly?

You have your information wrong. If you're truly interested in obtaining accurate information and not just doing a drive-by hit on this thread, let me know.

[2ndDivisionVet]

That’s what I’d heard. Please enlighten me with facts.

[asparagus]

Governor Romney is the only top-tier candidate to support the Federal Marriage Amendment. People get upset when we put lipstick on animals for experiments, but they have no problem when they want to experiment on the American family.

[redgirlinabluestate]

Or did I hear that story told incorrectly?

Yep, you've got it wrong. Read on....

[BKerr]

I am as against homosexual marriage as any here, but I am against altering our Constitution to place rules on the citizenry. Laws and statutes are for the government to place rules and limits on the people, the Constitution is for us to place rules and limits on the government. What we need is to get judges that will not legislate from the bench and maybe amend the amendment in which the judges use as grounds for “legalizing” homosexual marriage.

[Andy'smom]

Not having a DOMA is the fault of the Mass legislature, that refused to vote on it long before Romney became governor.

[Spiff]

What we need is to get judges that will not legislate from the bench and maybe amend the amendment in which the judges use as grounds for “legalizing” homosexual marriage.

That's the idea of the Federal Marriage Amendment. It seeks to limit activist judges from messing with the definition of marriage. Instead of amending an amendment, there's not problem with adding a new amendment. Same difference.

[ClaireSolt]

You probably could fit this in the bill of rights, something like the right to be a normal heterosexual.

[BKerr]

Instead of amending an amendment, there's not problem with adding a new amendment. Same difference.

There is a big difference. The amendment they want to add places a rule on the citizenry. But, instead of adding an amendment, they can amend the existing article or amendment to clarify its intent while not changing the direction of authority (the direction of authority of the Constitution is to place rules and limits on the government, not to place rules upon the citizenry from the government).

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

He’s right.

[Spiff]

There is a big difference. The amendment they want to add places a rule on the citizenry. But, instead of adding an amendment, they can amend the existing article or amendment to clarify its intent while not changing the direction of authority (the direction of authority of the Constitution is to place rules and limits on the government, not to place rules upon the citizenry from the government).

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. However, the Republican Party Platform calls for passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Any GOP candidate who does not support that is going against the Platform.

[Radix]

"That’s what I’d heard. Please enlighten me with facts."

Why would anyone need to be enlightened by facts when there is such a plethora of false accusations and innuendo available concerning Romney's tenure as Governor here, and how things actually went down in the State where I was born, raised, and actually live in?

Mitt Romney is a member of a ridiculous religious sect (according to some, including myself) and that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his qualifications to be President.

Mitt Romney is a very cool guy, and he don't have my vote yet, but certainly he would make a far better President than any Democrat, and way more better than not just a few Republican BS artists!

[uncbob]

Ya mean Ol “I don’t want the support of the extremist NRA or Christian Conservatives type “ Milt

Oh This is the NEW Milt The Reagan tradition Milt

[Radix]

I’m not certain of your meaning expressed above.

I am certain of my position on a lot of things when it comes to politics.

McCain wants to abolish Free Speech.

Guiliani wants to allow folks to kill babies! (I know a lot more about this than you might begin to imagine.)

Thompson is famous for making a living as an actor.

Duncan Hunter is a guy I never even heard of outside of Free Republic.

Are there others?

The fact is, we are going to get the Shrew next year.

The skank and her BS artist hubby will simply not go away.

We are all doomed.

[CheyennePress]

Well, there was a DOMA in place. And you know what happened?

The Massachusetts Supreme Court overturned it and declared that gays had a Constitutional right to marry in Massachusetts.

The exact same thing happened in Iowa.

And that is, of course, exactly why anything but a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman is going to fail and why we as a nation need an amendment.

As for the individual states passing amendments, they are better than DOMAs, but a federal judge could effectively destroy every such amendment in the country with a single ruling.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Ronald Reagan was famous for making a living as an actor.
If memory serves (and it does, since I worked for him) he served two terms as president.

[CheyennePress]

>>>the direction of authority of the Constitution is to place rules and limits on the government, not to place rules upon the citizenry from the government<<<

I don’t see how defining marriage as between a man and a woman violates that at all. It quite simply defines the legal definition of marriage. Much like the 14th amendment says that anyone born in this country has a right to citizenship.

As for placing rules on the citizenry, it does nothing of the sort. Gays are free to marry until they’ve filled their fingers with rings. But those marriages aren’t going to be recognized by the state.

And it does limit the powers of government from overturning what has been a cornerstone of civilizations since the early dawn of history.

Anything less than a federal marriage amendment leaves the process open to legislatures or judiciaries to begin experimenting with what has been a rock-solid concept of marriage.