Yep. Looks liek we are back to square one, Rudy McRomney.
Time for a legit conservative party to form.
MassResistance mixes lies and misleading statements to weave a false story for their own purposes. This has all been debunked several times, and I’m sure someone will be along to clean up this thread as well.
For example, Romney did not ban boy scouts from the olympics.
And Romney’s position on Gays in 1994 did not put him to the left of Kennedy — in fact, he argued he’d be more effective for true gay rights because he was not as radical on the issue as Ted Kennedy was. In 1994, the LCR were not pushing for Gay marriage, and Romney never supported Gay Marriage.
Romney had no choice on gay marriage in Mass. The court ruled that the existing marriage law HAD to cover same-sex marriages, and the legislature failed to fix it in the 180-day period provided, because the legislature backed gay marriage, so much so that we could only get 45 votes for a referendum.
Sorry, most everything else they wrote has similar flaws, but it’s already 1am.
“I don’t know. First thing I’d do is consult with my lawyers.” —Mitt Romney
Is this what Free Republic is reduced to, an endless, everyday pile of anti-Romney postings by the Mitt haters, just a continuous stream of invective by the truly most despicable bottom feeders amongst us? Is Romney bashing the new and favorite past-time of those with no political acumen whom have bet on the wrong horse and can’t get over it? It appears so. And so folks, here’s yet another distortion of Mitt Romney for your delectation.
REBUTTAL
http://www.freerepublic.com/~UnmarkedPackage/#DOM
A PORTION OF THE HISTORY NOT MENTIONED IN THE HITPIECE ...
Office of Gov. Mitt Romney, “Romney Files Emergency Bill to Seek Goodridge Decision Stay,” Press Release, 4/15/2004
“Romney announced April 15 that he would seek emergency legislation to allow him to appoint a special counsel to ask the Supreme Judicial Court for a 2 1/2 year delay of its gay marriage ruling set to take effect May 17. Romney’s plan was to bypass AG Reilly—who refused to name a special counsel in March—and name his own special counsel, retired SJC Justice Joseph Nolan. Romney said the legislation would allow him to “protect the integrity of the Constitutional process” and return the decision on gay marriage to voters. “We believe the people have the right to have their position heard and that as the governor, I should have right to have my position heard. Look, people that don’t have any income are entitled to representation. Everyone in the Commonwealth is entitled to representation. But somehow as governor of the Commonwealth, it’s deemed that I can’t represent my view before the courts—I think that’s a mistake,” said Romney.
“State House News Service reported April 22 that Romney’s special counsel bill was “languishing” on Beacon Hill. The main obstacle was the Senate, which failed to admit the bill in its last two sessions. Senate President Robert Travaglini dismissed the legislation when it was announced and said the governor was only trying to push his “political agenda.” If the bill was not admitted, then there would not be a joint committee public hearing on it.
Trying to paint Romney's record as supporting gay marriage is untrue and could only be believed by an extremist.
You mentioned the FEB 5, 2004 ARTICLE THAT MITT ROMNEY WROTE - HERE IT IS
MITT_BASHERS, TELL US WHAT YOU FIND OBJECTIONABLE WITH ROMNEY’S 2004 OP ED ON MARRIAGE:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004647
One Man, One Woman
A citizen’s guide to protecting marriage.
by MITT ROMNEY
Thursday, February 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
No matter how you feel about gay marriage, we should be able to agree that the citizens and their elected representatives must not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage. There are lessons from my state’s experience that may help other states preserve the rightful participation of their legislatures and citizens, and avoid the confusion now facing Massachusetts.
In a decision handed down in November, a divided Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts detected a previously unrecognized right in our 200-year-old state constitution that permits same-sex couples to wed. I believe that 4-3 decision was wrongly decided and is deeply mistaken.
Contrary to the court’s opinion, marriage is not “an evolving paradigm.” It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.
Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society.
Because of marriage’s pivotal role, nations and states have chosen to provide unique benefits and incentives to those who choose to be married. These benefits are not given to single citizens, groups of friends, or couples of the same sex. That benefits are given to married couples and not to singles or gay couples has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation.
It is important that the defense of marriage not become an attack on gays, on singles or on nontraditional couples. We must recognize the right of every citizen to live in the manner of his or her own choosing. In fact, it makes sense to ensure that essential civil rights, protection from violence and appropriate societal benefits are afforded to all citizens, be they single or combined in nontraditional relationships.
So, what to do?
• Act now to protect marriage in your state. Thirty-seven states—38 with recent actions by Ohio—have a Defense of Marriage Act. Twelve states, including Massachusetts, do not. I urge my fellow governors and all state legislators to review and, if necessary, strengthen the laws concerning marriage. Look to carefully delineate in the acts themselves the underlying, compelling state purposes. Explore, as well, amendments to the state constitution. In Massachusetts, gay rights advocates in years past successfully thwarted attempts to call a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This cannot happen again. It is imperative that we proceed with the legitimate process of amending our state constitution.
• Beware of activist judges. The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature’s job to pass laws. As governor, it is my job to carry out the laws. The Supreme Judicial Court decides cases where there is a dispute as to the meaning of the laws or the constitution. This is not simply a separation of the branches of government, it is also a balance of powers: One branch is not to do the work of the other. It is not the job of judges to make laws, the job of legislators to command the National Guard, or my job to resolve litigation between citizens. If the powers were not separated this way, an official could make the laws, enforce them, and stop court challenges to them. No one branch or person should have that kind of power. It is inconsistent with a constitutional democracy that guarantees to the people the ultimate power to control their government.
With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That’s wrong.
• Act at the federal level. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. While the law protects states from being forced to recognize gay marriage, activist state courts could reach a different conclusion, just as ours did. It would be disruptive and confusing to have a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states. Amending the Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent such confusion and preserve the institution of marriage. Sometimes we forget that the ultimate power in our democracy is not in the Supreme Court but rather in the voice of the people. And the people have the exclusive right to protect their nation and constitution from judicial overreaching.
People of differing views must remember that real lives and real people are deeply affected by this issue: traditional couples, gay couples and children. We should conduct our discourse with decency and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is not a matter of semantics; it will have lasting impact on society however it is ultimately resolved. This issue was seized by a one-vote majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. We must now act to preserve the voice of the people and the representatives they elect.
Mr. Romney is governor of Massachusetts.
The remaining field stinks to high heaven. Mitt and Rudy are tied for dead last place in my book.
>>
* 1994 Campaign vs. Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate: Romney pledged he “will provide more effective leadership” than Kennedy on homosexual rights; endorsed by Log Cabin Republicans.<<
In 1994 this probably meant equal rights. I don’t think there was gay marriage anywhere in the world at that point.
If he meant equal rights, I don’t see a problem.
Its only special rights that are objectionable.
I’ve seen you here for several weeks now. Who are you supporting for president?
The source site is full of misinformation.
Antoninus,
Given the glaring weaknesses of every candidate in the race, which one would you suggest those considering Mitt support instead?
Thank You.
Is there a good source for this? If so, it is an absolute killer - - there are no vice grips in the world powerful enough to hold my nose so I could vote for Romney.
Thanks to anybody who can provide a good, credible source.
Next to Rudy, Romney has to have the worst record with regard to conservatism of all the candidates. Why in God’s name any conservative would support this man for president is beyond me....
Email from Glen Lavy, and rebuttal
The legal analysis in this "rebuttal" of the email defending Romney's position is terrible.
First, they rely multiple times on this quote from the opinion: "We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
What they fail to note is that the court follows with this sentence: "The larger question is whether, as the department claims, government action that bars same-sex couples from civil marriage constitutes a legitimate exercise of the State's authority to regulate conduct, or whether, as the plaintiffs claim, this categorical marriage exclusion violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
So the courts follows, after much discussion, with this: "The department has had more than ample opportunity to articulate a constitutionally adequate justification for limiting civil marriage to opposite-sex unions. It has failed to do so."
And with this: "We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."
And concludes with this: "We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion. See, e.g., Michaud v. Sheriff of Essex County, 390 Mass. 523, 535-536, 458 N.E.2d 702 (1983). So ordered."
Clearly, the court did not leave the legislature open to ignore the ruling and thus prevent same-sex marriage. Rather, it gave the legislature the option of altering the marriage statute so that it would conform with the opinion, letting the opinion take effect in 180 days regardless of what the legislature chose to do. The lower courts were obligated then to comply with the opinion.
Finally, the "rebuttal" includes the argument that the opinion itself is unconstitutional. Sure, it may be unconstitutional, but the court, not Messers Haskins and Paine, are the ultimate arbiters of that and if they rule one way, the Governor must obey that, whether or not he believes it is correct.
It's easy to twist even a court's opinion to make it appear to say whatever you want it to say if you use only select phrases (the same technique is used by activist judges to make the Constitution appear to say what they wish it to). But doing so is undeniably bad legal analysis, and it is abundantly clear what this opinion required.
Note, BTW, that the link points out that the Alliance Defense Fund worked closely with Romney during this episode, so unless you want to accuse that organization of advancing gay marriage, it will be difficult to claim that Romney did so.
The crap of desperation
One can see the stunning inaccuracy of this...ahem...garbage by noticing that the slanderers who put it together failed to mention every one of the things that Romney did to fight gay marriage in Mass. and his work to pass a constitutional amendment that would have essentially banned it.