Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney a wimp? Not so much, say gays who engaged with him as governor
Boston.com ^ | Sep 11 2012 | Scott Kearnan

Posted on 09/12/2012 8:56:15 AM PDT by scottjewell

... Romney sat stone-faced and almost entirely silent.

“Is there anything else?” Romney asked when they finished. With that, the meeting was over.

“It was like talking to a robot. No expression, no feeling,” recalls David Wilson, one of the plaintiffs in the case who met with Romney that day. “People were sharing touching stories, stories where you’d expect recognition in the other person’s face that they at least hear what you’re saying — that there’s empathy. He didn’t even shake his head. He was completely blank.”

Occasionally Romney would say something.

“I didn’t know you had families,” remarked Romney to the group, according to Wilson.

The offhanded remark underscored that Romney, the governor of the first state prepared to grant same-sex marriage, hadn’t taken the time to look at what the landmark case was really about. By this point the plaintiff’s stories had been widely covered by national media — in particular, Julie Goodridge’s heartrending tale of how her then-partner, Hillary, was denied hospital visitation following the precarious birth of daughter Annie. It was the ignorance of these facts — and Romney’s inaccurate, insensitive answer to her parting question, that pushed Julie Goodridge to her breaking point.

“I looked him in the eye as we were leaving,” recalls Goodridge. “And I said, ‘Governor Romney, tell me — what would you suggest I say to my 8 year-old daughter about why her mommy and her ma can’t get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage?’”

His response, according to Goodridge: “I don’t really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her the last eight years.”

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; lavendermafia; pinkjournalism; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
Hope he keeps up with this attitude.
1 posted on 09/12/2012 8:56:16 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

“I don’t really care what you tell your adopted daughter.”

Bwaa ha ha ha.

Romney (a closet conservative?) must have been thinking, “I guess this is what I get for being Governor of Massachusetts and not Utah”.


2 posted on 09/12/2012 9:00:21 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

This is encouraging to say the least. Sounds like then-Governor Romney was having to deal with the gay mafia kinda like the same way we realists are having to deal with the conservative purists who would rather see 0bama get 4 more years than to pull the lever for Romney & Ryan.


3 posted on 09/12/2012 9:00:31 AM PDT by mkjessup (On Nov 6th, vote as if America's survival counted on getting rid of 0bama. Here's a clue: IT DOES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Yet another compelling reason to vote for Romney!

He knows right from wrong.


4 posted on 09/12/2012 9:01:14 AM PDT by Walrus (Restoring America starts today! Let's roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
For every one article like this - you can find another showing his PRO-GAY agenda...


5 posted on 09/12/2012 9:04:25 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Homosexuals can live however they want, but they do not have the right to change the definition of marriage for the culture.


6 posted on 09/12/2012 9:05:33 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Very true. Let’s just hope that the stony silent Romney was the real one, and that as President he would have continued support to behave as his real self.


7 posted on 09/12/2012 9:05:41 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Wow.... Your take on this is most enlightening. LOL


8 posted on 09/12/2012 9:05:49 AM PDT by stocksthatgoup (Wealth = Net Worth ///// Income = Net Work)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

Yes, and it was actually a very good response to her whiny, entitlement-begging, question.


9 posted on 09/12/2012 9:06:39 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
you can find another showing his PRO-GAY agenda

Please provide links. Thanks.

10 posted on 09/12/2012 9:07:44 AM PDT by radioone ( Main Stream Media. The Government built that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

“Romney a wimp? Not so much, say gays who engaged with him as governor”

They were not “engaged with him”, they engaged him.

Geez!


11 posted on 09/12/2012 9:08:18 AM PDT by equaviator (There's nothing like the universe to bring you down to earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Can we get a REAL Republican nominee for President, please ?


12 posted on 09/12/2012 9:08:42 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

Yes, it is a sign that he may really slow down the whole rainbow agenda, if only given the chance. The way I see it, no matter what his short-comings and flaws - and they are many - things still stand a better chance with him, than without him.


13 posted on 09/12/2012 9:08:42 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Right, and that’s why we need Romney, knock on wood, to draw from some of this spirit he displayed in 2004 , as President.


14 posted on 09/12/2012 9:10:33 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

They’ll vote for this “guy”, anyway:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/claim-obama-hid-gay-life-to-become-president/


15 posted on 09/12/2012 9:17:24 AM PDT by Mortrey (Impeach President Soros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

When homosexuals are defending you for not being a wimp, you might just be a wimp.

And if you fold to the homosexuals, you probably are a wimp.


16 posted on 09/12/2012 9:19:27 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Wait until these homos stand in front of God on Judgement Day if they think Romney was straitlaced what will they think of God? Not believing in Him doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist.


17 posted on 09/12/2012 9:19:42 AM PDT by Maryhere ("HE comes to rule the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Wow, I admit I’m surprised to hear of this side of Mitt.


18 posted on 09/12/2012 9:23:19 AM PDT by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Right, and this is why Romney must once again display this admirable courage that he so clearly showed in 2004.


19 posted on 09/12/2012 9:23:22 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte

Yeah, makes you have renewed hope in him. This is the response the rainbow crowd so badly needs, instead of everyone falling all over themselves to appease them and kiss their feet.


20 posted on 09/12/2012 9:25:48 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Given the current political climate, this entire story may be fabricated.

We know Romney was pro-gay as governor. We know, as nominee, he has been trying not to offend gays. Now we’re supposed to believe he was Mr. tough-unsympathetic-guy?

It’s more likely this story is out there as bait to get Romney entangled into a gay-rights story (and take the focus off the economy...again).

If Romney responds it isn’t true, then he comes across as trying to appease gay-rights supporters (and damages his support with the base). If Romney confirms the story, he comes across as cold and unsympathetic (damaging him with independents).

This is liberal bait. Best just stay away from it.

It’s the economy stupid. Stay on target.


21 posted on 09/12/2012 9:26:32 AM PDT by Brookhaven (The Democratic Party has become the Beclowning Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

I think I’ll stick with ‘MR. TOUGH’, Barack Hussein Obama. /SARCASM LOL!


22 posted on 09/12/2012 9:28:45 AM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: radioone
Links? You want links?

How about 57,000,000 links...

 

 


23 posted on 09/12/2012 9:30:05 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

“Can we get a REAL Republican nominee for President, please?”

Too late for that type of thinking. What are your thoughts on defeating Obama?


24 posted on 09/12/2012 9:32:10 AM PDT by cymbeline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
You don't successfully run Bain Capital for all those years and end up a poor negotiator. You also don't end up as someone who is swayed by a sob story.
25 posted on 09/12/2012 9:32:27 AM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard

Yes, and that is a point very strongly in Romney’s favor.


26 posted on 09/12/2012 9:33:45 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cymbeline

Yes, much too late. We must support one of the false sets of leftist choices shoved down our throats by the establishment or risk the criticisms of the internet partybot enforcers.


27 posted on 09/12/2012 9:44:55 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
His response, according to Goodridge: “I don’t really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her the last eight years.”

ROLFMAO.

I hope that freepers understand that this is liberal media trying to paint Romney as unfeeling. Please bring out your smallest violin available.

28 posted on 09/12/2012 9:45:38 AM PDT by WOSG (REPEAL AND REPLACE OBAMA. He stole America’s promise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Every time Romney makes a major score against Obama, some article that designed to annoy conservatives is published.

Anyone here on FR knows of this stuff. Knows that romney has issues on this issue. That said, it is clear regardless that romney is better than obama.

I don’t see Romney hesitating or APOLOGIZING when a US Ambasador is murdered and his body dragged through the streets. I don’t see Romney hesitating when our embassies sovereign soil is violated. (or taking two days to send in the marines)

I do see the MSM having a hissy fit and trying to distract. This Boston glob article is just that, a distraction.


29 posted on 09/12/2012 9:51:45 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walrus

There is only ONE reason, compelling or otherwise, to vote for Romney.

He isn’t Obama.

That’s it.

And, I’m going to.


30 posted on 09/12/2012 9:56:58 AM PDT by chesley (Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible - James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard

All pro-homosexual newspaper stories follow the same formula. Start with an anecdote, create emotion, argue “its for the children”, give some insane statistic.

BTW the advertisements fort homosexual tv show call “the new normal” never mentions it is about homosexuals. Advertising via deception.


31 posted on 09/12/2012 9:58:36 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

So Willard tells a birthmother that she only adopted her own flesh and blood...

Well hes made up for that nasty crack since then..

Hes all for gays adopting...

Hes all for gays having what he calls “loving relationshios”

and hes still the father of gay marriage...

Whatever the spin on his meetinbg, he went out and made an EO legalizing gay marriage in MASS...

and called for gays to serve openly in the military...


32 posted on 09/12/2012 10:12:19 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
It’s the economy stupid. Stay on target.

Actually NO -it is everything comprising our founding principles. A one trick pony can not be a leader -case in point recent events in Libya & Egypt. The focus is now on international policy...

Principled leadership requires principles that are non negotiable, promoted and defended ALL OF THE TIME.

33 posted on 09/12/2012 10:15:19 AM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: radioone

Romney is as pro-homosexual as they come, he recently restated his support for homosexual scout leaders. Mitt was for homosexualizing the military long before many liberal leaders.

QUOTE: “If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.”

“One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”


34 posted on 09/12/2012 11:21:17 AM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

Any public official (elected or beaurcratic) that tries to solve everyone’s problems after hearing their heartfelt plea is a fool. Immediate reactive solutions may apease the complainer but usually cause unforeseen problems somewhere down the road.


35 posted on 09/12/2012 11:30:08 AM PDT by shotgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Sounds like a bunch of whiny homosexual professional victims looking to provoke some sort of negative response from romney. Romney’s lack of a response must have driven them nuts. I would has done the same thing if I was in his shoes. You can’t reason with irrational people.


36 posted on 09/12/2012 12:35:43 PM PDT by factoryrat (We are the producers, the creators. Grow it, mine it, build it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: factoryrat

I agree. I think his response was perfect, and I hope he will get back to acting like that if he is elected.


37 posted on 09/12/2012 12:38:11 PM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Walrus; VinL; ex-snook; sport; INVAR; ejonesie22; PieterCasparzen; Colonel_Flagg; Washi; ...
Yet another compelling reason to vote for Romney!

He knows right from wrong.


We all know right from wrong, it's called a conscience and it's standard equipment from God for human beings.

It's is horrible, where Romney is concerned, that so-called conservatives either:

1. Are completely ignorant of Progressive Liberal CURRENT positions and his completely Progressive Liberal record.
2. Willfully forgetting his past and current Progressive Liberal positions
3. Flat-out misrepresenting, or LYING ABOUT, both his current and past Progressive Liberal positions.


Too bad Romney, even though knowing right from wrong, decided to do the wrong thing so many times where the Gay Agenda is concerned.

Even today he PUBLICALY supports the following:

1. Gay Adoption
2. Gays in the Military (Will not re-instate DADT)
3. Gays in the Boy Scouts.

4. He refused to support Chick-Fil-A because "That wasn't part of his campaign.br>

Add in the worst fact, that he single-handedly implemented both illegally and unconstitutionally, Gay Marriage in Massachusetts, and you're white-washing of Mitt Romney is hilarious.

Mitt Romney lied about this occurance as well. He never was forced by the Supreme Court to implement Gay Marriage. The Massachusetts State Constitution clearly and unambiguously states that matters of marriage were to originate in the Legislature, Gay Marriage originated with the MA Supreme Court. Furthermore, the MA Supreme Court ordered the LEGISLATURE to do something in 180 days, or it would unilaterally impose Gay Marriage. The Supreme Court of MA, as already stated, DOES NOT HAVE THAT POWER either legally or constitutionally. Finally, when the Legislature refused to act on the threat from the MA Supreme Court, the MA Supreme Court made an ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling that Gay Marriage was now legal in Massachusetts. Romney then LIED and stated he had to implement Gay Marriage.

Don't believe me, then read the letter, hand-delivered to Mitt Romney during that time frame, from 44 conservatives and jurists that describes in complete detail why it was unconstitutional:

Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders
(This letter was hand-delivered to the Governor’s staff on Dec. 20, 2006.)


December 20, 2006

The Honorable W. Mitt Romney Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts The State House Boston, MA 02133

Dear Governor Romney:

You have a few weeks left in your term to take action on the issue of marriage. Contrary to opinions offered up by liberal commentators, liberal legal authorities, and perhaps even your own staff, you have the authority as Governor to reverse the damage that has been done to the sacred institution of marriage. The signatories below urge you to declare immediately that homosexual “marriage” licenses issued in violation of the law are illegal and to issue an order to all state and local officials to cease violating the law.

As is increasingly well known, the Massachusetts Constitution denies the Judicial Branch any role in marriage policy:
"All causes of marriage...shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision." (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)
In hearing the Goodridge case and issuing an opinion, four of the seven judges violated the Supreme Law of Massachusetts. Massachusetts courts have admitted, on other occasions, that neither they nor legislators, nor the governor are authorized to violate the Constitution:
[The words of the Constitution] are mandatory and not simply directory. They are highly important. There must be compliance with them.h (Town of Mount Washington v. Cook 288 Mass. 67)
Nevertheless, after these judges issued an illegal opinion, you told the citizens of Massachusetts and all of America that you had no choice but to "execute the law." Oddly, you were not referring to a law, but to the judgesf opinion.

Your oath to uphold the Constitution requires treating an unconstitutional opinion as void (as President Thomas Jefferson did in Marbury v. Madison). You failed to do this. Nor did you treat it as an illegal ruling that affected only the specific plaintiffs (as Abraham Lincoln did, refusing to accept the Dred Scott ruling as law, pointing out that judges do not make law).

Instead, you asserted that the courtfs opinion was a glaw" and thus binding. Though the Legislature never revoked the actual law, you issued . with no legal authority -- the first ghomosexual marriageh licenses in American history.

The Massachusetts Constitution does not confirm either your statements or your actions:
"[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." (PART THE FIRST, Article X.)
The Constitution also disproves your assertion to the nation that the marriage statute (M.G.L. Chapter 207) was somehow suspended or nullified by the four judges:
"The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for." (PART THE FIRST, Article XX.)
In light of both your actions and your explanations, it comes as a great surprise to many of us to learn that, under the Massachusetts Constitution, judges cannot suspend or alter statutes. This principle is clearly fundamental to Massachusetts' system of government and is restated in multiple ways.
"The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." (PART THE FIRST, Article XXX.)
We note that the Massachusetts Constitution so completely protects citizens from the rule of judges that even laws passed in the Colonial period before the Constitution itself was ratified cannot be suspended by judges:
"All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved c shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislaturec" (PART THE SECOND, Article VI.)
We note, Governor, that in all of your justifications to the nation, there was no mention of these parts of the Constitution which you swore to defend. Why? Even this same court is forced to admit:
"The Constitution as framed is the only guide. To change its terms is within the power of the people alone." (Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 618)
We note Massachusetts Chief Justice Hutchison's words in 1767: "laws should be established, else Judges and Juries must go according to their Reason, that is, their Will" and "[T]he Judge should never be the Legislator: Because, then the Will of the Judge would be the Law: and this tends to a State of Slavery.' " As Judge Swift put it in 1795, courts "ought never to be allowed to depart from the well known boundaries of express law, into the wide fields of discretion."

As for your claims about the authority of Goodridge and its illegal 180-day instruction to the Legislature, the same court had admitted in 1992 that they cannot issue an order to the legislature or the governor:
"The courts [instructing] when and how to perform...constitutional duties" (mandamus) "is not available against the Legislature [or] against the Governor)."

"The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts Constitution...call for the judiciary to refrain from intruding into the power and function of another branch of government." (LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 31 n.3, 35 (1992)
We also note this ruling in 1969: "an unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary is an act that is gnot only not warranted but, indeed, [is] precluded.h (Commonwealth v. Leis)

We note that even the Goodridge majority said they were not suspending the marriage statute:
gHere, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
In fact, they admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: gWe conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.h

Moreover, we note that nothing in the Goodridge ruling asked or pretended to authorize the governor to violate the statute in the event that the Legislature would not repeal it.

We also note that the statute remains in the Massachusetts General Laws, and has never been stricken, suspended or nullified. The court itself has previously clarified your obligation:
"But the statute, so long as it stands, imposes upon both branches [of the Legislature] uniformity of procedure so far as concerns this particular matter. One branch cannot ignore it without a repeal of the statute. A repeal can be accomplished only by affirmative vote of both branches and approval by the governor." (Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 519 (1916)
Nevertheless, with no legislation authorizing you to do so, you ordered the Department of Public Health to change the words on marriage licenses from "husband" and "wife," to "Partner A" and "Partner B." Stunningly, you later admitted that without enabling legislation you cannot change birth certificates in a similar way.

We note that, despite the court's admission that the statute prohibits ghomosexual marriage,h and the Constitution's statement that only the Legislature can suspend laws, you ordered officials to perform homosexual marriages and thus violate the statute (a crime under c. 207 ˜48), and the oath of office by. Those who refused, you ordered to resign.

This emboldened other local officials, including the mayor of Boston, to boast publicly that they would break the law by "marrying" out-of-state homosexual couples . also a crime under c. 207 ˜48.

In summary, while the four judges asserted that Chapter 207 is unconstitutional, they did not suspend the marriage statute and were powerless to do so. The legislature has not changed or repealed it. Therefore:

1. The marriage statute is still in effect.
2. The statute continues to prohibit same-sex marriages.

We note that you swore no oath to execute court opinions, but rather laws and the Constitution. The same Massachusetts high court itself said in 1986: [The Executive branch] must "be faithful to the words of the statute ... as written, and an event or contingency for which no provision has been made does not justify judicial [or Executive Branch] legislation." (Amherst v. Attorney General, 398 Mass. 793)

You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against assault from the other two branches. You swore on a Holy Bible, and said, "So help me, God." Your oath itself declares that it is violated on penalty of perjury, a felony.

Like much of America, many of us accepted as sincere your explanations of your role in this social and constitutional crisis that is fundamentally altering the moral fabric of our culture and eroding basic building block of human society. We are now forced to look at your role, as constitutional sentry and a gatekeeper of our form of government, in a different light.

We would be greatly disappointed if your principal contribution to history will be imposing homosexual marriage -- knowingly or unknowingly, willfully or negligently -- in violation of the state Constitution you swore to uphold.

. We urge you in the strongest possible way to fulfill the obligation imposed by the Constitution of Massachusetts upon the "Supreme Executive Magistrate" to uphold Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 207 the marriage statute, by declaring immediately in a formal, written executive order that the Goodridge court cannot overrule the Constitution and that homosexual marriage therefore remains against the law.

. We urge you also to issue immediately a public memorandum from the Office of the Governor declaring members of the Legislature to be engaged in a conspiracy against the Constitution, to which the oath of office attaches the penalties of perjury -- a felony.

. We urge you to immediately notify the legislators who openly conspired against the Constitution in denying the first marriage amendment petition a vote in 2002 that:

. they violated the oath of office, a constitutional felony, and

. as a citizensf constitutional petition, that initiative remains pending until brought to one of the five final actions the Constitution requires and

. therefore their crime against the Constitution is perpetual and without statute of limitations

. unless they vote, you will call them into session on that original marriage petition and

. will order the state police to arrest them and bring them to the chambers to vote (as the Governor of Texas ordered in May 2003 when Texas legislators refused to convene a quorum).


Under conditions of repeated and systematic constitutional abuse, these steps by a governor are the minimum required to defend constitutional democracy and our republican form of government.

Signed,
Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation
*Sandy Rios, Culture Campaign
*Gary Kreep, Esq., president, United States Justice Foundation ++
*Robert Knight, a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Ac
t Linda Harvey, Mission America
Rev. Ted Pike, National Prayer Network
Randy Thomasson, Campaign for Children and Families
Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth
Dr. Chuck Baldwin, radio host, columnist
Paul Likoudis, The Wanderer
Rev. Stephen Bennett, Stephen Bennett Ministries
Phil Lawler, Catholic World News
Rev. Scott Lively, Esq., Defend the Family
*Dr. William Greene, RightMarch.com
Michael Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine
David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute
Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Micah Clark, American Family Association of Indiana
Kevin McCoy, West Virginia Family Foundation
Stephen Cable, Vermont Center for American Cultural Renewal
Joe Glover, Family Policy Network (National)
Terry Moffitt, Family Policy Network of North Carolina
Marnie Deaton, Family Policy Network of Virginia
Danny Eason, Family Policy Network of Texas
Matt Chancey, Family Policy Network of Alabama
Ron Shank, Family Policy Network of Tennessee
*John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., leading expert on the medical risks of homosexuality
Sonja Dalton, Real Civil Rights Illinois
Allyson Smith, Americans for Truth/California
Brian Camenker, MassResistance
Bunny S. Galladora, Woman's Christian Temperance Union
Dr. Paul Cameron, Family Research Institute
James Hartline, The Hartline Report
Jan Markell, Olive Tree Ministries & Radio
Bill Cotter, Operation Rescue Boston
R. T. Neary, ProLife Massachusetts
Mike O'Neil, CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
John F. Russo, Marriage & Family, Massachusetts
*Stacy Harp, Active Christian Media, host, The Right View
Rena Havens, Mothers Against Pedophilia
John Haskins, Parentsf Rights Coalition
Rev. Michael Carl, Constitution Party of Massachusetts
Carl Parnell, author, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse

Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not imply a formal endorsement or commitment by those organizations.

*Signed after December 20, 2006.
++Notes he has not had an opportunity to investigate punishable criminal consequences of violating the Massachusetts oath of office.

Massachusetts in-state contact: John Haskins, 781-890-6001 © 2012 Microsoft Terms Privacy About our ads Advertise Developers Help Center Feedback English
38 posted on 09/13/2012 6:47:08 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

You’re so silly, don’t you know Mitt is perfect...


39 posted on 09/13/2012 7:00:46 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Well I guess this means Romney can kiss the gay vote goodbye.


40 posted on 09/13/2012 7:03:40 AM PDT by dfwgator (I'm voting for Ryan and that other guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

It’s frickin’ Massachusetts for crying out loud, the most liberal state in the country. Does anyone think Mitt would have even gotten close to the governorship there if he was perceived as hardcore against gays?


41 posted on 09/13/2012 7:05:11 AM PDT by dfwgator (I'm voting for Ryan and that other guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Looking at his whole record, it appears to me that he’s a cold, heartless b*stard AND a wimp for the homosexuals.


42 posted on 09/13/2012 7:20:20 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("The opposite of compromise is character." -- Frederick Douglass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Our choice is now Romney or obama, I didn’t choose Romney to run against obama, Romney and Paul were tied at the bottom of my list. It is imperiative that obama not serve a second term and he will not be beat by a 3rd party candidate or a “no vote” on the ballot. I know what Romney is but I’m supporting him anyway with time, effort and money. I don’t want to be a Conservative purist living in a marxist society.


43 posted on 09/13/2012 7:37:30 AM PDT by duffee (Romney 2012, NEWT 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Our choice is now Romney or obama, I didn’t choose Romney to run against obama, Romney and Paul were tied at the bottom of my list. It is imperiative that obama not serve a second term and he will not be beat by a 3rd party candidate or a “no vote” on the ballot. I know what Romney is but I’m supporting him anyway with time, effort and money. I don’t want to be a Conservative purist living in a marxist society.


44 posted on 09/13/2012 7:37:42 AM PDT by duffee (Romney 2012, NEWT 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: duffee
I don’t want to be a Conservative purist living in a marxist society.

Well, by sacrificing every conservative principle on the altar of political expediency, you're likely creating the conditions to be a "formerly Conservative im-purist living in a marxist society."

45 posted on 09/13/2012 7:43:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("The opposite of compromise is character." -- Frederick Douglass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
Hope he keeps up with this attitude

No kidding. At best, his position on same-sex issues has been mixed.

46 posted on 09/13/2012 8:04:13 AM PDT by djrakowski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

obama gets re-elected it’s probably all over.


47 posted on 09/13/2012 8:40:35 AM PDT by duffee (Romney 2012, NEWT 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

If Romney wins I’ll still be working to fix the Republican or a Conservative Party. Tell me how making a point by voting for a 3rd party candidate who will not win or a “no vote” is going to help our situation. I can see how our chances of surviving will be better if Romney is elected if we fail and obama is re-elected can you explain how we’ll be better off than if Romney loses? And I’m NOT sacrificing my principles, I’m trying to keep us going in an enviornment where we can work to restore these Conservative principles. We can lose this battle and the war will be over, we must win this battle to continue the war.


48 posted on 09/13/2012 8:55:40 AM PDT by duffee (Romney 2012, NEWT 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: duffee
obama gets re-elected it’s probably all over.

Wrong. It's only all over when the conservative electorate in America has given up their principles. Because at that point, there is no longer any check on the flood of evil.

49 posted on 09/13/2012 9:01:52 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("The opposite of compromise is character." -- Frederick Douglass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: duffee

Based on experience, I’m highly skeptical of those who tell me they’re going to do the right thing someday while they’re busy supporting the wrong thing.

Talk is cheap, and so are promises. But actions speak louder than words.

If the actions don’t line up with the words, I’m going to believe the actions every single time.

The fact is, Romney Republicans are for all practical purposes liberals, no matter what they say.


50 posted on 09/13/2012 9:07:32 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("The opposite of compromise is character." -- Frederick Douglass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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