Mitt Romney, Not the Mass Supreme Judicial Court, Imposed Gay Marriage on The Citizens of Massachusetts
The argument is often advanced, that as governor, Mitt Romney in ordering Justices of the Peace to perform “same sex marriages” or be fired and ordering his Department of Health to change the marriage certificates from “husband” and “wife” to “partner A” and “partner B,” was merely “enforcing the law” and doing what “law and order” conservatives are supposed to do.
Unfortunately this argument is bogus. And here is why. Only the legislature has the constitutional authority to make law. The judiciary has the power to interpret the laws on an individual case basis but has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE LAWS. Here is what the Massachusetts Constitution says:
“All causes of marriage…shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.” (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)
When then Governor Romney declared after the Goodridge ruling (that was inaccurately said to “legalize same sex marriage”) that he had “no other choice but to enforce the law,” Romney violated his sworn oath to uphold the Massachusetts Constitution authored by John Adams by claiming that the court’s opinion was “law” and was “binding.”
As the following “Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders” which was hand-delivered to the Governor’s staff on Dec. 20, 2006 shows, by issuing “homosexual marriage” licenses, Romney violated his sworn oath to enforce the state laws of the Commonwealth. The original marriage statute (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 207) never allowed for “same sex marriage” as even the court acknowledged in their majority opinion in Goodridge. And I quote from the Joint Letter to Romney from the Pro-Family leaders:
We note that even the Goodridge majority said they were not suspending the marriage statute:
“Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief.”
In fact, they admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: “We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.”
Thus, the only way that “gay marriage” could have become “legal” would have been if the Massachusetts legislature actually repealed or amended the existing marriage statute 207. They were “ordered” to do so within 180 days (which in and of itself was unconstitutional) but took no action. Therefore, the existing marriage statute 207 which never allowed for “same sex marriage” remained in effect (and still does to this day).
As governor, Romney had the constitutional obligation to enforce the current laws of the state. And the current law didn’t (and still doesn’t) allow for “same sex marriages.”
But Romney had already made promises to the Log Cabin Republicans when running for Governor in 2002 that, as reported recently by the NY Times, that he would not lead a campaign against gay marriage.
Calling Mr. Romney a flip-flopper on gay rights would be overly simplistic, Mr. Spampinato said. But he conceded that his old boss had promised the Log Cabin members that he would not champion a fight against same-sex marriage.
So, instead of enforcing the current laws as was his sworn constitutional duty as chief executive, Romney actually subverted the law and violated his oath by forcing Justices of the Peace and other public officials to marry same sex couples or be fired even though doing so was a clear violation of current Massachusetts law. He then went even further and ordered his Department of Health to change the marriage certificates from “husband” and “wife” to “partner A” and “partner B” even though there was no law requiring him to do so.
Candidate Romney is running around the country campaigning as the “family values” candidate and talks about how he favors a “federal marriage amendment” to protect the sanctity of marriage. The truth is that as governor, Romney not only called a similar state marriage amendment that would have defined marriage as between “one man and one woman,” and I quote, “too extreme” but he went out of his way to actually facilitate same sex marriage behind the scenes by abdicating his constitutionally sworn duty to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Since the legislature never amended any marriage law to allow for same sex marriage, Mitt Romney engaged in executive tyranny by usurping the legislative authority and by his own actions imposing homosexual marriage on the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney made a few public appearances proclaiming his support for traditional marriage as he was leaving office to campaign for president, but the truth is that if Mitt Romney had not forced the Justices of the Peace to perform those same sex marriage ceremonies there would be no “same sex marriage” in Massachusetts. Mitt Romney was not just “enforcing the laws” as he and the other Romniacs claim. Romney was breaking them and the voters who he is daily deceiving (with the aid of his obsequious “conservative” cheerleaders in the media -Hannity, Hewitt, Seculow et al) deserve to know the truth.
November 20, 2007 12:19 am 
Sorry Gregg, you couldn’t be more wrong. There was a law requiring him to enforce equal marriage rights for homosexuals: the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which forbids the creation of second-class citizens. The SJC’s interpretation of that clause was the basis for the Goodridge ruling. The idea that the SJC doesn’t have the authority to void unconstitutional laws, such as the existing marriage statute, is ridiculous.
Nick, please cite the “law” about which you are speaking? When did the legislature draft it? What was the number of the law?
Gregg
Gregg,
Its not a law but the equal protection clause in the state constitution which provides:
All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin. (Mass. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 1).
More background on its relation to Goodrich here,
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/rpt/2003-R-0863.htm
Kevin
Nick,
You said:
“The idea that the SJC doesn’t have the authority to void unconstitutional laws, such as the existing marriage statute, is ridiculous.”
You need to go back and check your facts.
Since the SJC is the ultimate authority on the state constitution, the Legislature cannot overturn it’s same-sex “marriage” decision — NOR can the MA Supreme Court agree to INTERPRET the state’s constitution, in which they did in 2003 in allowing these types of “marriages”.
Having one branch of government, the MA SJC in this case, performing a role it is not allowed to perform, and then having the Legislature NOT performing a role, taking a vote, is RIDICULOUS.
LET THE PEOPLE VOTE (or in this case LET THE LEGISLATURE VOTE –without lucritive handouts before a vote– and tell the SJC to MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS!!)
Kevin,
“Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.”
No SEXUAL ORIENTATION language here, so what are you talking about??
If you pundit reviewers aren’t for Mitt then who are you for?
Gregg -
Thank you for persevering and STAYING THER COURSE (TRUE GODLY NORTH) on this issue.
Greg Sabine, President
Educators For Gregg Jackson
Brockton, Massachusetts