Skip to comments.In case you care: Barney Frank is engaged
Posted on 01/26/2012 4:42:52 PM PST by SeekAndFind
What — did you think that because he is retiring from Congress you wouldn’t have to hear about him ever again? Very sorry to bring him up, but here’s a shameless bit of salacious gossip for y’all:
Engaged: Barney Frank, 71, and longtime partner Jim Ready, 42, the congressmans office confirmed for us Thursday, following a report by New England Cable News. Where? In Massachusetts, where gay nuptials were made legal in 2004. When? Sorry, thats all the details theyd give. Frank is set to leave Congress next winter after 32 years, and hes said the rigors of the job and the desire to devote more time to his relationship were factors. I have a partner now, Frank told Charlie Rose in an interview a couple weeks ago. Im in love for the first time in my life.
There’s so much in that paragraph that I don’t like (nor do I want to contemplate the report that Frank’s partner is practically a Todd Palin lookalike), but if this Ready guy is one of the reasons he’s retiring, well then … I offer a weird and conflicted “yay!” to this news. (We all know redistricting is the real reason for Frank’s retirement — and, honestly, the definition of marriage is too important a cultural issue to make light of, but sometimes I laugh so as not to cry.)
Anyway. Let’s move quickly to a more relevant related question: What was Mitt Romney’s role in the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004? You might already know the answer, but I was fuzzy on the details, so I just spent a bit of time researching and am satisfied Romney’s not to blame for Barney Frank’s impending wedding.
As with so much of his political record, Romney’s part in the Massachusetts marriage drama was constrained by certain inalterable parameters. In other words, the excuse for his participation in gay marriage legalization is the same as his excuse for many of the sketchier parts of his past: He was the governor of the blue-as-blue-can-be Bay State, remember?
As a quick refresher: In 2004, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ultimately determined that a ban on same-sex marriage was contrary to the constitution of the state — and gave the legislature 180 days to change the state’s marriage laws accordingly. The legislature hadn’t taken action by May 17, the fixed deadline, but, that day, then-Gov. Mitt Romney nevertheless ordered town clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples so as to comply with the SJC’s decision. Later, though, he fought to ensure that the Massachusetts legislature at least granted a vote to a voters’ initiative to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages. It was Gov. Deval Patrick who signed the repeal of a 1913 law that made it illegal for Massachusetts to grant a marriage license to non-resident couples if the marriage would be invalid in their home state. Deval’s signature opened the floodgates for non-resident same-sex couples to receive marriage licenses from Massachusetts. So, Mitt had nothing to do with that.
On this, Mitt Romney’s record is conflicted only because he demonstrated commitment to abiding by the state constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Judicial Court.
IBPUFTER (In Before Prayers Up For the Engaged Rockers)
EVERY time I see this headline today, up comes a visual image of Barney Frank in a wedding dress.
I wonder who will be specially invited to the occacions..
"...aw jeeeezzzz, the rest of the evening is wounnnned, such images floating around in utterwise delightfully empty space......wounnnnnnnned"
Who’s going to be the best man, Matt Fudge?
I am sure that during the nuptials both will think of Romney with gratitude as they ‘toast’ each other.
By the way, which gets the chocolate cake? The pitcher or the catcher?
MESSED IT UP ABOVE, REPOST:
As Governor, Romney Said “I Do” To Gay Marriage AT Least 189 Times
As a gay-marriage proponent, I was pleased to learn that then-Governor Willard Mitt Romney (R Massachusetts) issued at least 189 special-issue, one-day marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2005 alone.
While Team Romney argues that the SJC forced it to give gay couples conventional marriage licenses, the special, one-day licenses are a strictly gubernatorial choice, as Massachusetts law unambiguously states:
Scott Helman and Scott S. Greenberger reported in the January 2, 2006 Boston Globe that The applications Romney approved from same-sex couples included at least four from state legislators, including Jarrett T. Barrios, a state senator from Cambridge, members of the clergy from out of state, family members, and friends.
If Romney truly opposed gay marriage as fervently as he claims, he could have exercised his discretion and refused to grant these one-day licenses to same-sex couples. A tougher-but-fairer policy would have denied such licenses to everyone gay or straight. Instead, under no obligation to do so, Romney chose to give these particular licenses to gay couples.
Fans of gay marriage should thank Romney for these 189 or more instances in which he voluntarily used his gubernatorial authority to unite these same-sex couples so they might live happily ever after.
Foes of gay matrimony should ask Willard Mitt Romney if he really meant it when he said, I have never supported same-sex marriage. If so, why did he use his discretionary power to do just that at least 189 times?
Now that there is funny!
I don’t care that he is pretending to be engaged, nor will I care if he eventually pretends to be married. I just wish he would stop spending my tax dollars, because that’s not pretend, and it’s harming my children and my (eventual) grandchildren.
Barney's best is behind him.
RE: Theyll probably get married on February 19...
Is there anything special about that date?
Did they invite Dick Assman to the wedding?
The McGreevey defense with a twist; a gay marriage!
The only reason he is stepping down is because it is just a matter of time before his part of the rape of America is revealed..
Thanks for asking. That’s the day Boston pitchers and catchers report....
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.