I think he didn’t fight because it wasn’t efficient. The is the bad part of the businessman/financial part of him. It’s hard to get behind someone that won’t fight. A fight that doesn’t even get mess your hair.
The court made two decisions. 1. The Mass. constitution as it then existed required allowing gay marriages. 2. The state legislature had to vote on a marriage amendment. The forced legislature vote was what was pronounced to be wrong. Issue 1 was what caused Mitt to allow to marriages, and that issue hasn’t changed.
Regardless of the gay angle, the court was making law, which is what leftist liberal judges have been doing since FDR. Everyone knew it. Romney could of fought it.”
Wrong. He *did* fight it, the right way. He called for a constitutional amendment. Romney had advice from Ed Meese and others on this matter and he did what he could do to deny out-of-state residents gay marriage licenses, and he fought to get the state lege to sign up for constitutional changes. See quote below. Why are you mis-stating the record?
The Romney critics are on crack think the Judge Roy Moore fall-on-your-sword play would work. It never has. Disagree?
Please tell me where your law degree came from to justify your expert opinion on this.
http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200512141539.asp
QUOTE:
Despite this fiscal achievement, a pair of social issues has done far more to define Romney’s governorship: gay marriage and embryonic-stem-cell research. On either matter, a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment. “On marriage and cloning, he has provided aggressive leadership as a positive, pro-family governor,” says Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute. “On a scale of one to ten, I’d rank him an eight, and I’m a tough grader.”
Gay marriage featured prominently in Romney’s 2002 election because everybody knew the Massachusetts supreme court was poised to rule on the matter. From the start, Romney made it clear that he believes marriage should exist only between a man and a woman. When the court’s decision came down, however, it said that the state constitution mandates gay marriages. So Romney began plotting a counterstrategy, seeking advice from former attorney general Edwin Meese as well as constitutional scholar Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation. They zeroed in on an obscure law from 1913 that has the effect of voiding gay marriages conferred upon non-Massachusetts residents, and so Romney has used his administrative powers to prevent Boston from becoming a same-sex version of Las Vegas. Although this policy is now under legal assault, Romney has so far saved 49 other states from the judicial controversy afflicting his own.
In addition, he has tried to amend the state constitution, which is the only way to undo the court’s ruling as opposed to merely limiting it. Under Massachusetts law, this is a complicated, multi-step process in which the governor plays no formal role. Romney, however, has used his bully pulpit to call for a total ban on gay marriage. The legislature complied, but only on an amendment that also permitted civil unions. Romney wasn’t happy about this. He also had no alternative. “If I have to choose between gay marriages and civil unions,” he says, “I’ll choose civil unions every time.” For this amendment to be fully adopted, the legislature must approve it one more time (which it may in fact refuse to do). If it clears this hurdle, it then will go before voters as a referendum. (In the meantime, Romney is also pushing for a federal constitutional amendment to protect marriage.) Whatever the outcome, there’s no denying that Romney has pulled every lever within his reach to defend traditional marriage. “In the worst possible circumstances, he confronted one of the toughest issues of our politics with considerable moral seriousness and political skill,” says Spalding. “That’s the mark of a conservative statesman.”