Skip to comments.Mitt Romney, the godfather of gay marriage
Posted on 05/20/2014 12:59:43 AM PDT by Objective Scrutator
The press has been in a reminiscent and celebratory mood this past week, as America reached the 10th anniversary of homosexual marriage.
What is little discussed is that the first same-sex wedding license was issued only because Republican governor Mitt Romney broke the law. And he not only broke the law, he ordered every city and county clerk to break the law, too, or get fired.
It is no exaggeration to say that America has same-sex marriage because of Mitt Romney.
As the media has endlessly reminded us this past week, the first domino to fall in the crusade to give marital recognition to non-normative sexual unions fell in Massachusetts, and it fell because then-governor Romney pushed it over.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
Homosexuality can not remain legal. If it is not criminalized like the public health issue it is, and we continue to ignore it as a public health issue, then the courts will quickly establish gay marriage legality, as we have seen in Oregon. There is a reason that Hollywood glorifies it alongside drug usage, rap music, and video games; it is a form of decadence.
“Homosexuality can not remain legal. If it is not criminalized like the public health issue it is, and we continue to ignore it as a public health issue, then the courts will quickly establish gay marriage legality, as we have seen in Oregon.”
Homosexuality will never again be illegal. A slim majority of the nation supports homosexual marriage, and of those that don’t virtually nobody would support jailing homosexuals. Not even Russia does that, it will never happen here.
Beyond the practical considerations, I don’t think it is the business of government to nose around peoples bedrooms. We do not need another government agency to monitor how people screw. I can think of no nation that jails homosexuals that cannot be safely described as a third world tyrannical hell hole. I do not want to live in a nation with the moral values of Canada, but I will take Canada over Iran or Zimbabwe.
The homosexual agenda needs to be opposed by calling the people to repentance, the churches to renewal, and the nation to revival. This problem cannot be solved by any law or politician.
Its one thing to say government should not interfere with bedroom activity, its another to get government to force everyone to accept same sex marriage and punish anyone who disagree
“Its one thing to say government should not interfere with bedroom activity, its another to get government to force everyone to accept same sex marriage and punish anyone who disagree”
Indeed, I would like to live in a free nation that follows the middle ground without coercion of Christians or homosexuals.
I hear over and over how politicians are supposed to listen to the people and enact their will.
Romney was merely following the wishes of the people of Massachusetts.
This issue has been discussed ad nauseum here on FR. Some FReepers need a Judas goat for all the troubles with the GOP. I pick GW Bush. He, more than Romney, led us to Obama and what we have now.
Should read: This issue has been discussed ad nauseum here on FR. Some FReepers need a Judas goat for all the troubles with the GOP.
I pick GW Bush. He, more than Romney, led us to Obama and what we have now. However, in the case of Bush - it's true. He DID lead us to Obama.
Happy Anniversary, Willard !!!!
There must be a fudge packer in Romney’s closet.Or perhaps his wife has carpenter friends in the tongue and groove lumber set like the Cheney family.
I guess Dewey was as bad as HST, Nixon as bad as JFK, Ford as bad as GA Jimmuh, etc.
I just can’t believe how wide spread gay marriage has become in such a short time. 17 states now allow gay marriage and many more about to start. Soon we are going to be overwhelmed by it....or are we already? Yes!
Progressivist balderdash, this idea that it will "never again" be illegal.
Let me walk you through a bit of history. It has been legal, or at least tolerated, in many cultures throughout human history. The emperor Nero--then the most powerful man in the world--married a man...twice. Huge public ceremonies. Remember what happened to him, and his empire?
If the proponents of this obscenity couldn't pull it off in the full summer of a thoroughly pagan empire, when Christianity was nascent and its practitioners were being lit up like torches and fed to the lions, then how are they going to pull it off today?
Of course criminalizing it is not very likely in today's climate. But today's climate is not long for this earth, and when we drink our fill of this poison, there will be a backlash, and it may well be quite severe.
Refrain from using the word "never" in this context--you are just cementing progressives in their own fatuous self-delusion.
No. Romney did what he wanted AGAINST the people
and Constitution of Mass.
Because HE is a selfserving carpetbagger from
a polygamy family who demanded to expand polygamy
to the USA.
"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."
You’ve tipped your hand.
I think it’s a rule, you arent supposed to criticize Romney because he’s the only one who beat obama
I used to post this here in 2012.
Ahhh, another sodomite bashing God’s values & morals that America was founded on and prospered....until sodomites like you began their attacks.
The states were forced by judges for the most part, voters almost always reject it - even California
I agree with you on that, it is happening much faster than I thought it would. A process which I thought would take place in years is happening in weeks and months. It will most likely be at a majority of the states by years end. Pray for guidance.
It’s true that this nation needs to repent and turn back to God. But I cannot and will not stop opposing queer marriage, nor queerdom as a general principle.
I believe there is effectiveness in using bald terms to remind others of the filthy acts engaged in by homosexuals. They have managed to drape a veil of illusion over themselves; many people actually believe it’s just another form of “love.” Well, once they get informed about feces ingestion and anuses falling out, that pleasant little “love” fantasy will dry up and blow away.
voters almost always reject it - even California
True only 4 states voted for gay marriage with majority population. Maryland, Maine, Minnesota and Washington State....Those are the ONLY states that should allow gay marriage and even that is debatable.
I agree totally with the idea that homosexuality is a spiritual war. Romans 1 makes it clear that homosexuality is not an entry-level sin but instead, the final stages of rebellion against God. However, society has the right to express its disapproval of homosexuality. Where to draw the line is the question society needs to ask. Most people would agree that the balance needs to fall somewhere between "no line" and a "hard line" at illegality of homosexual behavior.
Our society seemed to have a pretty decent compromise position at allowing homosexual activity but not required society to formally recognize these homosexual unions. That arrangement had worked for a long-time until arrogant, activist judges and politicians like Mitt decided that they knew better.
That is true only because Dubya actually held federal office. George W. Bush made some poor decisions because he compromised his political instincts. Romney would not have had to compromise his political instincts to do the same or worse. Romney's political history showed one thing - while George W. Bush accepted a compromise position, Romney would have started at that same compromise position and then moved left.
Yes, Romney is better than Obama. However, it is in the sense that the destruction of an F4 tornado is better than the destruction of an F5 tornado.
Government is solely a force, nothing more and nothing less. ALONE government empowers the homosexual agenda. Otherwise, free Americans would peacefully reject gay marriage on their own terms; indeed, that they would is WHY homosexuals need government force supporting their social agenda. ONLY government prevents Americans from doing what is morally right.
If not for the force of government behind it, the whole Gay Agenda would be dead in the water.
Reagan was right -- government is the problem. The SOLUTION is to reduce government.
Geo. Washington warned that government "is a force" and "a dangerous servant." A dangerous servant such as government should be USED SPARINGLY. Conservatively. I am a conservative -- I am for the sparing -- aka conservative -- use of government.
The sparing, conservative use of government would then free individuals to decide whether or not they wanted to play along with the pretend "marriages" of homosexuals. I have full faith that the majority of my countrymen would civilly, peacefully reject that pretend fantasy of "marriage" between two homosexuals, and tell them to take a hike.
You gotta know you're on the wrong track when you're calling to regulate something that is pretend. Using government to make homosexual "marriage" illegal OR legal, is like making unicorns illegal OR legal. Government creates PROBLEMS. Solutions often lie in eliminating the government component. This is one.
Read my words carefully. I said that one should never vote for a RINO in a primary, not general election. Mitt Romney’s only good trait was that he wasn’t B. Hussein.
Nixon was probably WORSE than JFK. Are you aware that Nixon created the environmentalist deity, the EPA? Are you aware that he had plans for creating a socialized medicine system, and admits it?
The ONLY thing Nixon did right was Vietnam. Anyone who voted for Nixon over Reagan in the 1968 primary is a traitor, through and through.
Maryland and Maine suggest that there are plenty of imbecile voters out there. Whether or not the gays won legitimately or by voter fraud, the fact remains that they can and will push their agenda through at the grassroots level. One of the central tenets of homosexuality is to force everyone to accept their perversion (in schools, through banning of “hate” speech, etc.) and have their “marriages” be taxpayer funded. If you give gays political rights, they can and will try to shove their agenda down your throats.
Think of the proper response of the government as reactionary, rather than proactive.
Anyone who voted for JFK over Nixon in 1960 is a traitor, the election of JFK destroyed America.
Reagan called JFK a Marxist, and it was JFK who devoted his life to the 1965 Immigration Act to replace the American voters.
Well it was just recently made legal, I hope you won't oppose those of us who hope to return it not being legal.
That would still mean that we have to decide what federal law is regarding gay marriage.
That would mean no gay marriage.
“That would mean no gay marriage.”
Yep. The way it was in this nation for decades.
“Romney was merely following the wishes of the people of Massachusetts.”
I doubt it, though no doubt it would pass a popular vote today, at the time it was a court decision and the people were not allowed to vote on it. There actually once was considerable opposition to it on the East Coast. Maine voted it down a couple of years before voting it in.
JFK was obviously a communist, no dispute there. At the time of the 1960 election, Nixon was a comparatively reasonable choice. He only went power mad later on in his Presidential term. That being said, George Bender was clearly the better candidate for the 1960 Republican nomination, having a close relationship with Robert Taft.
The only bad thing about JFK being shot was that it allowed LBJ to take office, who was probably the worst politician since FDR.
True, JFK created the 60s and Vietnam, and immigration, even the homeless, and unionized government,
The worst of radical 60s/post Great Society Nixon, is sometimes compared to the best, and not fully informed impression of pre radical 60s JFK.
If the 1950s Eisenhower veep had defeated JFK in 1960, the 60s would never had happened, and 1975 America would have looked closer to 1960 America, than what it became, because of JFK’s election.
Without JFK, the last 100 million foreigners and their offspring, would not have replaced the American voters, and ended our nation.
None of us know what that means, what does it mean?
BO: Indeed, I would like to live in a free nation that follows the middle ground without coercion of Christians or homosexuals.
Ansel: None of us know what that means, what does it mean?
Ansel, God said not to live in, follow any type of “middle ground”..
He said “Be hot or be cold but don’t be lukewarm (don’t live in, follow the middle ground)
If you do I will spew you out of My mouth” Revelation 3:16
I mean living in a nation that allows Christians the freedom to worship, raise their children, and run their businesses as they see fit. Where Christian institutions like marriage and family are not bent out of all recognition by the state. But achieving this without forcing homosexuals into the closet or a jail cell at government gunpoint. These people are sinners, they need gospel and repentance, not jail cells.
Why did you make up a new argument about jailing homosexuals at gunpoint?
What are you trying to avoid telling us about your support for gay marriage?
I was replying to a poster who said just that.
It is like talking to a slimy worm the way you ooze around, afraid to speak openly.
Why are you gay agenda people so evasive and greasy.
Why are you an idiot?
Is there any mystery left about why he is avoiding telling us about the thread topic of gay marriage, and his personal position on it?
Actually, they are supposed to uphold the law..the constitution of their states foremost.
These people are sinners, they need gospel and repentance, not jail cells.
Nobody is giving them jail cells
by the same token they don’t need a pseudo marriage to make them happy..
that’s not the Gospel, nor repentance, nor will it save them or change them...
true repentance is about changing direction 180 degrees not being pandered to with further sin...
condoning sin is not of God..
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.