“Why would conservatives support a man who opposes the FMA?”
Why would conservatives support Mitt Romney who, as governor of Massachusetts, did more to promote gay marriage than anyone in America by acquiescing in the Mass Supreme Court ruling rather than refusing to implement it. Without Romney’s actions in support of it (by ordering the Clerks of Court to issue gay marriage licenses, when he was not required to do so), there would be no gay marriage in Massachusetts today.
Now he has the temerity to say he is the only one who is pro-marriage because he supports a “pie in the sky” Amendment. His actions in large part caused the problem. Now he advances a “solution” with no chance of success and he is the hero of traditional conservatives?? It is funny, but sad at the same time, because he is tricking some ill informed people into believing him.
Family group: Mitt Romney chose ‘gay’ marriage (Leadership?)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907376/posts
>>>Why would conservatives support Mitt Romney who, as governor of Massachusetts, did more to promote gay marriage than anyone in America by acquiescing in the Mass Supreme Court ruling rather than refusing to implement it. Without Romney’s actions in support of it (by ordering the Clerks of Court to issue gay marriage licenses, when he was not required to do so), there would be no gay marriage in Massachusetts today.<<<
Let me ask you a very simple question: when that Iowa judge struck down Iowa’s DOMA act, why were gays allowed to marry? Was that the governor’s fault? And why and when did they stop ordering marriage certificates?
You need to study your Constitutional Law, I’m afraid, and stop reading Mass Resistance and listening to the likes of one particular poster on here. The answer is of course that there is nothing the Iowa governor could have done to stop the Iowa court ruling. The Iowa DOMA was the only thing standing between gays marrying in Iowa. The judge struck down the DOMA act because it “violated” the state’s equal protection and due-process clauses and declared that it was a Constitutional violation to deny gays the right to marry. Thus, had the governor of Iowa or Mitt Romney attempted to circumvent the judge’s ruling, they would have been held in violation of the State Constitution—the one document they vowed to execute upon taking office. And who is in charge of interpreting law and the Constitution? Under Marbury v. Madison and hundreds of years of English Common Law, the Courts.
I’ll also note that the only things that stopped the judges’ rulings in those two instance were 1) a judicial stay put in place for the state legislature to amend the situation in Mass or a higher court to hear the case in Iowa and 2) a Constitutional amendment defining marriage to supercede the judge’s opinion of what violated equal protections/due-process.
Romney had two option in Mass. One was to argue that the state did indeed have a vested interest in maintaining marriage between one man and one woman—probably not an argument that the liberal court in Mass would give much credence. Or he could do what he tried to do and put the issue of marriage up for a vote for the people by ballot. Romney went so far as to file suit against the Mass Legislature for refusing to bring the issue of a Constitutional ballot initiative before the people in a vote. He won that case. At that point, the first vote passed the Mass Legislature and the second one failed, so the peole of Mass never got to vote on the issue.
And I’ll tell you what I told another poster: if you think the state of Mass is unlawfully issuing marriage certificates to gay couples without the legal authority to do such, sue them. I hear these same contrite arguments over and over again, and they all show a general failure to comprehend how our government works. If the state of Mass was acting without the legal authority to do such, don’t you think someone would have launched a lawsuit by now?
What these windbags harping on Romney for “choosing” gay marriage are interested in is attacking Romney and little more. They’re certainly not interested in dealing with legal realities.