Ping!
Remember abortion, we are told by his supporters, that within his Mormon leadership role that Romney was pro life, while he was pro choice among the non Mormon citizens of Massachusetts.
In this case his Gay “marriage” decisions , would only affect people outside of his religion.
I really don’t know what Romney’s “values” are.
Want to watch Romney on film supporting my post?
Two of Massachusetts’ previous governors, Bill Weld and Paul Celluci, were also cowered by the state’s powerful buggery lobby. Mitt just went along to get along..... yeah, some leader.
I wrote this in "Reformed Egyptian."
It is true. Mitt never got in a drag down fight. It would of been different if he fought and in the end had to obey a Federal court, but, well, that would have been messy, hard, not nice-ee-poo.
“He could have ignored and refused to implement” This is nonsense. Pointless grandstanding would have played right into the hands of the liberals and obscured the point. The judges made a ruling. If it was wrong, you impeach the judges and/or you correct them via constitutional amendment. To not follow the court orders is to fail to live up to the oath of office to execute the laws; leaving you on no solid ground to point out how the judges were failing to live up to *their* oath of office in over-reaching on their ruling.
“He opted to implement gay marriage even though the Court lacked the power to order it.” And you have law degree credentials and have *done this yourself* to prove it can be done? Of course not.
This refusal to follow the law as defined by court order is the strategy Judge Roy Moore used ... and where is he and his statue now? Did it work? No, of course not.
“If he had been a conservative and a constitutionalist, like Fred Thompson, he would have ignored the unlawful ruling.”
BS. Shows us a statement from Fred Thompson declaring that. You can’t because Fred Thompson would surely not agree with this lunatic point of view. He’s too good of a lawyer to agree with such a bad idea that contravenes conventions of the powers of each branch of govt.
“he believed all along”
Opinion, taken as such.
Give Romney time, he’ll have another conservative deathbed conversion and call homosexuality a sin. (Checks watch & whistles)
Recipe:
Spaghetti and Mittballs: Mix pasta with two parts pro-life and one-part expired pro-choice. For the Mittballs, mash together a hunk of shoe polish, a pile of money, and a glob of hair gel, and let sit until January 2008. Marinate in America’s moral cesspool before roasting over the Salt Lake Olympic torch. Serve with Caffeine-Free Diet Coke.
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)
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,
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
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.
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, 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.
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.
This is total horse manure. It has been refuted 100’s of times on this forum!
Stop it, Mitt is the perfect candidate.
I have seen the light....
(I must use an /s tag on this one, for clarity)
From FReeper Unmarked Package's excellent home page:
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, Boston Globe, March 15, 2006)Whereas Mitt Romney believes sexual orientation should not preclude joining the Boy Scouts, he supports the right of local Councils of the Boy Scouts of America to decide and enforce their policy regarding homosexuals in their organization and leadership. Romney served on the Boy Scouts of America’s National Executive Board from 1993 to 2002.
Governor Romney responded to a question about the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and gays in the military during an NRO interview with Kathryn Jean Lopez in December, 2006:
Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy in the military? Are those your positions today?Gov. Romney: "No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges."
"As for military policy and the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, I trust the counsel of those in uniform who have set these policies over a dozen years ago. I agree with President Bush’s decision to maintain this policy and I would do the same."
(A Primary Factor, NRO, December 14, 2006)