Skip to comments.Iowa, Same Sex Marriage and the 2012 Presidential Race [Romney comments on marriage]
Posted on 04/04/2009 11:52:23 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
The decision today by the Iowa Supreme Court that ruled a ban on same-sex marriage in the Hawkeye State unconstitutional is certain to have an impact on the state's critical Republican presidential caucuses in 2012.
. . . . .
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who ran unsuccessfully for the nomination in 2008 and is an almost-certain candidate in 2012, did offer a comment on the decision when asked by the Fix.
"I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and the definition of marriage should be left to the people and not to activist courts," Romney said.
Romney struggled to convince social conservatives of his bona fides during the 2008 campaign due to his past statements in support of gay rights. He is making sure there is no such uncertainty in the minds of social conservatives next time around.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
That's really all the Romneybots have. "Next time around" he'll maybe win. "Next time around" he'll maybe be Conservative. Or not.
I’m so danged annoyed! First I had to re-register Republicken in order to vote Republicken in our first CA early primary, but already by that time all the viable conservatives had either dropped, or were hopelessly behind the curve. So we voted for Romney with gobs of rationalizations running through our minds and stubbornly refusing to vote for Juan McLame, or to sit out the election.
Counterfeit marriage for homosexuals is alive and well in Mass., Mr. Romney.
this man is not a conservative. He is the ultimate RINO. More of a RINO than McQueeg (who is more of a Democrat).
Just a sampling of the neo-Statist Mitt Romney just this week....
Mr. Romney, the definition of marriage was defined by God in the beginning.
Saying it should be defined by people is pandering to homosexuals.
Wasn’t he cheerleading TARP? ANd wasn’t he the fastest draw when the schoolmarm debate moderator asked who believed globull warming to be a serious problem?
The trouble with Republicans is that they spend so much time telling us who they are against, there is no energy left to build up who they are for. As a result the MSM does that for them.
Romney was against abortion til he wanted office in Taxachusetts...then he was for it...then when he wanted the GOP nomination...he was against it.
How can anyone trust this guy?
That is completely out of the liberal media mantra.
The problem with the GOP is that they have lost their soul and will accept any candidate with a heartbeat regardless of their lack of conservative bonafides. The party is infested with moderates and their idiot sycophants who are more than willing to stab the base in the back to win election.
Until the party rejects RINOs like Romney, and drives out their limp-wristed sycophants, it is a dead party.
“Just a sampling of the neo-Statist Mitt Romney just this week....”
Sure. After all, if the MSM prints it, it must be true. /s
Marriage IS a man and a woman, united for life. That is the reality, that IS WHAT IT IS. No matter what anyone believes. Your belief Mr. Romney, noes not enter into anything, reality does. You can call a horse a cow, believe it's a cow or not believe it's a cow, it it still a horse! Likewise an apple is not an orange no matter what anyone “believes” it to be, blue is not yellow, no matter what anyone “believes” it to be. AND a man is not a woman and vise versa, no matter how many operations they have to change it, no matter what anyone “believes” they are. Facts are facts, reality is reality, and words have meaning.
There really is no debate here.
Get the Republicans fighting and criticizing among themselves so they are so occupied they fail to build up a viable candidate. Tell the Republicans no one is perfect enough for them. Whomever the Republicans don't destroy by themselves, the MSM will undermine the rest. Then a few of the faithful democrats can cross over and nominate some liberal Republican that the rest of the Republicans find hard to support.
It is a sure fire strategy for destroying the Republicans. It lets the super critical Republicans do most of the work for them.
The Constitution protects individuals; not relationships.
Marriage is, by definition, an exclusivity contract, moral, social, and legal, between one man and one woman, of legal majority, that carries certain pre-defined and legally sanctioned rights and responsibilities for both parties.
"Marriage" that does not involve one man and one woman, no more and no less, is not marriage at all. It's something entirely different.
And Romney is saying that “the definition of marriage should be left to the people”
You are right, Romney is wrong.
Every time I see one of these threads, I keep hearkening back to the ole’ gipper:
“When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didnt like it. Compromise was a dirty word to them and they wouldnt face the fact that we couldnt get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you dont get it all, some said, dont take anything.
Id learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average. If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and thats what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it. Ronald Reagan,
And these guys wonder why conservatives aren't getting elected.
When Willard had a chance to step up and do something about it, he didn’t lift a finger to stop gay marriage in Massachusetts.
"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.
Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"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."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"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."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."
Give me a break, Mr. Conservative Conspiracy Theory. If you look at Saturday's Mormon Times, you'll see an article, "Did Romney's religion cost him the presidency?" (BTW, the answer to that question according to the "expert" cited in that article was "yes, no, and maybe").
So because the Mormon Times is running an article the same exact day as the one posted, are we to likewise conclude, Being that the election is still quite aways off, I wonder why all the [Mormon commentator] Romney articles lately? Largely by the same few folks. [This Utah based Kirk Jowers character has been cited in several articles this week] Hmmmmmm.
That's pretty rich coming from Barnacle Centurion, who has posted countless lies about Rush and Levin, claming that those two great conservative minds are fans of Romney, when the truth is that they have never been more than lukewarm at best about Mitt "Eddie Haskell" Romney. Barnacle and like-minded, ethically-challenged Romney supporters are skilled at carefully selecting words and taking them out of context to mislead people.
Barnacle, when it comes to Romney, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the nose. You are such a putz.
You apparently really actually believe that the only thing that makes a Republican different from a Democrat is the letter after his name. I have to figure that's your problem, because it's the only way to explain why you think that "fighting and criticizing among themselves," also known as working out principles so that the Republican party can return to its roots of having candidates who embrace conservative principle, is unimportant. Your way will ALWAYS lead to Liberal leftist triumph no matter the letter behind the winner's name. You don't understand that. Yet. Maybe you will someday, and when you do, good. Until then, you are actualizing the definition of insanity.