Not Guilty.
Posted on 12/14/2007 5:00:55 AM PST by AFA-Michigan
GOP presidential contender Fred Thompson is charging that Mitt Romney flip-flopped on gay marriage because he approved hundreds of special certificates that allowed regular citizens to officiate scores of same-sex weddings during his tenure as governor.
Romney, who has cast himself as the staunchest Republican defender of traditional marriage, reportedly signed off on almost 200 one-day certificates allowing gay and lesbian couples to use unlicensed friends to preside over their weddings. Under an obscure state law, the certificates can be granted only to couples that get approval from the governor’s office.
“This is why Mitt Romney is having such a hard time in Iowa right now,” said Thompson spokeswoman Karen Hanretty, who called the license approvals another reason to doubt Romney “on matters of principle and conviction.”
“It goes to his character,” Hanretty said. “Voters can see through these conversions on gay rights and a litany of other issues.”
Romney and Thompson have repeatedly traded accusations of flip-flopping in recent months, with each candidate battling to cast themselves as the true conservative in the Republican field.
Thompson has blasted Romney over a 1994 debate against U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in which Romney promised to protect abortion rights and be a stronger advocate for gay people. Romney has criticized Thompson for once lobbying to ease restrictions on abortion counseling.
A spokesman for the former governor dismissed the latest attack, saying it would have been illegal for Romney to deny the certificates to gay couples. “No one fought harder to overturn the court’s gay marriage ruling than Mitt Romney,” Fehrnstrom said in an e-mailed statement. “Until that day arrives, we are all required to follow the law, even though we may disagree with it.”
The governor’s hard line on the issue has offended previous Bay State supporters who remember him being more moderate on gay rights.
Ed Boesel, 61, of Saugus said he received a special certifcate from Romney in 2004 to marry his longtime partner, Darrell Martinie, a local radio astrologer known as the “Cosmic Muffin.”
The couple recruited former WBCN [website] program director Oedipus to officiate their wedding.
Boesel said he and Martinie, who died of cancer last year, developed close political ties to Romney and his wife, Ann, and even hosted the couple at a 1994 fund-raiser in their home. The couple also held a fund-raiser for Romney in 2002.
“We had a very pleasant friendship, and it didn’t seem contrived at all,” Boesel said of Romney. “He’s either being two-faced now, or two-faced when he knew us earlier.”
“The instinct I have is that, if the rest of the (political) world went away, (Romney) would accept same-sex couples quite nicely,” Boesel said. “It’s a very political thing.”
St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 5, 2007:
“In 2002, when Romney was (running for) governor, his wife, son and daughter-in-law signed a petition supporting a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that would not only ban the state from recognizing same-sex marriages, but further stated, ‘Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent, nor shall it receive the benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage.’ But Romney quickly expressed his opposition to the amendment, saying...the language barring civil unions was ‘too extreme,’ with his spokesman telling the Boston Globe, ‘Mitt does not support it. As far as Mitt is concerned, it goes farther than current law, and therefore it's unnecessary.’"
Boston Phoenix, May 14, 2004: “In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as ‘too extreme’ the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits.”
Associated Press, April 25, 2004: “Gov. Mitt Romney’s top legal counsel told the state’s justices of the peace Sunday to resign if they are unwilling to preside over the marriage of same-sex couples beginning next month. ...’If a justice of the peace cannot comply with his or her oath of office, then we would expect that person to tender their resignation from that office.’ ...Romney has also ordered changes to the state’s marriage application, replacing ‘bride’’ and ‘groom’ with ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B.’”
you hate mormons don’t you? ; )
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Do I need to add the < /sarcasm> tag?
The Liberal Massachusetts defense.
This is not a fair criticism. Gay marriage is (fiat by judge) law in Massachusetts, but has the force of law just the same.
The certificates are NOT about gay marriage. My wife actually got one of these certificates so that she could officiate at the wedding of dear friends (yes, a man and a woman). It was a very personal, meaningful and beautiful ceremony — much appreciated by the bride and groom and their guests.
Although I don’t like much about Massachusetts from a legal perspective, but I think these one-day certificates are a fine idea.
Thompson (whom I like) is WAY out of line on this complaint against Romney.
Bay Windows, Boston, Jan. 1, 2002
Q&A by homosexual activist newsmagazine with gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney
BW: Do you support the Protection of Marriage Amendment?
MR: No, because it would outlaw domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples.
BW: Do you believe the Protection of Marriage Amendment initiative should be put before voters?
MR: The people have a constitutional right to put questions before the voters. But, if it had been on the ballot, I would have voted no.
Any criticism of Romney’s bad judgment, bad ideas,
bad conduct, and flipflop nature, is reported a direct
violation of Romney’s religion
(according to Mitt and his supporters.
Good one, LOL
desperation stench from the failing willard group.
Color: “You hate mormons don’t you?”
I note and appreciate the sarcasm. Been jousting with Rom-bots online for over two years, and accusations of religious bigotry are their first kneejerk response to anyone who objects to his public policy record.
Me, I managed or consulted the political campaigns of two or three dozen members of Mitt’s church over the last 30 years.
But I always like to ask this...first the setup.
This summer, the Deseret News, the Salt Lake City daily newspaper owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, published the following editorial criticizing Romney’s financial connection to the Marriott corp’s sale of a quarter-billion worth of porn flicks during his ten-year stint on their board:
“Pornography taints everything it touches. Mitt Romney should have understood that. So should the Marriott Corporation and other hotel owners who offer hard-core movies in hotel rooms. Romney caught a bit of flack last week because he spent nearly 10 years on the Marriott board and yet never tried to reverse the company’s policy of providing pornography on demand, something J.W. ‘Bill’ Marriott Jr., defended in a 2000 letter as being economically important. ...For a presidential candidate who has railed against pornography, this is not entirely insignificant. Even if the subject never came up at a board meeting, one can argue that at least part of the $25,000 plus stock he was paid annually for his board membership came from the money some hotel guests paid for access to the films.”
And now the kicker:
Having publicly criticized Mitt Romney’s record, does that mean the Deseret News “hates Mormons”?
Did you see this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939046/posts
The LDS Church owned, KSL, produces this news piece, and they are accused of a hate piece.
Deseret News AND KSL are both owned by Bonneville Communications, a subsidiary of the LDS Church. This “hate” speech thing has gotten WAY out of control. Even when Mormons present news pieces about Mormonism they are accused of hate. I guess Mormons now hate themselves.
(maybe I’m on to something)
I just want to hear the Romney explanation before I make up my mind. I’m sure, make that, I hope, there is a good one. Not that I’m for Romney, I still haven’t pulled the handle so my mind is not made up.
I like Fred, I like Romney, even Rudy isn’t out of the question, and of course there is Duncan Hunter, but a very distant fourth based on the polls. So many choices. So many controversies.
Exactly. One day certificates are available in almost any state, not just Mass. In Mass. they must be approved by the Gov., but it’s fairly routine from what I understand.
That the certificates were used in gay ceremonies is more the result of the law of Mass. not that Mitt signed them.
Good Grief
Classic Paleocon vs Neocon contest-and let’s face,either Fred or Mitt are the best,electable chances the GOP has of not only retaining both the White House but of also soothing the hurt feelings of betrayal still festering in the conservative base.
The Paleocon:Fred has always been a true,not perfect,conservative.Unfortunately,he is acting like Ike and expecting his conservative resume’ and commanding presence alone to propel him to the presidency.Only unlike Ike,he has no war record to validate his bones.Fred needs to get aggresive—his dissing the leftist ditz in the last debate was a start.W closed the cathouse White House and restored dignity to the office.All GOP candidates should remember how awesome and historic the presidency truly is and eschew any and all “boxers or briefs” media taunts as beneath the notice of perhaps the next most powerful person on earth.
The Neocon:In Mass,Mitt was a weak conservative pandering to the liberal voting majority—compromising,as it were,flip-flops in hindsight.Now born-again Right,he hopes we see his new sincerity as the real one—and I for one,buy it—at least beyond a reasonable doubt.
BTW,I was invited to attend a McCain rally this week-end in Newberry,SC,about ten miles from where I live.I have nothing but the deepest respect for the Senator as a war hero,patriot and staunch defender of traditional American values.
But what he has done to the GOP’s ability to elect or re-elect conservatives is unforgivable so I cannot attend.
Not Guilty.
Ping. I think you were right.
You know, religion aside, what conservative would want to live in Romney’s Massachusetts? That’s my big reason for thinking Romney is a long way from who I want running for President.
The flip flopping doesn’t surprise me, but the last thing I want is to die, and then come back as a business person in Massachusetts. If you live a bad life, I’m sure that is one of the karmic hells that await.
Never Mitt’s fault, is it?
He is such a victim (more than Hillary, it seems).
Fact: The Mass Constitution forbids judiciary changes.
Mitt ignored the Constitution and ordered clerks
to obey the judiciary.
Mitt ought take responsibility. But then, he never does.
Mitt’s fake troopers (caught in two(2) states) were not his fault.
Mitt’s fake badges were not his fault.
His imposition of socialized HillaryCARE was not his fault.
His coverup of the BIGdig was not his fault. That he took
campaign contributions from the contractors was not his fault.
His failure to appoint any judges from the GOP was not his fault.
Instead, these have been: “everyone else’s fault”(TM of Romney), and any bringing up of facts is an attack on his religion.
In this particular case, no it’s not.
As you point out, there’s lots of things to go after Mitt for, so why not choose one that has legitimacy rather than one that shows complete lack of Mass. law and politics, which is what Fred has done (and you, apparently).
I like Fred, but this was a pretty stupid thing to pick on.
So Mitt should go against the authority of the judiciary and set off a confrontation between the executive and the judiciary by failing to recognise the court decision. Surely the great Federalist Fred is not suggesting Mitt do something illegal.
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.