Posted on 02/22/2007 8:19:37 PM PST by EternalVigilance
As I speak to some of the smaller grassroots conservative groups around the country, they keep bringing up this idea that Mitt Romney did not do enough to stop gay marriage in Massachusetts. The headlines read that Romney fought it as Governor and came to Washington DC to testify in front of the Senate to support of a federal marriage amendment. But these groups tell a different story. I bring this up because it is a common concern I hear from folks who at least say they are in the know in Massachusetts. Below is a column yesterday from Don Federer, an Orthodox Jew who is active in the pro-family movement. He lays out the case against Romney on marriage. It's a little long but worth the read.
If you’re confused by Romney’s evolving position on abortion (with many missing links), consider Mitt’s shifting stand on marriage. In January, Romney was Ozzie and Harriet on the campaign trail. “I opposed then and I do now, gay marriage and civil union (sic.),” Romney alleges. “I am proud of the fact that my team did everything within our power and within the law to stand up for traditional marriage." Well, not quite everything.
As a candidate in 2002, he opposed a defense-of-marriage amendment to Massachusetts' Constitution, which preceded the decision of its high court mandating same-sex marriage. (It was, Romney sniffed, “too extreme.”) As governor, there were any number of things he could have done to stop same-sex marriage after the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) discovered a right to same lurking in an 18th century constitution. Article V of the document drafted by John Adams provides, “All causes of marriage, divorce and alimony… shall be heard and determined by the governor and council,” meaning the courts can’t change the definition of marriage. Yet, as the Commonwealth’s chief executive officer, Romney never attempted to enforce that provision against a clear case of judicial usurpation. Article X of the constitution declares: “The people of this Commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given consent.”
The state’s constitutional representative body never consented to gay marriage. The Massachusetts legislature never passed enabling legislation, as mandated by the court. Romney could have simply rejected the decision on the grounds of either constitutional provision. Instead – echoing his earlier pro-choice position – Romney chose to do nothing.Or, Romney could have used a “bill of address” to try to remove a gang of judicial autocrats who were forcing their radical views on the state. He didn’t. (Mitt currently travels around the country railing against activist judges. Talk is cheap.)
So, what did the champion of traditional marriage do? The court ordered the legislature to pass a law providing for same-sex marriage within 180 days. The legislature did nothing. When the time limit expired, Romney acted as if the legislature had acted and told town clerks to issue marriage licenses to gays. He further ordered justices of the peace whose conscience wouldn’t allow them to perform such ceremonies to resign. Except for offering lip-service to traditional marriage, Romney did exactly what gay activists wanted him to do -- nada.
ping...
Just found an interesting tidbit on another policy point that you may find quite interesting. Less than a year ago, too:
"Gov. Mitt Romney expressed support yesterday for an immigration program that places large numbers of illegal residents on the path toward citizenship. 'I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country,' Romney said. '[T]hose that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country.'" [Lowell Sun, 3/30/06]
Oh, yeah, this is the guy that's going to "save the Constitution hanging by a thread". WHAT A JOKE!
You have no credibility among informed men of honor. None.
This is loathesome, despicable.
So we have a choice between Rommnesty, Giuliamnesty and McAmnesty. God help us. I just hope the issue has enough traction to propel someone with a clue ahead of the current clueless frontrunners.
Thanks for posting EV. I hadn't heard that about immagration, and I hear most everything he says.
Sure makes the case for ole Mitt being pro-gay and a spineless wienee. Coming out of a state that produced the likes of sKerry & Ready Teddy, I'm not surprised.
I think Romney is becoming the Phil Gramm on 2008.
The Democrats have tried running a Massachusetts liberal twice in recent decades. After seeing their miserable electoral failure, it's hard to understand how some Republicans think it's a good idea to follow their example.
At 11:55 pm Eastern Mitt will be on C-Span with the Presidents Day Dinner....for those interested.
Could be.
I'll turn on the tape machine. Always good to see which side of the issues he'll be on today.
I like Duncan Hunter.
Ive never even heard him speak....I don't watch much TV. It will be interesting.
You are overreaching and completely dishonest in this criticism.
______________________________________
why would that be?
Unfortunately, if it's threadbare, it's because of politicians like Romney.
He's slick. Make sure you keep his liberal record firmly fixed in your mind, or you might end up buying time shares from him or something...
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.