Posted on 02/03/2008 4:31:28 AM PST by Tigen
Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes may not get invited to the televised debates but that doesn't mean he's going stay out of the fray or attack his opponents when he believes they've abandoned his party's values – particularly on the issue of same-sex marriage.
On his campaign website this week, Keyes blasted former Gov. Mitt Romney for being "single-handedly responsible for instituting same-sex marriage in Massachusetts" for the way he responded to a state court ruling in 2003.
"Most people are unaware of the way Massachusetts came to adopt same-sex marriage," the former Reagan administration diplomat said. "They think the state's Supreme Judicial Court forced it to happen. That's incorrect."
"The court merely issued an opinion stating that, in its view, the existing marriage law was unconstitutional because it failed to allow persons of the same sex to marry," Keyes said. "The court then gave the legislature 180 days to 'take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion' – implicitly telling lawmakers to come up with a new marriage statute."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
LARGELY different than how the Cheney’s handled the situation.
Let me ask you a question:
If there was a white guy with Dr. Keyes’ foreign policy resume, Reagan administration terrorist-fighting experience, knowledge of the world, understanding of the Constitution and its underlying principles, record as a champion of life and liberty and the sovereignty of the American people, and with his unequaled communication skills, would he or would he not, under the circumstances faced by Alan Keyes, already be President of the United States?
Just askin’.
That’s right.
Good grief. Playing the race card now?
Being called stupid, liar and whore and accused of spitting on Romney just for asking polite questions was too much.
Sure, some people are trouble makers and post bizarre things on threads, but to paint anyone that questions Romney’s records or who post facts his supporters want to hide with all the name calling is ridiculous
The Cheneys affirmed their daughter in her “lifestyle.” You obviously agree with that.
I don’t. And I most certainly don’t consider it a loving act to do so.
It’s an honest question, one that at least deserves consideration.
Racism is so carefully masked in this society today, that it can be hard to discern. But it definitely still exists. I see it pop its ugly head up quite often.
But, Keyes does NOT play the race card. If he did, after the way the GOP has treated him, you’d see something completely different from the reality of where we are now.
What would Jesus do?
With that in mind what is your questions?
I will bet your question is not aimed to get at truth but rather to propel a pre existing bias.
To answer your question EV, you just have desribed, in almost perfect detail, EVERY John McCain for President 2008 political ad that has run on my televison in the last 48 hrs, with the words spoken my McCain himself.
...and AS USUAL, you never replied to the CBS article I posted, proving ANOTHER statement of yours regarding Keyes as false.
....you just pull out the ol' 8 page Keyes thingee AS USUAL.
EV, you AND Alan have had your "15 minutes" with this subject. It's over EV, and the sooner you start looking FORWARD, the better off you will be.
Well, interestingly, that's exactly what the man you are attacking has always done. Just not for yours or the public's consumption.
Yeah, right. The Enemy of the First Amendment, John McCain, is a real champion of the Constitution. /s
I’ll state the obvious: they’re lying in their ads.
Conversely, Alan has actually walked the walk for several decades.
“...would he or would he not, under the circumstances faced by Alan Keyes, already be President of the United States?”
No. Being a conservative who voted for him in his 2 MD Senate races, he did well considering MD is a one Party state. He was eloquent, persuasive, and made sharp points in his debates. However, the Party has to prioritize who gets the bulk of the money in swing states or states where there is no incumbent. Maryland is a hopeless cause and when he didn’t get the money he though he deserved to get - he resorted to the same old tired calls of racism in the GOP. He lost me at that point. He has now been in about 4 major runs for office: 2 Senate, 2 President. A good conservative voice in the wilderness but no potential for anything other than that.
Well, that's an answer, one I hope you're correct about.
But I'll admit that I have serious doubts.
I must say, though, for the record, the bias against Alan has more to do with a bias against boldly-spoken conservative truth than anything else, by far.
That's the broad brush attitude I run into all the time. Thanks for confirming. Unfortunatly reasoned debate isn't accepted in your camp. "Some" is a pretty big word.
They are trying to make up facts and post propaganda.
I wasn't talking about them. But that is all you see apparently.
With that in mind what is your questions?
I will bet your question is not aimed to get at truth but rather to propel a pre existing bias.
No, I deal in facts. But I don't think I will ask you any questions, thank you. Your post indicates bias and a desire to not communicate except by erroneous assumptions.
Pray enlighten us. Where in the Massachusetts Constitution is the Governor given the veto over court rulings?
Or perhaps you are refering to vetoing bad legislation? Romney vetoed over 1,000 times. He was overridden by the Legislature over 700 times. How many vetoes has Bush used?
Suit yourself. If you have questions ask away.
Sign what law? Have you read the court decision? Until you do, I suggest that you stop buying into the pre-digested spin spewed forth by WND.
It wasn't the SCJ superceding the "other two", it was the SCJ interpreting the legal definition of "civil marriage" and the Legislature agreeing with their interpretation of existing law.
A Keys/Paul ticket. Scary.
Court decision: Nov. 18, 2003, with 180 day stay for legislative action. Order to issue valid licenses per existing law: effective May 17, 2004. Redo your math.
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.