Posted on 05/22/2012 4:24:57 PM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
Reportedly, Obama's supposed switch to support for gay marriage drove many evangelical Christian voters into the Romney fold. The story moved me to share this comment with my friends on Twitter: "I guess some evangelicals fled to Romney because he's already done what Obama only wants to do — impose gay marriage by Executive Order."
I know, Romney's apologists claim that he had to obey the opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. However, in its opinion, that court made clear that the laws enacted by the Legislature in Massachusetts did not permit same-sex marriage. The court's opinion also made it clear that the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts forbids the Judiciary from changing the law. Thus when he ordered justices of the peace to perform gay marriages, then-Gov. Romney violated the laws of his state and ignored the court opinion he claimed to be following. In thus usurping legislative power, he did what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court refused to do.
So Romney's abuse of executive power to impose gay marriage in Massachusetts isn't just about promoting gay marriage. It's about acting on an understanding of government that erases the separation of powers, a constitutional feature America's founders rightly declared essential for preventing dictatorial government. Many so-called Republicans pretend to decry what they see as Obama's desire to erase this feature. Yet they now want voters to believe that it will be preferable to put the executive power of the U.S. government in the hands of a man who has already done what they say Obama is trying to do. What sense does this make?
Ironically, Obama's supposed change of position on gay marriage helps the so-called Republicans get away with this nonsense. Given Obama's actions with respect to gay marriage, what intelligent conservatives in their right mind were actually taken in by his anemic professions of respect for the God-endowed natural family? Obama forced acceptance of open homosexuality in the military on equal-rights grounds (A position Romney says he will continue). He refused to be the legal advocate for the Defense of Marriage Act, on equal-rights grounds. The logic of Obama's actions thus contradicted and undermined his proclaimed respect for the natural family. Judged in light of his actions, it was clear that he was lying about that.
People who treat Obama's verbal profession of a switch on gay marriage as significant are tacitly promoting the irrational notion that we can judge a politician by his words, without taking his actions into account. Of course, that's exactly the notion conservatives have to buy into in order to pretend that Mitt Romney offers any alternative to Obama's drive toward totalitarian socialism. We've just seen that on the issue of gay marriage Romney has already done what Obama just said he would like to do. Similarly, as governor (and thereafter as a candidate for president in 2008) Romney proudly pointed to the move toward socialist health care in Massachusetts (Romneycare) as a model for the nation. That model included the mandated insurance features and the government funding for abortions Obama is still struggling to impose on the nation. Here again, Romney has already done what Obama is only trying to do.
From abortion to tax cuts there's almost no issue on which Romney's campaign rhetoric today matches up with his actions (or words) from yesterday or the day before (as it were). Given their respective records, the main difference between Obama and Romney is that, thanks to the false Republican label, Romney is more likely to slip the socialist poison past the otherwise rejecting taste buds of people who think of themselves as conservatives. In this respect Romney undoubtedly wins the support of the God-rejecting elitist powers that are using the sham two-party system to manipulate Americans toward a similarly God-rejecting socialist future. As I said in the latest article posted on my blog, "His record suggests that, though he moves toward the objective with a more deceptively alluring style than Obama, Romney will herd Americans more surely and quietly into the stock pens of totalitarian socialism."
From a strictly academic viewpoint, I feel a profound sense of tragic irony as I watch Americans wrestling with the unyielding truth that their character and liberty are being done to death by elite elements that have abandoned the moral and constitutional vision of America's founders. Every day I hear from or meet people grieving for their nation, like members of a close-knit family keeping vigil in their hearts in the last weeks of a beloved parent's life. Others, of course, care about nothing except to divide up the legacy.
In this respect the Democratic Party represents the ones who wouldn't mind at all if someone plunged a knife into the parent's heart. Romney Republicans are those who abhor that messy alternative, preferring instead a gentle poison. But the ones I'm talking about pray to God, as I do, for a miraculous healing; they say to God that they would gladly give of heart and life themselves to be a part of it. The series of articles posted in the last week or so at my blog come from a place of prayer like that. Is that where you are? If so, the series I have written may be good fodder for thought and, God knows, even for action.
Ping!
I’m sorry but the BS about Romney didn’t have to obey the Mass. Supreme Court is tortured revisionist history. It’s not being an “apologist” to recognize that Romney tried a variety of tactics to avoid legalizing same sex marriage. It’s just inaccurate to take a person who opposed gay marriage and claim with legalese that none of that matters.
He didn’t support same sex marriage and he doesn’t support it today. Obama does.
Obama’s socialist model is a lot more evil than Mitt Romney. Try Alinsky, Wright, and Ayers for starters.
I can't wait to hear Amb. Keyes' proposals for action.
Lying about Romney is the highest calling for some around these parts.
They use ping lists so that they never have to lie alone.
Oh good, the guy who gave us Barack Obama. I was hoping he’d chime in.
Keyes proves he is completely insane AND dishonest. Romney never signed an exec. order that legalized gay marriage. Deval Patrick signed the bill after Romney was out of office. Does Keyes do NO research when he writes crap?
ROMNEYBOTS LIKE YOU ARE OF ROMNEY
AFTER ALL, ROMNEY IS SOLE AUTHOR OF BOTH GAY MARRIAGE AND ROMNEYCARE
Romney imposed gay marriage by his fiat against the Mass. Constitution by using improper executive authority.
"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."
IF O is reelected just think ERIC HOLDER Supreme Court ....enough said
“Oh good, the guy who gave us Barack Obama.”
Sorry, but that is baloney. Alan Keyes was begged to step in at the last minute by the Illinois Republicans because they didn’t have a candidate after Jack Ryan was forced out of the race. Alan Keyes relocated himself and his family to live on the South Side of Chicago and did his best under the circumstances to try and stop Obama. If he hadn’t bothered, Obama would have run unopposed and won by an even bigger margin. Keyes hardly stood a chance from the get go, but at least the man tried.
I have nothing to do with Mitt Romney. I’m a person not a bot. He tried to prevent gay marriage in his state that is just historic fact, I don’t see a need to trample history. If Romney is too liberal fine, but he tried to prevent gay marriage it just is reality.
You sure about that?
Deval Patrick didn't assume office until Jan 2007.
Mitt Romney ordered Justices of the Peace to perform "gay" marriages in 2004 (even though these weren't technically legal by Mass. law at that time). Romney was also the one who was responsible for marriage license language being changed from "husband and wife" to "Party A and Party B," even though there was, again, no statutory requirement to do so.
Learn before you type, Deb.
Sorry, but your assertion is simply untrue on its face.
This is from Wikipedia:
At the beginning of his governorship, Romney opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions, but advocated tolerance and supported some domestic partnership benefits.[154][162][163] Faced with the dilemma of choosing between same-sex marriage or civil unions after the November 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing same-sex marriages (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health), Romney reluctantly backed a state constitutional amendment in February 2004 that would have banned same-sex marriage but still allow civil unions, viewing it as the only feasible way to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.[164]
In May 2004, Romney instructed town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but citing a 1913 law that barred out-of-state residents from getting married in Massachusetts if their union would be illegal in their home state, no marriage licenses were to be issued to out-of-state same-sex couples not planning to move to Massachusetts.[162][165] In June 2005, Romney abandoned his support for the compromise amendment, stating that the amendment confused voters who oppose both same-sex marriage and civil unions.[162]
Instead, Romney endorsed a petition effort led by the Coalition for Marriage & Family that would have banned same-sex marriage and made no provisions for civil unions.[162] In 2004 and 2006, he urged the U.S. Senate to vote in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment.[166][167]”
Is there a good reason to ignore all of the above history and to claim Romney was at the forefront of ordering gay marriage? Wikipedia also states Romney has “opposed gay marriage throughout his career”.
Please see what I posted above. Why do you find it useful to cite that Romney finally issued orders to institute same sex marriage, yet you will not acknowledge that he opposed it, that he tried to amend the state constitution to outlaw it, and that he joined in a petition drive to ban both same sex marriage and civil unions?
The history is not of a man who favored same sex marriage. You think he could have fought it better or longer. Fine. But I’m not an apologist, the man was never in favor of same sex marriaqe. That is historic fact.
He did support other “gay rights” and civil unions. That’s a fact as well.
Other than that whole ignoring both the legislative and judicial branches and implementing gay marriage by executive order thing.
But other than that Mitt Romneycare never advocated gay marriage.
I thought Romney was an evil capitalist pig.... when did he go socialist? Or can one be both?
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.