Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Romney Obama's Socialist Role Model?
Renew America ^ | 21 May 2012 | Alan Keyes

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.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2progaysocialists; looktwins; mitcrackobromney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: Andrei Bulba; Diogenesis; 2ndDivisionVet; EternalVigilance; Deb; rogue yam; xzins
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.

No, either you are totally ignorant of the facts concerning Mitt Romney and how he illegally and unconstitutionally implemented Gay Marriage in Massachusetts or your are the one that is disengenous.

You certainly are not stating the facts concerning this issue.

Sure Mitt Romney stated that he was for marriage between a Man and a Woman.

But when it came right down to it, when he had the power, both legally and constitutionally to stop the illegal and unconstitutional mandate by the Supreme Court of MA, he chose to side with the ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE from the Supreme Court of MA.

Here is the timeline showing how Mitt Implemented Gay Marriage.

[NOTE: This timeline is greatly expanded in Amy Contrada's book Mitt Romney's Deception, published in July 2011. See detail here and video preview here.]

I. Mitt Romney demonstrates his commitment to homosexual "rights" before becoming Governor of Massachusetts in January 2003:

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.

2000-2002: As head of Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, Romney banned Boy Scouts from participating.

2001 Called first citizens' petition to define marriage “too extreme” and “bigoted” because it banned civil unions.

2002 Campaign for Governor: Romney makes promises to GLBT community, according to leading Boston homosexual newspaper; endorsed by homosexual activist Log Cabin Republicans.

II. Nov. 18, 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) rules that same-sex marriage is protected in the Mass. Constitution, and gives the Legislature 180 days to act (“Goodridge” ruling).

Nov. 18, 2003 Romney responds to SJC ruling with four-sentence statement implicitly recognizing SJC’s authority, says only remedy will be a constitutional amendment: “I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman.”

Nov.-Dec. 2003 Romney reportedly working with Legislators promoting “civil unions”.

Jan. 2004 Romney silent on proposal to remove four SJC justices through Bill of Address (put forward by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance).

Feb. 4, 2004 SJC tells Legislature that civil unions for same-sex couples will not satisfy its interpretation of the Mass. Constitution; only full-fledged marriage will do.

Feb. 5, 2004 Romney publishes editorial in Wall Street Journal laying all blame on the SJC for problem in Massachusetts. Suggests other states strengthen marriage statutes and pass constitutional amendments. Says don’t “attack … gays, singles or non-traditional couples.”

Feb. 2004 Justices of the Peace are told by their professional association they will be able to claim “conscientious objector” status and refuse to perform same-sex marriages -- though this was never agreed to by Romney administration.

Feb.-May 2004 Pro-family leaders and columnists urge Romney to defy court, and issue Executive Order to block same-sex marriage; no public comment from Romney.

March 12, 2004 As Legislature postures on constitutional amendments, Romney continues to say amendment to Mass. Constitution is solution.

March 26, 2004 Word leaks out that Romney’s Dept. of Public Health (DPH) and attorneys are planning training sessions for Town Clerks and preparing same-sex marriage licenses.

March 29, 2004 Romney tells Republicans in Mass. legislature to vote for Travaglini-Lees “compromise amendment” which would ban same-sex marriage but establish civil unions (and would not go to voters before Nov. 2006). Republican legislators had earlier opposed this amendment because of the civil unions clause, and it passed only due to their changed votes.

March 29-31, 2004 Romney seeks stay of SJC ruling until constitutional amendment issue is settled, but Atty. General Reilly refuses to take Governor’s case before SJC. [Did Romney believe that same court that issued Goodridge ruling would seriously consider his request for a stay?]

March 30, 2004 Romney says he’ll “abide by the law of the land as it exists on May 17” and says he would not order town clerks to defy court edict. Romney says he’d not explored the Constitution section giving him power over “causes of marriage” and whether it gives him any legal power to stop same-sex marriage (according to spokesman).

April 12, 2004 Romney spokesman says training sessions for town clerks will begin “with plenty of room to spare before May 17.” Ron Crews of Mass. Coalition for Marriage states hope for an Executive Order to halt the marriages.

April 15, 2004 Romney files emergency bill in Legislature to seek stay of SJC ruling, and is rebuffed and reprimanded by Senate President Travaglini.

April 15, 2004 Romney’s DPH Registrar of Vital Records informs town clerks by letter of training sessions before SJC ruling becomes effective.

April 16, 2004 Romney announces his administration is scheduling training sessions for May 5-12 with licenses changed from “husband/wife” to “Party A/Party B”.

April 17, 2004 Mass. Dept. of Revenue (under Romney) declares SJC ruling the new “law”.

April 22, 2004 Romney does not comment on Rep. Goguen's filing of Bill of Address for Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance to remove the 4 SJC judges, or Article 8’s revelation of Chief Justice Marshall’s violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. (Marshall had appeared as keynote speaker at homosexual advocacy group dinner in 1999 advocated extension of “rights” for homosexuals, and failed to recuse herself from ruling on same-sex marriage though she had publicly expressed her bias.)

April 26, 2004 Romney’s chief Legal Counsel, Daniel Winslow, issues directive to Justices of the Peace to resign (or be fired, fined, or sued) if they are unwilling to perform same-sex marriages (exact date not given on document).

April 29, 2004 Romney writes to 49 other Governors to inform them he’ll uphold section of Mass. marriage statutes banning same-sex marriages for out-of-state couples.

May 5-12, 2004 Town clerk training sessions held. [GLAD – Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders -- is only source on content of sessions; perhaps they were responsible for content?]

May 15, 2004 Romney issues proclamation: May 15 is “Gay/Straight Youth Pride Day”. Romney’s “Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth” events include parade, GLBT activism (with prominent transsexual radical activists), and a GLBT prom – two days before same-sex marriages are to begin.

May 17, 2004 Same-sex marriages begin across Massachusetts. Romney issues brief statement: “All along, I have said an issue as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage should be decided by the people. Until then, I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same.” [What law? Original marriage statutes clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman were –and are -- still on the books, unchanged by the Legislature. So Romney is not enforcing the actual law—just a court opinion.]

May 18, 2004 Romney begins enforcement of section of marriage statute banning out-of-state couples marrying in Mass. if that marriage would be illegal in their home state, while other intact sections of the marriage statute (“man” and “woman”) are ignored.

June 22, 2004 Romney testifies before US Senate Judiciary Committee for federal marriage amendment and blames Court for situation in Massachusetts.

Oct. 29, 2004 Romney signs new law eliminating blood test for STDs as requirement for marriage license (Ch. 388 of Acts of 2004). [Note: this is the only part of marriage statutes changed to satisfy demands of same-sex marriage]

Dec. 2004 Romney has no comment on bills filed by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance for 2005-6 session: to remove four SJC judges; strengthen definition of marriage in statute; and declare same-sex marriages since May 17, 2004 null/void and without statutory basis.

Feb. 21, 2005 Romney makes speech before South Carolina Republicans, then is accused of “flip-flopping” on civil unions by homosexual lobby. Romney also negatively refers to demands by the homosexual activists that birth certificates be changed to read “Parent A/Parent B” (instead of “father/mother”), arguing he had no authority to make such a change [though he had no such qualms about changing the marriage license].

June 16, 2005 Romney joins VoteOnMarriage (VOM) amendment effort, which would recognize same-sex marriages prior to amendment taking effect, and not ban civil unions. (Romney says VOM is superior to the Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment.) Romney also announces support of VOM’s proposed bill promoting partnership benefits for any couple wanting them (see “Benefits Fairness Act” filed Jan. 2006). Romney says he’s opposed to removing the four SJC judges. Calls for a “high degree of respect and tolerance for people whose lifestyle and choices and orientation is as they may choose.”

July 22, 2005 Romney says only Legislature can change birth certificates from “father/mother” to “Parent A/Parent B”.

Sept. 14, 2005 Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment defeated in Legislature.

Nov. 2005 Romney tells Federalist Society that judiciary must be grounded in Constitution and law and precedents, and only the Legislature and people can change that base.

Jan. 2, 2006 Boston Globe reports Romney issued special Governor’s ceremonial marriage licenses to 189 same-sex couples in 2005 (including to homosexual activist state senator), claiming he did not refuse because he was evenly applying the “statute”. [Note: There is no new statute establishing same-sex marriage.]

Jan. 11, 2006 Romney files “Benefits Fairness Act” with VoteOnMarriage, which is roundly criticized by GLBT lobby, and shelved in Committee as late-filed bill.

March 10-14, 2006 Romney says laws require Catholic Charities not to discriminate against same-sex parents in its adoption placements [but there’s only an administrative regulation]. He says same-sex couples have "a legitimate interest" in adopting children.

June 2, 2006 Romney sends letter to US Congress arguing for federal marriage amendment.

June 28, 2006 Romney urges Legislature to vote on VOM amendment, and addresses importance of following Constitution.

Sept. 30, 2006 Romney says he has to “follow the law,” and accept Mass. Superior Court ruling stating Rhode Island lesbian couple can marry in Massachusetts (following an earlier SJC ruling addressing Rhode Island’s lack of prohibition of same-sex marriage).

Oct. 15, 2006 Romney addresses nationally broadcast “Liberty Sunday” (Family Research Council) event in Boston. Blames SJC for Mass. problems, says we need an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people regardless of different choices they make, and as a nation we must reject discrimination and bigotry. Calls for support of federal marriage amendment.

Nov. 19, 2006 Romney holds rally on State House steps announcing he’s delivering a copy of the Constitution to every Legislator who voted to recess the Constitutional Convention (to avoid the vote on the VOM amendment required by state Constitution). Romney also announces he’s appealing to the courts. [But he says nothing about the SJC precedent of Dec. 20, 2002, ruling that the Legislature must vote in this situation, which already affirms that he should call Legislators back.]

©2006 MassResistance (11-23-06)

21 posted on 05/22/2012 5:47:38 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba

Well, the thing about Wikipedia is that when you have an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, anybody will.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that many of Romney’s actions on gay marriage pertaining to its implementation were taken by him even though there was no statutory or judicial mandate to do so. He *chose* to implement them on his own cognizance.

22 posted on 05/22/2012 5:47:38 PM PDT by Yashcheritsiy (A conservative voting for Romney is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: woofie
I thought Romney was an evil capitalist pig.... when did he go socialist? Or can one be both?

It is becoming the norm for the wealthy of America, from Romney and John Kerry to Barbara Streisand and George Soros, Obama won the vote of those making more than $250,000.

23 posted on 05/22/2012 6:08:27 PM PDT by ansel12 ( The first American vote for a man who believes that he will become literally God, an actual deity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Yes, I understood completely the legal arguments raised to support an argument that he didn’t have to institute gay marriage.

I also know that he not only opposed gay marriage, he took a number of concrete steps to stop it, after the Mass. supreme court ruling.

I also acknowledged that he supported “gay rights” other than gay marriage.

Wikipedia isn’t “made up” on this subject, it’s a fact Romney took various steps in an effort to prevent same sex marriage.

I don’t understand the extreme necessity some feel to rewrite history and ignore the parts that don’t fit an agenda. I find that very sad. The man opposed same sex marriage and tried to prevent it. Why is it so hard to recognize those historical facts?

24 posted on 05/22/2012 6:09:36 PM PDT by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

some things are truly frightening....the story from Breitbart is one of them

25 posted on 05/22/2012 6:10:44 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba
Obama’s socialist model is a lot more evil than Mitt Romney. Try Alinsky, Wright, and Ayers for starters.

Alinksy, the guy that Romney's dad was impressed by?

Look, Obama's model and Romney's model are both evil. If you support or vote for either one of them, you're supporting evil. You can sprinkle whipped cream on a cow pie and tell us we ought to try a bite, but it's still a cow pie at the end of the day, and most of us are going to avoid it.
26 posted on 05/22/2012 6:14:26 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

This one is scary too.

Huma Abedin Weiner (Anthony Weiner’s Wife) a deputy chief of staff and aide to US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

27 posted on 05/22/2012 6:17:27 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Obama won the vote of those making more than $250,000.

True but that was before they knew him

i think it will be a different ball game this time around

I also wonder how many “rich “people have been through what Ive been through and found out that with enough lean years Im not near as rich as I thought

28 posted on 05/22/2012 6:24:13 PM PDT by woofie (It takes three villages and a forest of woodland creatures to raise a child in Obamaville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: woofie

I’m just surprised to learn that the wealthy are so liberal and democrat.

I remember learning during the early 1970s how left wing, giant corporations are, it was a real surprise.

29 posted on 05/22/2012 6:28:08 PM PDT by ansel12 ( The first American vote for a man who believes that he will become literally God, an actual deity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr

You seriously cite that Mitt Romney’s FATHER was impressed by Saul Alinsky? That’s not a joke?

Did his dad also perhaps look in a crystal ball and admire Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright???

Scary stuff. You would not vote for someone who’s dad liked Alinsky, just as you would not vote for Barack Obama, an actual disciple of Alinsky? You see that as equal.

30 posted on 05/22/2012 6:32:46 PM PDT by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba
I don’t understand the extreme necessity some feel to rewrite history and ignore the parts that don’t fit an agenda. I find that very sad. The man opposed same sex marriage and tried to prevent it. Why is it so hard to recognize those historical facts?

Why is it so hard to read what was posted to you?

He implemented an illegal and unconstitutional edict(law) from the Supreme Court of MA, an edict they had no power to implement under the MA Constitution.

He was warned by more than 44 judicial and legal experts that what he was planning on doing was both illegal and unconstitutional.

Why is it so hard for you to recognize these historical facts?
31 posted on 05/22/2012 6:53:59 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom


32 posted on 05/22/2012 7:00:04 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

OK, let’s try simple questions.

Do you acknowledge that in response to the Mass. supreme court decision, he tried to amend the state constitution to permit civil unions, in an effort to block same sex marriage?

Do you acknowledge that he supported a petition to outlaw same sex marriage?

Do you acknowledge that during his career, he has always stated an opposition to same sex marriage?

Are the above historical facts or not? Do you understand if they are one can view this man as not a supporter of same sex marriage?

The legal analysis of what the Mass. supreme court decision required or did not is very facinating. However it is also a ton of legalese and obviously not a position that ever prevailed in any court.

You had in Mass. a super liberal super democrat majority in the legislature. You also had a liberal supreme court that stated teh

he legislature must act in 180 days to legalize same sex marriage. Whether Romeny should have defied the court is a facinating discussion, it doesn’t make him pro same sex marriage.

Once again, do you even acknowledge that he took the steps and positions listed above?

33 posted on 05/22/2012 7:08:57 PM PDT by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba
The legislature must act in 180 days to legalize same sex marriage. Whether Romeny should have defied the court is a facinating discussion, it doesn’t make him pro same sex marriage.

No, the Supreme Court had no authority under the MA constitution to order the legislature to act in 180 days.

The Supreme Court had no authority to make laws after an arbitrary time limit. There is no language in the MA Constitution to support that type of behavior of the Supreme Court.

The MA Constitution is crystal clear that all laws regarding Marriage are to be generated/started in the Legislature.

Romney was warned about this by more than 44 legal experts, many who had argued in front of the MA Supreme Court.

When it was important, no matter his sweet platitudes, he refused to do what HE KNEW HE WAS OBLIGATED TO DO, refuse to enforce/implement an illegal and unconstitutional edict from the Supreme Court

The legal analysis of what the Mass. supreme court decision required or did not is very facinating.

This is not a matter of perception or a fascinating discussion, it's a matter of constitutional law.

34 posted on 05/22/2012 8:33:58 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba

I wouldn’t vote for Romney just because he’s Romney, but I thought it amusing that you brought up Alinsky. Whether candidates’ fathers are fair game or not has been argued quite a bit.

35 posted on 05/22/2012 11:06:06 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Did you answer one of my questions about actions Romney took in an effort to prevent same sex marriage?

Yes, he believed he had to act because of the court’s ruling. You and some legal experts believe that was wrong.

He also tried numerous ways to prevent same sex marriage. That does not make the man a homosexualist pro gay marriage governor as you are very quick to say.

36 posted on 05/23/2012 11:27:37 AM PDT by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson