Skip to comments.Romney hires openly gay spokeman
Posted on 04/24/2012 8:24:10 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
click here to read article
I’m waiting for Romney to hire Van Jones.
Isn’t that special........
Mitt Romney’s role, should he be elected, is to consolidate the socialist gains of Barack Obama, and to secure the gains of the sodomite lobby as well. Including in our military.
Sounds like one of Ann Coulter’s girlfriend?
That’ll be interesting to hear the new spokesman articulate Romney’s view on homo “marriage”... whichever it happens to be that day.
Romney’s going to make Kerry look like Goldwater.
That’s fabulous Mitt.
That's loyalty for ya.
Snark comments aside, I would prefer Romney hire based on qualification, and not based on gender, race, etc...This article seems intended to fan some flames...not clear to me that there is anything wrong with his choice so long as the employee is not advocating the alternate lifestyle on the publics time and dime. If someone has evidence that the hiree in question has been an activist while on govt time, then I do have a problem with it.
"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."
Someone go ahead and remind me exactly what Romney is supposedly good for.
Tell me again GOP, how this guy is a winner? Fag loving, Obama Care pioneer who supported fag marriage in mASSachusettes and is a member of something just above a religious cult?
It is one thing to vote for someone while holding your nose like with Mcclown, but this one even I have problems swollowing as much as I cannot stand Oturd.
Obama wins the next election.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Wait till you see who Romney picks for the Supreme Court.
And they expect us to vote for Romney.
Looks to me like the Romney Republican Party is, as expected, fully aflame already.
And so it begins....pandering to every special interest group, except one: the Tea Party.
I see, thats what he meant by “severe conservative” ..?
Some more severe conservatism wil be when he picks lib/prog SCJ(s).
Happy Days Are Here Again?
I got a chuckle from that...
Do I STILL have to vote for Romney even as he drifts further and further to the left??
Will I be blamed if Romney loses the election because I wrote in Sarah Palin??
yeah, wonderful. Romneybus sure knows how to swcrew up his chances with the conservatives!
Now that Mitt can shake his etch-a-sketch I wonder if he will bring back his gay sheriff Arizona campaign chairman Babeu (guy who threatened to deport his illegal boyfriend if he told and posted ads/pics on gay hookup sites).
Middle of the article: “Grenell is not just gay, but a gay activist who pushes for same-sex marriages.”
That cinches it.
I cannot in good conscience ever vote for a homophile like Romney.
I guess we will both be blamed, because I plan on writing in Sarah Palin also.
Not fit for foreign policy or national security on that statement alone...
I agree with you, but I would be interested in the material he has taken down from his personal websites and tweets.... I bet someone has them web archived...
I said “on govt time”. I dont agree with his view of relationships, but I am not going to agree with job discrimination based on that view, as long as its not on company time and does not compromise his job.
I never said it was a smart move on Romney’s part, just dont think its all that important with national financial solvency on the line and destructive defense policies at risk.
Dont think “O” doesn’t have a few alternate lifestylist working for him.
Well, someone’s gotta true his bicycle wheels.
Interesting his gay appointment is scrubbing his website of anything offensive... A typical to "Hide" the truth for Romney and his crew....expect much of this if Romney buys the Presidency. It's his nature to be deceptive.
Yes, and probably number 1? Demoralize the population with free sex and pornography so they become weakened spiritually and not able to fight well.
My attitude towards homosexuals is about the same as towards Mitt: toleration. I won’t accept it, or certainly approve of it, as they would like, but I tolerate it as long as they don’t push their lifestyle on their time or my time.
Just as I won’t stand in Mitten’s way—but I won’t support, endorse or work for him. And I thought I erred toward the libertarian ... you don’t think that the fact that this fart-knocker is a “gay activist” will “compromise his job”?
Your last line: this is why Mittens is Rombama.
Yes. 0bama is an abortionist, gun-control-freak, socialist faggotry supporter.
It's vitally important to the future of this Great Republic that he be replaced with Romney.
Romney, you see, is an abortionist, gun-control-freak, socialist faggotry supporter.
More like a redhot poker.
"Includes topics like universal health care, gun rights, energy, NDAA, the Patriot Act, Iran, sanctions, economic stimulus. bank and auto bailouts, civil rights, TARP, the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, campaign donations, and more......"
No, because if either one wins we people lose.
And, if it comes to that, I think I’ll join you, as will my better half.
And that makes it three against a few million, so we win!