Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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.


13 posted on 10/06/2007 1:07:58 PM PDT by webboy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: webboy45; Grunthor; perfect_rovian_storm; Leisler; Extremely Extreme Extremist

He was under no obligation to implement the Ruling, without legislative action. He began allowing it without legislative action, allowing it to become a fait accompli, and the Court has stepped in to further enshrine it by setting up legislative hurdles it must clear before there can can be a referendum.

When the history books are written, the advent of gay marriage will be laid squarely at Mitt Romney’s flippers, er...feet. Historians will comment on the irony that his inaction permitted the abuse to occur and that, having cooperated in its creation, he demagogically tried to profit from it politically by promoting a Federal Constitutional Amendment (with no chance to pass) and portrayed himself as a defender of marriage. The real irony is that some people are so ill informed that they actually buy this schtick.


15 posted on 10/06/2007 1:45:59 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson