Posted on 10/06/2007 1:03:45 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
What you say would go against his faith!
Romney has always opposed same-sex marriage. He diligently lobbied Congress in favor of a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. Romney testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on the Federal Marriage Amendment, and sent a letter to all 100 U.S. Senators on June 2, 2006 asking them to vote for the Amendment. Sen. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson oppose the FMA.Maggie Gallagher, writing for National Review Online, wrote that the Governor's testimony on the issue before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee was one of "the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician."
Governor Romney: "Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary."
("The Importance of Protecting Marriage", Letter from Gov. Romney to U.S. Senate, June 2, 2006)Governor Romney: "A lot of people get confused that gay marriage is about treating gay people the same as treating heterosexual people, and that's not the issue involved here."
"This is about the development and nurturing of children. Marriage is primarily an institution to help develop children, and children's development, I believe, is greatly enhanced by access to a mom and a dad."
"I think every child deserves a mom and a dad, and that's why I'm so consistent and vehement in my view that we should have a federal amendment which defines marriage in that way."
(ABC News This Week interview with Mitt Romney on Feb 18, 2007) (Mitt TV Clip)Governor Romney: "I oppose discrimination against gay people. I am not anti-gay. I know there are some Republicans, or some people in the country who are looking for someone who is anti-gay and that's not me."
(Romney: I am not anti-gay, Associated Press, May 24, 2007)When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Gov. Romney identified and enforced a little-known 1913 state law that forbids nonresidents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state. This prevented gay couples living outside Massachusetts from flocking to MA to be married and then returning to their home states to demand the marriages be recognized, thus opening the door for nationwide same-sex marriage. Implementation of the 1913 law was contested in court by same-sex couples from outside MA, but the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in March, 2006 to uphold the application of the law.
(Mass. high court says nonresident gays cannot marry in state, Boston Globe, March 30, 2006)Gov. Romney provided active support for a citizen petition drive in 2005 that collected 170,000+ signatures for a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage. He rallied citizens to place pressure on the Legislature for failing, through repeated delays, to fulfill their constitutional obligation to vote on placing the marriage amendment on the ballot. Gov. Romney filed suit in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) asking the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote on the issue of the amendment, or place the amendment on the ballot if the Legislature failed to act. The SJC declared that legislators had a constitutional duty to vote on the petition in a ruling handed down on Dec. 27, 2006. The suit was successful in pressuring the Legislature to vote on the issue of the amendment. A vote was taken on January 2, 2007 and the measure passed. Through Governor Romney’s considerable efforts and leadership, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman passed a critical hurdle to get it placed on the 2008 ballot where voters in Massachusetts would have the power to restore traditional marriage in their state.
Update: Democrat Governor Deval Patrick, a proponent of gay marriage, lobbied Massachusetts lawmakers to kill the proposed constitutional amendment. In a vote of the Legislature on June 14, 2007 the amendment received 45 votes, failing to get the required 50 votes necessary to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. The measure needed 50 votes in two consecutive legislative sessions to advance to the ballot, and it had passed with 62 votes at the end of the last session in January. Commenting on the latest vote, former Gov. Mitt Romney said, "Today's vote by the State Legislature is a regrettable setback in our efforts to defend traditional marriage. Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate. It is now even more important that we pass a Constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. Marriage is an institution that goes to the heart of our society, and our leaders can no longer abdicate their responsibility."Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement on the court decision issued August 30, 2007 striking down Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act:
(No Gay Marriage Vote for Massachusetts, Associated Press, June 14, 2007)"The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."Mitt Romney does not favor action at the national level to sanction civil unions and would leave it to the several states to define the permissible contractual relationships between two people. Romney would not seek to impose, at the national level, a prohibition on contractual relationships between two people.
(ABC News This Week interview with Mitt Romney on Feb 18, 2007)Governor Romney strongly defended the right of Catholic Charities in Massachusetts to deny placing adoptive children in the homes of gay couples; saying it was unjust to require a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to satisfy a special-interest group. Romney filed "An Act Protecting Religious Freedom" in the Legislature, a bill to exempt Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from the state anti-discrimination law.
(Romney files 'religious freedom' bill on church and gay adoption,
Read all the posts, Deb. By implementing the ruling through executive orders rather than waiting for the legislature to act (which would have required a supermajority, because of his veto) effectively enabled gay marriage to get underway in Massachusetts. It doesn’t make any difference that he now says he opposes it or that he supports the virtually hopeless prospects of the FMA. When he really had the wherewithal to kill “gay marriage” in the crib, not only did he do nothing, he actually ordered th town clerks to issue the licenses!!
It is hard to take him seriously on any issue, in light of this. It is even harder to trust him on the very important issues (Right to Life, 2nd Amendment, gay rights, etc) that he has only recently flip flopped on.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 15, 2004 CONTACT:
Shawn Feddeman
(617) 725-4025
ROMNEY FILES EMERGENCY BILL TO SEEK GOODRIDGE DECISION STAY
Former SJC Justice Nolan Sees “Compelling Legal Reasons” for Stay
Governor Mitt Romney today filed emergency legislation that would enable him to seek a stay of the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision authorizing gay marriage in Massachusetts.
Romney said the legislation is necessary because, following passage of a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and woman, the Attorney General declined to seek a stay of the Court’s decision, and he also declined to appoint a Special Assistant Attorney General to request the stay on the Governor’s behalf.
Former Supreme Judicial Court Judge Joseph R. Nolan, in a separate letter to legislators, said he has reviewed the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health and believes “there are compelling legal reasons” for the court to issue a stay.
“The historic action taken by the Legislature in response to the Goodridge decision represents a significant change in circumstances in this case. This change in circumstances cannot be ignored,” Nolan said.
Nolan, who served on the SJC from 1981 until his retirement in 1995, has agreed to the Governor’s request to assist in the effort to seek a stay.
Romney said the legislation “will allow me to protect the integrity of the constitutional process” and “preserve the right of the citizens to make this decision rather than having it made for them by the Court.”
http://www.newsbull.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14100
Do a little more research Brice. Your hate is clouding your judgment.
You are absolutely correct, and for those who actually care to know the truth, you can read about it HERE.
They all seem to want to live in the past, but it's truly time we enter into the here and now, because a future with President Hillary is not one any of us want to fathom.
--->We can't ignore the fact that Romney's positions align with Ronald Reagan's more than any other top-tier candidate's. Of the top four, Mitt is the only one to support Reagan's Human Life Amendment and he supports the pro-family cause of defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. Michael Reagan on Romney
---> Also, Romney is the only one who can keep up with Rudy. Do you want to beat Rudy(and then Hillary) or not? Let's be smart.
This year, former New York Mayor Giuliani, who is leading in public opinion polls, has raised more than $43 million from others; Romney has raised $44.6 million from others.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-money5oct05,1,5187821.story?coll=la-politics-campaign
“What you say would go against his faith”
LOL. So you are going to take him at his word, because of his faith. Do you have a window into another person’s soul to determine what their faith is. (Only Dr. Dobson has such powers of discernment, or so I am told). I judge a politician by what he does, or does not do, primarily. Actions, or inaction, speak louder than words, and louder still when the words spoken in one election are completely opposite to those spoken in the last.
Everything about Romney tells me he is the Republican equivilent of Clinton - a slick, smooth talking, huckster who will tell any audience whatever they want to hear in order to advance his political fortunes. His values are whatever he thinks will most help him win the next election.
You know where it is?
Freek’n nowhere. Cause he never did it. He didn’t fight it. And he’s walked away from it.
BS
Don’t sell me Mitt did, is going to, it’s the most important BS to me.
Mitt couldn’t let it hit him on the arse fast enough, he was so out of Mass.
He dumped the gay thing. He dumped the Republican Party.
Massachusetts was his play thing. Disposable. He had no loyalties and wasn’t going to skin a fingernail for Mass at the expense of his true goal, running for president.
Sorry, even if Mitts shoes are cleaner than others, he still wiped his feet on us.
The man is a calculator and will say what needs to be said to make the sale.
Hate? I do not hate anyone. I just tell the truth, and you think it’s hate.
BTW, Why stay a ruling which the state Supreme Court realizes it has no authority to implement? And why is Romney seeking a stay on behalf of the legislature, when the ultra vires order was directed to that body? Romney’s implementation of the ruling was completely gratuitous, really insane. Mark Levin was right when he said the other night that Rudy and Romney are not on a par with Fred Thompson when it comes understanding and intelligently discussing the Constitution. Too bad for the good citizens of Massachusetts. They have to suffer the consequences.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Well said, and from someone who knows Mitt’s tactics better than most of the rest of us. I really feel bad for Massachusetts. Romney care and gay marriage. Not much of a legacy he left you.
You must be joking. Fred's position on the FMA is going to cede territory to the enemy before the battle even starts.
“Fred’s position on the FMA is going to cede territory to the enemy before the battle even starts.”
LOL. Fred’s Amendment would have prevented Romney from acting as he did. It requires the state legislature alone, with the governor’s signature, to pass such a law. Had Fred’s Amendment been in place Romney would not have been able to implement the Goodridge decision, because the Goodridge decision itself would have been unconstitutional. Under Fred’s Amendment, any citizen could have sued Mitt in federal court to enjoin him from ordering the Clerks to issue the licenses. In other words, Fred’s Amendment would have protected Mitt from himself and Massachusetts from Mitt.
Well, that pretty well settles it for me. Mitt is now off the list and he joins Giuliani & McCain on the MUST NOT support and MUST NOT permit to win the nomination.
He doesn't know the differnce between natural and unnatural.
ping to 34
Spread the word to anyone you know who might be considering Mitt. This needs to be exposed far and wide, so people aren’t tricked into voting for him.
Did Mitt Romney choose gay marriage for Massachusetts? That's the thrust of a bizarre and amateurish legal argument that is circulating through the internet and conservative media. A group calling itself "MassResistance" has been peddling for many months the argument that the Massachusetts Supreme Court did not actually mandate same-sex marriage in Massachusetts but instead merely requested that the legislature change the laws to permit same-sex marriage. Since the law was not changed (and since the Court didn't have the authority to order the legislature to write new laws)--so the argument goes--Governor Romney therefore never had to recognize same-sex marriage and was in fact the "father" of same-sex marriage when he permitted state and local officials to perform and recognize such marriages. For the latest example of this specious argument, see the quotes from MassResistance member John Haskins in this story.
If such silly legal arguments didn't cause so much harm, I would read them and laugh. Instead, some serious people seem to be taking these arguments seriously, so let me take a moment for a little bit of constitutional law 101. As with most bad arguments, MassResistance starts with a grain of truth: Judges have very little authority to order legislators to do anything, and depending on the state constitution may have no power at all to issue orders to the legislature. The proper, constitutional, role of the judiciary is to interpret the law, not make new law.
MassResistance argues that the Massachusetts Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and ordered the legislature to change state laws to permit same-sex marriage. Because the laws have not yet been changed (and because the court can't issue such an order in the first place), same-sex marriage is not yet legal in Massachusetts, and Governor Romney's decision to recognize same-sex marriages since the court's decision was entirely optional and discretionary.
Sounds compelling, right? Sounds almost scholarly, doesn't it? Well, there's a problem. Even if you accept every premise of MassResistance's argument regarding the proper role of the courts and the legislature, their argument falls apart based on the language of the same-sex marriage case itself.
You can read the entire opinion at the Massachusetts court website, but for those who lack the time--or stomach--to read the whole thing, please pay attention to this paragraph:
We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage.
What does this mean? It means that the court interpreted (that's another word for "construed") Massachusetts law to mean that two people of the same sex could marry--and that any interpretation contrary to the court's would violate the rights of homosexuals. In other words, the court did not order the legislature to do anything. Instead, it did what the constitution allows it to do--it interpreted the law. It did so in an improper, activist way that abandoned the obvious original intent of the Massachusetts constitution and the Massachusetts marriage laws, but it interpreted the law nonetheless.
Now, take a look at the next paragraph:
In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion.
Read it again. And again. Do you see any order directed against the legislature? No? Well, that's for a good reason. The court did not order the legislature to do anything--it merely stayed its judgement for 180 days for the legislature to take action that it deemed "appropriate." However, since the marriage laws had already been interpreted (construed) to include same-sex marriage, the legislature did not have to take any action at all for same-sex marriage to become legal. It was already legal because of the court's decision.
Frankly, it is sad that so many could be misled by something so simple--and simply wrong. When the Governor confronted the Massachusetts Supreme Court, he had two choices: (1) He could fight the decision using legal means; or (2) he could risk contempt citations and impeachment in an ineffectual, grandstanding attempt to block same-sex marriages. Rather than becoming the what the media would undoubtedly call the "George Wallace of gay marriage" and hand homosexual activists a propaganda victory to go along with their court victory, Governor Romney fought using the law and using his enormous gifts of persuasion. As a result, the same-sex marriage movement has lost public momentum, has lost court cases, and has lost at the ballot box. And we have Governor Romney and his principled, courageous, and compassionate defense of traditional marriage to thank for much of that success.
Mitt Romney did not "choose" gay marriage. At a critical moment in our nation's history, Mitt Romney did make a choice, and he chose to defend marriage in a way that can and should make all conservatives proud.
P.S. If you doubt my qualifications to read a court case, please read my bio.
Just goes to show why Dobson and others are unable to back any of the so-called “front four”. We need one of the others to have a break out of this media bottleneck.
For this news cycle anyway, Brian Camenker has emerged as a thorn in Mitt Romney’s side. A long time fixture on the fringe of Massachusetts politics, Camenker and his organization, MassResistance, have steadily expressed their disappointment with Mitt Romney as well as virtually every other Massachusetts Republican. One important note – Camenker’s MassResistance verges on being a hate group. Its disappointment with Romney and his Republican predecessors in the Massachusetts’ gubernatorial office is that they haven’t been sufficiently hostile to homosexuals.
None of this is easy for me to write. As strange as it may seem, Brian Camenker and I once were friends. When I ran for State Representative in Massachusetts’s 12th Middlesex district in 1992, Brian was an active Republican ward committee member in the area I sought to represent. We got to know each other reasonably well. I thought he was a nice guy, and I think he felt the same about me. On Election Day in 1992, it poured. In a driving rainstorm, Brain stood next to me that cold morning holding one of my campaign signs for almost two hours.
Any candidate for office knows that a service like that creates a debt that the candidate can’t ever repay. It wasn’t all about me, and I was never so vain as to conclude that the people who volunteered that morning did so because they were my minions or followers. They believed in a cause, and I was the standard bearer for that cause. Nevertheless, the signs they held had my name on them. Almost a decade and a half later, I still feel indebted.
I GOT CREAMED THAT ELECTION DAY, as did virtually every other Republican office seeker in the Commonwealth. I stayed involved with the 12th Middlesex political scene, though, focusing especially on Newton, MA which was my hometown.
The 1993 political year for Newton was dominated by a contentious city-wide argument over the School Committee races. The Newton High Schools were giving out condoms and beginning a more “progressive” form of sex-ed. Both of these things scandalized the town’s conservatives, and they mounted a slate of candidates to run on a “traditional value” platform. The unquestioned leader of the movement, and the angriest Newton conservative, was Brian Camenker.
When it came to School Committee issues, I have always sided with conservatives who believe our schools should focus on educating our children. Other potential agendas, like having the schools serve as a job program for teachers or “socialization” programs, have to take a back seat. I felt that way then, I feel that way now.
I managed the campaign of one of the conservative candidates for School Committee. While I agreed with the policy prescriptions proposed by Brian and his ilk, we got to the same place via very different routes. For Brian Camenker and a handful of others, opposing Newton’s sex-ed program became a moral crusade. Having graduated one of Newton’s high schools a mere eight years earlier, I knew that there was nothing that a sex-ed program would teach students that they hadn’t already learned from magazines, their friends or experience. (In this day of the internet…)
There was also the issue of Brian’s feelings regarding homosexuality. Brian opposed anything that the schools might do that taught tolerance for homosexuals, not on the practical ground that scarce resources for education should be used solely for, you know, education, but rather on a "moral" ground that teaching tolerance for homosexuality was somehow immoral. I found this repugnant, and was not shy about saying so at Ward and City Committee Meetings. Additionally, it was bad politics. One other note - I also thought that Brian’s concerns regarding homosexuality were deepening into an obsession.
In the end, all of the conservative candidates lost. It was no big surprise to anyone, or at least it shouldn’t have been. Newton is one of the most liberal cities in the country. Barney Frank has been the city’s congressman for a generation. A slate of candidates who defined themselves by their anti-homosexual “morality” never had a chance.
At the end of 1993, I moved to Boston and lost touch with the Newton political scene. I have not spoken to Brain Camenker in over 13 years.
BUT I HAVE OCCASSIONALLY SEEN HIM on the news or read about him in the newspaper. My suspicion that Brian had become obsessed with gay issues was subsequently borne out. He has spent his leisure time the past 13 years turning himself into Massachusetts’ most notorious anti-gay scold.
I’m sure Brian would describe his role differently, but I’ll let you be the judge. Seven months ago, Brian and his organization protested a Macy’s window display in Downtown Boston that celebrated Pride Week. Here’s how the Boston Herald summarized Brian’s complaints:
“They were male mannequins with enlarged breasts, and one was wearing a skirt,” said MassResistance president Brian Camenker, referring to the gay pride flag wrapped around one figure, cinched with a white belt. “It was really disgusting.”
My point isn’t that the display was appropriate or inappropriate, although those who found it inappropriate could surely shop elsewhere to register their disapproval. (Readers who for whatever reason are desperate to make up their own minds regarding the display can follow the link and see a picture of it.) My point is that Brian Camenker has spent the last thirteen years of his life doing things like getting outraged over store mannequins that he found “disgusting.” The man I knew 14 years ago was a good man, a dedicated father and a nice guy. He was normal. His current incarnation is, more than anything else, sad.
But Brian is what he is, and the media has discovered him. Previously, Brian had danced around the margins of fame, doing things like making a fool of himself by appearing on the Daily Show blasting the "gay agenda." Mitt Romney’s campaign, however, has catapulted Brian to new heights. A national media desperate to find the dirt under Romney’s fingernails has found Brian, a longtime antagonist of the Governor’s.
Responding to popular demand, Brian and his group today issued a 28 page report belittling Romney’s bona fides as a social conservative. Not everything in it is wrong. Indeed, most of it is factually correct. But the fact that Camenker is so infuriated by the charges he lists should disqualify him from a seat at the Grownups’ Table of civilized political discourse.
Here are some of the headings in Camenker’s report that purport to show Romney’s past outrages:
Gov. Romney has a long history of promoting and furthering the homosexual agenda, and working closely with leading gay activists.
Romney twice sought and received the endorsement of the homosexual Log Cabin Republican Club.
Romney's campaign distributed pro-gay rights campaign literature during Boston's "Gay Pride" events
Romney supports homosexual "anti-discrimination" laws.
Romney appointed prominent homosexuals to key positions in his administration.
Is this homophobia? I link you decide.
As for liberals in the media and the blogosphere who think legitimizing Brian Camenker will be a swell way to take Mitt Romney down a peg, they might want to rethink that. People like Andrew Sullivan (who in the past has approvingly cited Camenker as an anti-Romney authority) should strongly consider the wisdom of offering Brian that kind of legitimacy.
Regarding media outlets like AP who have printed a news story on Mitt Romney’s critic and the 28 page report he just released excoriating the former Governor, one can only wonder whether they’ve read the report and are aware of the raw, undiluted hatred that it contains.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com
1st Lieutenant???
That’s a newbie. Why are you a newbie Jag with all those other credits? I don’t mean to pry, and please ignore my question if it is too personal. For a lifer like me, though, it stands out.
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.