Posted on 10/20/2007 2:16:38 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
Mitt Romney gets a big reception tonight here at the Washington Briefing. Jay Sekulow introduces him. Jay gets a big reception.
Jay's introduction revolves around Mitt Romney's marriage fight in Massachusetts.
Mitt comes in to a grand anthem. The room goes nuts -- a bigger reception than any of the other candidates. He begins pitch perfect.
"I'm pro-family on every level, from personal to political," he says. He says his "driving ambition" is to have his kids and grandkids grow up in a national that his strong and prosperous.
He's got this Mr. Rogers thing going on right now talking about family. Think Mr. Rogers as President. You can't help but like him, but you can't help but think it's a bit too canned or polished — the message and pitch are just perfect.
He praises single parents like his sister Jane, but says "two parents are the ideal setting." He wants to teach kids that before they have babies they should get married. "It really is time to make out of wedlock birth out of fashion again." And you know what? You believe him. He seems just so sincere. And the message resonates. Then he gets "hats off to Bill Cosby for telling it like it is."
He moves on to talk about inner-city families where young boys have no father figures. "And then there are the broad national tragedies built on this implication. . . . The nation cannot thrive" he says, talking about so many kids without dads.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
Interview with Jay Sekulow
http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/2007/10/interview-with-jay-sekulow-head-of-aclj.asp
Mitt actually said the following?
“...is to have his kids and grandkids grow up in a national that his strong and prosperous.”
LOL !
I like Jay Sekulow but then I remember he staunchly supported Bush’s pick of Harriet Myers.
There isn’t a single thing about Mitt Romney that impresses me. Well, he does have nice hair.
Yes , that’s what turned me away from him . I couldn’t get a straight answer as to where he stood on AWB-2 , and even heard that he supports it’s renewal ! No thanks Mitt .
Spread the word .
Thompson is our only hope for a true pro-gun nominee .
Yes , that was downright strange . What were they thinking with that debacle ?
Jay Sekulow is a judicial supremacist, just like Romney. Whether it was the Ten Commandments fight in Alabama, the fight to save Terri Schindler Schiavo from her judicial executioners, or gay marriage in MA, you can count on Jay to come down on the side of judicial oligarchy instead of constitutional republicanism.
Without the exercise of Mitt Romney’s executive authority, there would still be NO gay “marriage” in Massachusetts to this day.
I think it’s a disgrace that the FRC gave Mitt Romney, the most liberal Governor in our nation’s history, a platform to lie from.
>>>>Without the exercise of Mitt Romney’s executive authority, there would still be NO gay “marriage” in Massachusetts to this day.<<<<
How’s that lawsuit of yours coming? I suppose those gay marriage occurring in Mass are still un-Constitutional, eh? Screw the courts, common law, and Marbury v. Madison, right?
You are so full of it. I don’t know how many times you have to be set down in your place before you quit repeating the same nonsense. Or perhaps you’ve come up with an explanation of how those marriage certificates were issued in Iowa?
Marbury vs. Madison says that the courts are subject to the Constitution. I guess your professors excised out that part.
>>>Marbury vs. Madison says that the courts are subject to the Constitution. <<<
Okay. We’ve gone through this before. Show us how the courts acted un-Constitutionally. I won’t argue that it wasn’t crappy law. It was. But to say they acted un-Constitutionally—it just isn’t there.
It was perfectly within their limits to strike down a law that they found unconstitutional. Same thing happened in Iowa. It’s up to the legislatures to do something about it.
It's more accurate to say that they acted extra-constitutionally. Lawlessly. And Mitt Romney backed their play.
What law? There is still no law that allows gay marriage in Massachusetts. Or are you under the misimpression that courts make laws in a constitutional republic?
>I think it’s a disgrace that the FRC gave Mitt Romney, the most liberal Governor in our nation’s history, a platform to lie from.<
Exactly! He lied like a rug on his record as Governor. And he looked like a plastic robot behind that podium!
There is. It’s called the marriage law. There is a law, that defines marriage. Now, that law says “man and woman”. But the Mass. Constitution also says that you can’t discriminate on the basis of sex (something we barely managed to keep out of our federal constitution, thank God).
The Mass. Court, mistakenly I believe but rationally, said that in order to not “discriminate” on the basis of sex, you should be able to substitute “woman” for “man” and vice versa whereever it is found in the law.
And low and behold, the Marriage law has those words “man” and “woman”. The court ruled therefore that the constitution prohibiting sex discrimination meant either sex could qualify as either a man or woman in the marriage law.
They then stayed their ruling, giving the legislature time to change the law, if they wanted. For example, the legislature could have change the law to prohibit all marriages. Or they could have immediately started a constitutional amendment process.
Some people mistakenly think the court was holding off to give the legislature the time to “fix” the law to ALLOW gay marriage. But that is incorrect — the court ruled that the law ALREADY allowed gay marriage, by application of the “substitute male for female” rule.
After 18 months, the legislature had done nothing to change the law so that gays could not marry, so the court’s ruling went into effect.
Of course, Romney could have ordered people to not write marriage licenses. If they didn’t listen to him, he could have fired them. It would have gone to the courts, the courts would have ruled the same way they did before, the marriages would be deemed legal, the firings illegal.
But that didn’t happen, because Mitt instead pushed for a constitutional amendment, which almost made it onto the ballot. Except 4 supporters were turned by the democrats. 4 that might not have been turned if opponents of gay marriage had focused 100% of their energy on keeping the votes they had, instead of attacking Mitt Romney for not improperly opposing the court.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said yesterday he was ready to work with lawmakers to craft a "civil union"-style law to give some marriage rights to homosexual couples, even though he also supports a constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage . . . Mr. Romney yesterday told TV news stations that he would support a Vermont-style civil union law in Massachusetts, but reiterated his support for a constitutional amendment that would clarify that "marriage is an institution between a man and a woman." - Washington Times, 11/20/2003
In 2005, Romney tried to tell South Carolina Republicans that he had always opposed civil unions:
Massachusetts Governor Romney is coming under fire for comments he made about gay marriage to Republican activists in South Carolina. Romney told Monday night's gathering in Spartanburg County that he's always been opposed to same-sex marriage as well as what he called "it's equivalent, civil unions." Romney, however, has for months backed a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that would ban gay marriage but provide for civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. Massachusetts State Representative Phil Travis says Romney can't be for civil unions when he's in Massachusetts and against them when he's out-of-state. Travis has been a leading opponent of same-sex unions. - Associated Press, 2/23/2005
Romney strong-armed conservative Republicans into supporting a constitutional amendment that included civil unions:
Through all the twists and shifts during the gay-marriage debate this year, there was one constant: 22 Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed every measure that would grant gay couples civil unions in the constitution. That all changed yesterday, however, when 15 of that 22-member bloc broke away at the urging of Governor Mitt Romney and voted in favor of a proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage but create Vermont-style civil unions. Those 15 members provided the margin of victory, observers from both camps said yesterday after the measure passed by just five votes. In the end, the 15 agreed that approving a measure that they viewed as highly undesirable was preferable to the possibility that nothing would be sent to the state ballot for voters to weigh in on. - Boston Globe 3/30/2004 (Note: This amendment, which included mandated provisions for civil unions, was ultimately defeated in the Legislature and never did go to the voters.)
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.