You are so full of it.
Romney didn’t push gay marriage..that was the MA Supreme Court. He fought the lower court ruling, tried to appeal the Supreme court ruling to the USSC, tried to get a compromise bill through the legislature, and even sued the legislature to vote on a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage.
His sin was obeying the Supreme Court of his state, just as I expect a President to obey the USSC even if they don’t like it.
On abortion, Romney renounced his pro choice stand, and the $50.00 copay was because of a MA state law that all government subsidized health care had to cover abortions. Abortion was already legal in MA, and Medicaid already covered abortions for low income residents. Private insurers aren’t required to cover abortion under Romneycare.
The abortion rate and the number of abortion providers fell after Romneycare....shouldn’t he get credit for that if you are going to blame him for everything that happened in MA while he was governor?
This stuff is history and can easily be verified, so why keep misrepresenting it? Do you really think people are fooled by this insane hyperbole?
Romney has plenty of faults to criticize him on, but when push comes to shove, you anti-ROmneys always fall back on these gross distortions of his actions on the hottest button issues....abortion and gay marriage.
For you to use those twisted “truths” as weapons against conservatives. trying to save this nation from the clutches of Obama and the Dems, is maddening.
Especially when these accusations pointed at Obama are true!
He’s the one that will facilitate homosexual marriage and push abortions....and you are happily helping him do it.
Shame on you.
...but when push comes to shove, you anti-ROmneys always fall back on these gross distortions of his actions on the hottest button issues....
Indeed, they are rather transparent. Those are tired and true tactics of Dimocrats, which makes one highly suspicious of anything posted in such a manner.
For my part, I view the anti-Romney posters with great skepticism if they signed up since the 2010 election. Even then, one could see that Romney was almost certain to be the 2012 Republican nominee so it's plausible that committed Dimocrat operatives would plant themselves in any and every conservative forum to poison the discourse even as we are seeing now.
To the Members of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts:
I am writing to thank the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts for the advice and support you have given me during my campaign for the US Senate and to seek the Club’s formal endorsement of my election. The Log Cabin Club has played a vital role in reinvigorating the Republican Party in Massachusetts and your endorsement is important to me because it will provide further confirmation that my campaign and approach to government is consistent with the values and vision of government we share. I am pleased to have had an opportunity to talk with you and to meet many of you personally during your September meeting. I learned a great deal from those discussions and many thoughtful questions you posed.
As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.
I am not unaware of my opponents considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. 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.
We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employee Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and the bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. 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.
As we begin the final phase of this campaign, I need your support more than ever. By working together, we will achieve the goals we share for Massachusetts and our nation.
Sincerely
W. Mitt Romney
Romney Republican revisionist history. One of the more blatant, twisted versions of it I’ve seen.
http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/santorum-is-right-romney-is-still-wrong/
...Dr. Herb Titus was the founding dean of the School of Public Policy at Regent University, and later served as the founding dean of Regent Law School. Before that he studied under Dr. Francis Schaeffer, and graduated from Harvard Law School. Titus has worked with the U.S. Justice Department, and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. His book God, Man, and Law is a must-read for anyone interested in preserving the rule of law for the next generation.
I contacted Dr. Titus on Friday morning for his response to the Santorum-Romney exchange. He replied back with the following:
“Rick Santorum challenged Mitt Romney to justify the former Massachusetts Governor’s decision to implement the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling that declared that the exclusion of otherwise qualified same-sex couples from civil marriage violated the state constitution.
After the debate, Mr. Romney stated to Mr. Santorum that he did all that he legally could to stop the implementation of the court’s decision before he exercised his duty as Governor to enforce the court’s decision requiring local officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He issued a challenge to Mr. Santorum to find any qualified legal authority that would not agree with him. I have been asked to meet that challenge.
I am a graduate of the Harvard Law School. I am an active member of the Virginia bar and the bar of a number of federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court. As a professor of constitutional law for nearly 30 years in four different ABA-approved law schools, and as a practicing lawyer, I have written a number of scholarly articles and legal briefs on a variety of constitutional subjects; including the nature of legislative, executive and judicial powers and the constitutional separation of those powers.
I am generally familiar with the Massachusetts Constitution, and especially familiar with that constitution’s provision dictating that no department shall exercise the powers that belong to either of the other two departments “to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.”
As Governor, Mr. Romney has claimed that he had no choice but to obey the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion. This claim is false for several reasons.
First, Mr. Romney was not a party to the case. Only parties to a case are bound to obey a court order. As President Abraham Lincoln said in support of his refusal to enforce the United States Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott case – the nation’s policy regarding slavery was not determined by a court opinion, even by the highest court of the land. Likewise, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ policy regarding marriage may not be determined by the Supreme Judicial Court, the State’s highest court.
Second, the Supreme Judicial Court did not order any party to do anything. Rather, it issued only a declaration that, in its opinion, excluding otherwise qualified same-sex couples access to civil marriage was unconstitutional. Thus, even the Massachusetts Department of Health, which was a party to the case, was not ordered to do anything.
Third, the Massachusetts Board of Health was not authorized by statute to issue marriage licenses. That was a job for Justices of the Peace and town clerks. The only task assigned by the Legislature to the Board of Health was to record the marriage license; it had no power to issue them even to heterosexual couples. So the Department of Health, the only defendant in the case, could not legally have complied with an order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Fourth, if the court were to order the Department of Health to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then Mr. Romney’s duty as governor would have been to instruct the Department that it had no authority to do what the court ordered. Nor could the court confer such authority, such an authorization being in nature a legislative, not a judicial, act.
Fifth, the decision whether to implement the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion was, as the court itself acknowledged, for “the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of [the court’s] opinion.” By the very terms of the order, the Massachusetts legislature had discretion to do nothing.
Sixth, because the legislature did nothing, Mr. Romney had no power to act to implement the court decision. By ordering justices of the peace, town clerks, and other officials authorized to issue marriage licenses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Mr. Romney unconstitutionally usurped legislative power, a power denied him by the Massachusetts constitution that separated the three kinds of powers into three different departments.
A 2007 article from World Net Daily quotes a slew of respected legal minds in criticizing Romney for his role in destroying marriage in Massachusetts, including Phyllis Schlafly.
“Romney said we had to follow the law but what law,” Schlafly is quoted as asking in the article. “There is no law that requires or even allows same-sex marriages (in Massachusetts).”
Finally, there is this 2006 letter sent to Romney as he was departing as governor by a long list of conservative activists from around the country. It includes signers like Paul Weyrich, one of the Founding Fathers of the conservative movement, and Robert Knight, one of the original drafters of the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by then-President Clinton. The letter also reinforces the claims made by Santorum about what Romney did to marriage in Massachusetts.
Just days after giving a speech touting his conservative credentials at the 2011 Values Voters Summit, Romney told a New Hampshire audience in October that he is a supporter of civil unions, which is really just so-called homosexual marriage by another name.
Yet again Romney is found to be playing fast and loose with the truth. Voters should be thanking Santorum for calling him on it.
Here’s the more succinct version:
As Governor, Mr. Romney has claimed that he had no choice but to obey the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion. This claim is false for several reasons.
First, Mr. Romney was not a party to the case. Only parties to a case are bound to obey a court order. As President Abraham Lincoln said in support of his refusal to enforce the United States Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott case – the nation’s policy regarding slavery was not determined by a court opinion, even by the highest court of the land. Likewise, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ policy regarding marriage may not be determined by the Supreme Judicial Court, the State’s highest court.
Second, the Supreme Judicial Court did not order any party to do anything. Rather, it issued only a declaration that, in its opinion, excluding otherwise qualified same-sex couples access to civil marriage was unconstitutional. Thus, even the Massachusetts Department of Health, which was a party to the case, was not ordered to do anything.
Third, the Massachusetts Board of Health was not authorized by statute to issue marriage licenses. That was a job for Justices of the Peace and town clerks. The only task assigned by the Legislature to the Board of Health was to record the marriage license; it had no power to issue them even to heterosexual couples. So the Department of Health, the only defendant in the case, could not legally have complied with an order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Fourth, if the court were to order the Department of Health to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then Mr. Romney’s duty as governor would have been to instruct the Department that it had no authority to do what the court ordered. Nor could the court confer such authority, such an authorization being in nature a legislative, not a judicial, act.
Fifth, the decision whether to implement the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion was, as the court itself acknowledged, for “the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of [the court’s] opinion.” By the very terms of the order, the Massachusetts legislature had discretion to do nothing.
Sixth, because the legislature did nothing, Mr. Romney had no power to act to implement the court decision. By ordering justices of the peace, town clerks, and other officials authorized to issue marriage licenses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Mr. Romney unconstitutionally usurped legislative power, a power denied him by the Massachusetts constitution that separated the three kinds of powers into three different departments.
— Herb Titus
http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/santorum-is-right-romney-is-still-wrong/
“For you to use those twisted “truths” as weapons against conservatives. trying to save this nation from the clutches of Obama and the Dems, is maddening.”
Bingo! Check his signup date. This forum has been infiltrated by an army of Obamabots. It’s a coordinated effort and they are laughing about it over at DailyKos.
What would the common name for the MA state law you are referencing?
It wouldn't be Romneycare, would it?
Santorum clearly pointed out many times that Romney wrote Planned Parenthood into Romneycare and that every conservative knows that if anti-abortion language isn’t written into a health care law, the courts state that it must be covered. Romney knew that too.
The entire GOP establishment is leaning toward facilitating same-sex marriage, not just Romney. That’s why we need to push back and elect candidates who are firmly against it. Make no mistake, Romney’s friendliness toward same-sex marriage is one of the reasons he has had the backing from the establishment that he has. This article has more on Romney’s record on same-sex marriage.
http://www.newsmax.com/Murdock/Romney-Gay-Marriage-licenses/2011/12/30/id/422597
As a gay-marriage proponent, I was pleased to learn that then-Gov. Willard Mitt Romney, R-Mass., issued at least 189 special-issue, one-day marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2005 alone. These documents let these 378 people enjoy nuptials officiated by relatives, friends, and others who normally do not perform weddings.
Romney enforced the court’s opinion, even though it required nothing of him, having allowed the legislature a window to act “as it may deem appropriate.”
While Team Romney argues that the court forced it to give gay couples conventional marriage licenses, the special one-day licenses are a strictly gubernatorial choice, as Massachusetts law unambiguously states.
“Even if one accepts the Goodridge decision as constitutional, the one-day permits were above and beyond what was required by the court decision; they were purely discretionary,”
Fans of gay marriage should thank Romney for these 189 or more instances in which he voluntarily used his gubernatorial authority to unite these same-sex couples so they might live happily ever after.
Foes of gay matrimony should ask Romney if he really meant it when he said, “I have never supported same-sex marriage.” If so, why did he use his discretionary power to do just that — at least 189 times?
I would like to offer my sincere THANK
YOU for posting all of this. Shame on me for not researching this before now, I relied upon the good conservatives here and elsewhere, telling me that Romney was this or that, that Romney was pushing abortion and gay marriage.
What really opened my eyes, abortion rates in MA fell after Romneycare. From what I’ve read and heard from conservatives who will not vote for Romney, the opposite should have been true.
Thank you. And shame on me for not doing my homework.
#1: Medicaid covered abortions ONLY for rape and incest. RomneyCare went beyond rape, incest (or even life of the mother/ectopic pregnancies) abortion-coverage. Will you or will you not concede that, A. Hun?
#2 As you accurately mentioned, abortion was already legal in MA -- and the state indeed already funded abortions for low-income women under Medicaid. But as noted #1 above, that was not ALL requests for abortions by poor women...only rape & incest (& possibly LIFE of the mother).
The bottom-line of what I cover below is that RomneyCare expanded Who would receive taxpayer-funded abortions:
When we had these FREEPER discussions in late 2007 and early 2008, I didn't try to hold Romney accountable for all 7% of abortions committed by the uninsured in MA now covered by RomneyCare.
When FREEPER folks pointed out that MA was under court order to fund low-income women Medicaid eligible, I didn't contend that. What I did contend in the previous election-cycle was the 4+% of the MA population who earned/earn above Medicaid level.
Romney himself said in one of the last-election cycle debates (I heard it direct from his lips) that almost 1/4th of the MA uninsured earned $75,000 or more. That's almost 2% of the female pop in MA. From other figures I extrapolated that another 2+% earn above Medicaid & below $75,000.
While I thought it 'twas "unreasonable" to hold Romney accountable for the court order in MA aimed at low-income women, they were less than 40% of the uninsured in MA. Therefore, the crit of $50 abortion subsidies in MA still holds...especially since NOW RomneyCare has SOME abortions 100% taxpayer-funded!
For more on this, see: RomneyCare Now Funding FREE Abortions: A Disqualifier for Mitt Romney’s Candidacy [Enabler Mitt]
#3 ALL: FREEPER folks -- like A. Hun -- keep dodging the fact that RomneyCare, just like ObamaCare does, expands the abortion industry's reach into our wallets. If you don't believe that, click on the link I just provided and educate yourself as to what has happened to RomneyCare since he left governing that state!
Bay State taxpayers are now partially paying for abortions for mandated women who earn above Medicaid eligibility levels under RomneyCare. The court order in MA only covered low-income, Medicaid eligible women...and Romney's on-the-record comment that RomneyCare covered 7% of the MA population...and that 1/4th of them earned $75,000 or more (almost 2% of the female population). Another approximate 2-3% earned less than $75,000 but above the Medicaid line.
That's almost 5% of the female MA population who are receiving taxpayer subsidized abortions under RomneyCare who were not part of the court order...
#4 The 1981 MA Supreme Court case wasn't the only one that Romneyites hide behind. They also hide behind a 1997 state opinion.
I'll let somebody in MA who has researched this address it: The 1997 opinion stated that if the government paid for childbirth, it must also pay for "medically necessary" abortions 29, [Planned Parenthood vs. Attorney General] evidently reasoning that if the government is going to pay to help kids, it must be fair and pay to kill them also. Romney's commitment to government intervention in health care prevails even when that "health care" pays to kill them. Not only is Romney's claim false that he had no choice, but adults, let alone leaders, are never "forced" in such ways. Romney should have vetoed, rather than praised and signed, any legislation that would pay abortionists to kill children. As he did also by implementing homosexual marriage, Romney created activist judges on steroids by taking anti-family court opinions and maximizing them, in this case, by interpreting "medically necessary" to mean all abortions.
Source: Mitt Romney: Former Gov. of Massachusetts (R) Tier 4 - Personhood Never
I don’t really care that much about how Romney behaved in Mass. with understandably left leaning influences.
Maybe I’ll even give him the benefit of the doubt, acknowledging they he had to work with Demorats.
My reason for being opposed to Romney is about his character. This primary season has revealed his true nature, ie the way one behaves when you think noone is watching.
He could have renounced the decidedly underhanded and unscrupulous actions of his PAC, Restore our Future.(and incidentally, what does this name mean? Sounds like something Bam and Co. would come up with).
But instead he said he wasn’t aware of what they were doing..as “they” quietly went about systematically destroying his opponents by vilification, distortions and outright lies.
Governor Romney: Excuse me, but you knew exactly what they were doing. Rather than make a case for what you stood for, for what you were going to do for our country if elected, you chose the only path you are comfortable with. Tear down the opposition so you were the only one left standing at the end. The illusion of power justifying control.
Target, focus, destroy. Sound familiar?
Mittens and his sidekick, the Rino GOP-E, have no problem with distorting the truth.They think that we sheeple will understand that it is a necessary measure for the ultimate goal of defeating Bam...and all in the name of “politics”.
They are trying to desensitize us to the concept of right vs wrong and take away our personal power to make choices for ourselves.
It’s group mentality at it’s worst and far removed from founding principles.
Mittens IS the mastermind here and he crafted the fragile foundation-less structure for his self serving,underhanded, unprofessional and unscrupulous campaign tactics because he knew that without them, he would not win.
It’s a house of cards, to say the least, capable of being toppled with one strong breath..the breath of freedom.
And that is why when I stand before God and my country on election day, I will not be voting for a man with NO HONOR.
And I will be able to sleep well that night.